Truth Magazine

By Warren E. Berkley

Lately I’ve been hearing the charge made, that when a gospel preacher delivers sermons against abortion, drug and alcohol use, humanism, new age religion and so forth, he is representing “social issues,” preaching a “social gospel,” and not preaching the New Testament gospel.

I believe there certainly is a “social gospel.” It’s a message that doesn’t deal with sin, doesn’t introduce Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, doesn’t call upon people to obey God in all things, and doesn’t prepare people for death, judgment and eternity. In the first gospel meeting I ever held (Odessa, Texas, 1973) 1 preached against the “social gospel,” and I’ve been trying ever since to get people to see the different between the “social gospel” and the New Testament gospel.

The social gospel is “a movement in American Protestant Christianity initiated at the end of the nineteenth century and reaching its zenith in the first part of the 20th century, and dedicated to the purpose of bringing the social order into conformity with the teaching of Jesus Christ” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). Herbert Wallace Schneiber (Religion In The 20th Century, 1952) said: “The central idea of the Social Gospel is that the redemption or salvation of mankind collectively, the regeneration of the social order, is the ultimate goal of religion.” So, the social gospel focuses attention on the whole group or society, not the individual. It seeks to make life here better, instead of getting people ready for life after death. It doesn’t attack sin, it attacks the social problems of poverty, slavery, political oppression and physical illness. The social gospel lobbies for consumer protection, preaches liberation theology, and sees the individual only as a victim of the social environment he is a part of (therefore, not personally accountable).

Gene Frost accurately observes: “The work of the church then, to the social gospeler, is not directed toward the individual, to convict and convince him of personal guilt, to change him and make him anew. Oh, no, the legitimate role of religion is social. It is the work of the churches to build gymnasiums, to organize ball clubs, etc., to ‘prevent juvenile delinquency;’ to build kitchens, and dining halls to enlist the secular-minded who otherwise would not be attracted by spirituality; to build and operate industries to help solve the problem of unemployment; to build and maintain benevolent homes to care for the needy. And so the religious organization substitutes for individual responsibility, leaves its spiritual efforts to achieve temporal and physical goals” (Gospel Anchor, Feb. 1986, p. 3).

When I preach against abortion, drug and alcohol use, humanism and new age religion, does that make me apart of the social gospel movement? When I identify these things as sins, lies and delusions that will keep people out of heaven and send countless souls to hell, am I defecting to the social gospel? I deny that these things are just “social issues”! Certainly these things have impact in our society, but that doesn’t make them 44social issues” and not sins! Every sin ever contemplated and carried out by man has had impact (negatively) in the society in which it was committed. That reality, though, doesn’t remove the thing committed from the sin category and put it in the social issue category!

I preach against abortion, because murder is sin. I simply couldn’t live with myself, or call myself a gospel preacher, if I didn’t put “the sin label” on the modern practice of abortion. Murder, Paul said, is “contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:9-11). How, then, can I claim to be a sound preacher without exposing, condemning and identifying those things that are “contrary to sound doctrine”? Let those who minimize the need to preach against abortion, and those who put this kind of preaching in the “social gospel” basket answer these questions: Is the modern practice of abortion sin? Should a gospel preacher preach against sin? How is it, that preaching against this sin makes one a preacher of the “social gospel”?

I preach against intoxication, because drunkenness is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:21). Thousands of young people (some who have been raised “in the church”) have experimented with or literally ruined their lives through their use of alcohol and drugs; impenitent ones are destined for hell. It’s sin, and every gospel preacher should be willing to expose it for what it is. All of those “works of the flesh” need to be preached against. And I would submit to the reader – when a faithful gospel preacher tells folks what the Bible says about these sins and where they lead – he isn’t preaching the classic social gospel message; indeed, he is preaching against it! The social gospel approach would be, to fund an alcoholic recovery program, call it a disease and blame society. The gospel of Christ approach is to call it a sin, blame the sinner and call upon the drunk to repent. All of this can and must be done in the name of Christ.

I preach against secular humanism and new age religion, because these are false religions, therefore sinful to participate in! I believe there is only one pure and undefiled religion – the religion of hearing, believing and doing the words of Christ (Jas. 1:27; Matt. 7:24-27). I believe there is only one doctrine (Gal. 1:6-12; 1 Tim. 1:3). So, when some other religious system comes on the scene and offers propaganda to pull people away from Christ, I’m committed to speak out against it. I don’t care how long it has existed, how new it is, what it’s called or who subscribes to it – if it is a false religion (i.e., “not according to Christ,” Col. 2:8), I’m going to speak out against it by giving scriptural refutation of its tenets; if its Calvinism, Protestant Denominational Dogma, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, the innovations of liberal churches, Premillennialism, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, New Age Religion . . . whatever. Does this commitment align me with those who preach a social gospel?

Perhaps the real problem some are disturbed over is that some preachers are concentrating so much on these so-called “social issues,” they are not giving due attention to first principles, the church, and the refutation of the more “traditional,” classic errors. If this is the dark cloud that’s on the horizon, then it needs to be pointed out, with sober clarity. I would confer my sober agreement on the observation – that some preachers are “majoring” in areas and topics more comfortable for them, because of their lack of conviction and knowledge with reference to the more fundamental, traditional subjects; and perhaps their fears are to the consequences of such preaching.

I encountered a situation a few years ago, where a preacher was constantly giving attention to morals, Old Testament passages about the nature of God, marriage and family topics, humanism, etc. But, he simply wouldn’t preach a sermon about the Lord’s church, or what to do to be saved. When confronted with this omission (obvious to most of the members), his reply was: “Well, I’m just not comfortable preaching about the church or the plan of salvation.” I find this appalling, that a man claiming to be a faithful Christian and gospel preacher “isn’t comfortable” telling people what the Bible says about how to be saved; and not willing to tell people about the church of the Lord, which he purchased with his blood. I know this is happening, and it bothers me.

Likewise, there may be (in some places) a dangerous absence of preaching on the issues that relate to human institutions and the work of the church. This concerns me, because if we don’t teach our children these things, our grandchildren may have to drive 200 miles to find a place where they can worship (if they entertain convictions about where they worship)! I believe there is a danger of being “soft on the issues.” But let us show some objectivity, restraint and balance in our reaction to this danger. The sad reality that some are “soft on the issues” will not be remedied by discouraging men from exposing sins that happen also to be “social issues.”

I’m only forty years old, maybe a little early to start making predictions, but I’m probably on safe ground in making this one. If we hold back in exposing anything that’s sinful, false or unscriptural (regardless of what it is), our neglect now will come back to haunt us later! Perhaps a study of history would yield the conclusion that this has already happened!

The responsibility of the gospel preacher is to preach the word (2 Tim. 4:2). I take that to mean: preach all of it! If I give folks a permanent diet of faith, repentance, baptism and the work of the church – without teaching the other things in the Word, I’ve only met part of my obligation. Let us be dedicated to preaching “the whole counsel of God,” that those who hear might be equipped and motivated to put on “the whole armor of God,” that we all might be “fruitful in every good work” (Acts 20:27; Eph. 6:11; Col. 1:10).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 240-241
April 21, 1988

By Mike Willis

The Jimmy Swaggart debacle has received national attention for several weeks now. The newspapers report that he hired a prostitute to undress before him and that he has been rather addicted to pornography for nearly twenty years. I take no joy in the sin of this or any other man. The man needs the grace of God to obtain the forgiveness of his sins in order that he may be saved on judgment day.

Nevertheless, his sin serves as an occasion to remind us of several biblical truths, which some writers have already done. One false doctrine which Swaggart propagated, and which has spread among some Christians, is manifested as transparently false by his commission of habitual sins. I speak of his doctrine of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Those who have watched the Jimmy Swaggart show have witnessed his testimonies to the power of the Holy Spirit in his life. He has told us how the Holy Spirit directly laid burdens on his heart, directly gave him a message which he was obligated to preach, enabled him to speak in tongues, so stirred him that he began dancing while he was preaching, and many other activities. Another work which was attributed to the Holy Spirit was the work of helping man to overcome sin. Pentecostal doctrine, like many other denominational dogmas, asserts that man has received an inherited depraved nature which inclines a man to commit sin. One is able to overcome the impact of this depraved nature by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which makes man able to resist the temptation to sin. Swaggart and Jim Bakker have repeatedly testified to the joys of their Spirit-filled lives which enabled them to live above the world, above those who did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit,

Apparently, the indwelling Holy Spirit was not effectual in enabling Jimmy Swaggart to resist sin. As a matter of fact, Oral Roberts had a vision indicating that Jimmy was demon possessed. He “saw demons with long fingernails digging the flesh into Jimmy Swaggart’s body.” The indwelling Holy Spirit could not prevent him from being demon possessed, if the testimony of Oral Roberts is to be believed, much less to resist the temptation to sin. The Scriptures teach that man can resist the devil and he will flee from him (Jas. 4:7).

Swaggart’s doctrine of an indwelling Holy Spirit has spilled over into the church (although its source may not have been Swaggart; however we need to be careful not to minimize the impact and spread of the false doctrines taught by television evangelists who have a significant audience). A few years ago, I sat in a Bible class and heard a person teach that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit enabled man to overcome his “sin nature.” He commented that all of the preachers whose marriages had broken up in recent years denied the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, implying thereby that had they believed in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (in a personal or literal sense) they would have been able to resist sin and avoid their marriage failure. Frankly, I have not perceived any superior moral character in those who believed in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Bible class teacher who implied as much being included. Those who have believed in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit have been involved in fornication, adultery, homosexuality, false doctrine, lording over churches, promoting majority rule, serving as one man elders, etc. the same as have those who denied the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and dozens of other Pentecostal preachers whose lives have moral failures demonstrate this fact without ever mentioning moral failures among our brethren.

One preacher among us listed the things which the Holy Spirit did for man by indwelling him:

The Holy Spirit indwells (Rom. 8:9); provides a habitation of God in us (Eph. 2:22); provides a motive for us to keep our spirits and our bodies clean (1 Cor. 6:19-20); enables us to keep the faith (2 Tim. 1:13-14); brings comfort (Acts 3:19); brings renewal (Titus 3:5); is present in times of reproach (1 Pet. 4:14); aids in our worship (Phil. 3:3); helps us live a consecrated life (Jude 20); produces fruit in our lives (Gal. 5:22-23; Eph. 5:9); and many other things.

Notice these items: provides a motive for us to keep our spirits and our bodies clean; enables us to keep the faith; brings renewal; helps us live a consecrated life. If the Spirit enables us to do these things, separate and apart from the word of God by literally undwelling us, whose fault is it if we do not keep our spirits and bodies clean, keep the faith, have renewal, and live a consecrated life? Surely if it is the work of the Spirit to do these things and they are not done, the Spirit is at fault for not doing them! If the responsibility for not doing them falls on the Christian, he must be the one who is expected to do these things, not the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Those who teach the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit will want to divorce themselves from the Jimmy Swaggarts and Jimmy Bakkers, and understandably so. No doubt they will deny that such men were Christians and deny that they never truly possessed the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, these men quote the same passages as do our brethren to prove that there is an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They give human testimony, the evidence of experience, to affirm that they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The passages of Scripture are misinterpreted and human testimony is invalid, subjective evidence.

From the sins of Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Bakker, let us be reminded that the doctrine of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which these men have taught is false to the core, as confirmed in their lives and revealed by the study of Holy Scripture. In repudiating the extremes of Swaggart and Bakker along with the claims and theories of some brethren, we do not reject what the Bible teaches about the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christians and Christians in the Spirit. That spiritual relationship is wholly independent of the errors and antics we are opposing.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 258, 278-279
May 5, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind.- How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), pp. 68,73-75.

Allan Bloom, currently a professor at the University of Chicago, has had a distinguished academic career, teaching also at Yale, the universities of Paris, Tel Aviv, and Toronto. During the 1960s he was a professor at Cornell resigning in protest over the capitulation of that school’s administration to campus radicals.

His Closing of the American Mind became an unexpected bestseller, indeed, something of a cultural phenomenon, during 1987. While we do not endorse everything in the book, several pages are well worth reflecting upon.

Though students do not have books, they most emphatically do have music. Nothing is more singular about this generation than its addiction to music. This is the age of music and the states of soul that accompany it. To find a rival to this enthusiasm, one would have to go back at least a century to Germany and the passion for Wagner’s operas. They had the religious sense that Wagner was creating the meaning of life and that they were not merely listening to his works but experiencing that means. Today, a very large proportion of young people between the ages of ten and twenty live for music. It is their passion; nothing else excites them as it does; they cannot take seriously anything alien to music. When they are in school and with their families. they are longing to plug themselves back into their music. Nothing surrounding them – school, family, church – has anything to do with their musical world. At best that ordinary life is neutral, but mostly it is an impediment, drained of vital content, even a thing to be rebelled against. Of course, the enthusiasm for Wagner was limited to a small class, could be indulged only rarely and only in a few places, and had to wait on the composer’s slow output. The music of the new votaries, on the other hand, knows neither class nor nation. It is available twenty-four hours a day, everywhere. There is the stereo in the home, in the car; there are concerts; there are music videos, with special channels exclusively devoted to them, on the air nonstop; there are the Walkmans so that no place – not public transportation, not the library – prevents students from communing with the Muse, even while studying.

One needs only ask first-year university students what music they listen to, how much of it and what it means to them, in order to discover that the phenomenon is universal in America, that it begins in adolescence or a bit before and continues through the college years. It is the youth culture and, as I have so often insisted, there is now no other countervailing nourishment for the spirit. Some of this culture’s power comes from the fact that it is so loud. It makes conversation impossible, so that much of friendship must be without the shared speech that Aristotle asserts is the essence of friendship and the only true common ground. With rock, illusions of shared feelings, bodily contact and grunted formulas, which are supposed to contain so much .meaning beyond speech, are the basis of association. None of this contradicts going about the business of life, attending classes and doing the assignment for them. But the meaningful inner life is with the music.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, p. 238
April 21, 1988

By Cloyce Sutton II

He’s the Grand Poohbah of partiology! He’s one party-loving, happening dude! He’s the original party animal! He’s Spuds MacKenzie! He’s also a dog. And he’s also America’s idol.

Most of you have seen Spuds. He is the “spokes-creature” for Bud Light Beer. He is a white English bull terrier with a spot around his left eye. Not only can he be seen in television ads, but also in stores. In many card and novelty stores, you may purchase all manner of official Spuds MacKenzie paraphernalia.

Spuds has become a symbol to Americans. He represents to us “the good life.” He leads a spoiled and pampered life. Beautiful, and immodestly dressed women attend him. He lives in a fabulous mansion. He is driven to and fro in a chauffeured limousine. He gives daily attention to his tan, pedicure, and massage. He enjoys a splendid party every night, whether at his private pool or on a public beach. All America is captivated by his extravagant charm. Indeed, we long to be like him.

My concern is not so much that we adore an animal. Indeed, men may learn valuable lessons from some unlikely creatures (Prov. 30:24-3 1). My concern in this case is twofold: what Spuds MacKenzie represents, and what our adoration of him represents.

Spuds MacKenzie is an advertising representative for a beer company. He symbolizes a lifestyle given to revelry. He tells us that drinking is an important part of the good life. But what he represents is clearly condemned in Scripture. Drunkenness, carousings, and social drinking can have no place in the life of a Christian (1 Pet. 4:3-5). These are the deeds of darkness (Rom. 13:11-14). Those who are charmed by alcohol can never know the good life (Prov. 23:29-35).

Of greater concern to me is what this phenomenon says about us as a society. Man was created in God’s image and given dominion over all other animals (Gen. 1:26-30). Yet we have taken a rather unattractive dog and made it the object of our veneration. We want to be like it. It is our idol. We now worship a dog.

But why do we worship a dog? Because we do not worship God. In Romans 1, Paul describes the condition of men who put aside the knowledge of God. When men will not acknowledge their Creator, their only alternative is to worship something less. In verses 22-23, Paul says,

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

When a nation sees fit to idolize dogs, it is only because they no longer see fit to glorify God.

Our adoration for Spuds MacKenzie is a sad commentary on the moral climate of our nation. Our only recourse is to turn back to the God who created us. May we learn, as did the early Christians, that we must “turn to God from idols to serve a living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, p. 231
April 21, 1988