“Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life which the Son of man shall give unto you” I John 6:27

An often observable characteristic of churches which are in the process of losing the gospel under the pressure of Liberalism is that they become preoccupied with social and political programs. Becoming disinterested in matters of Christian doctrine, they become agitated about meeting all kinds of material needs, solving social problems, correcting inequities, ensuring that everyone, or at least certain groups get their “rights,” etc. Such activities seem much more “real,” “meaningful,” “practical,” and “important” than many churches‘ traditional concerns.

One can readily think of many ways in which this shift of emphasis comes to expression. Read the reports of major church assemblies, conventions and synods. Consider the activities of the World Council of Churches. Watch the development of mission fields as various social and material “auxiliary” services orginally intended to help in bringing the gospel, begin to take most if not almost all of the money, personnel and activity of the mission organizations.

Attraction to Socialism

This preoccupation with social and political causes makes these liberalizing churches increasingly sympathetic with the socialist movement which has the same preoccupation, and susceptible to communist propaganda and sometimes even usable as communist “fronts.” About 20 years ago, Paul Denlinger, Episcopal Missionary to China wrote in the March 14, 1960 Christianity Today (pp. 3·5) of how this process had worked in China. His fascinating article appeared under the title, “The BleakHarvest of the Liberal World Thrust.” He wrote, “for many modern religious leaders ‘socialism’ plays the same role that ‘heaven’ did for their grandparents. It is that goal to be pursued above all others, the endpoint of their religious affections. In a manner well known to all religions, they stimulate widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo . . . . they dispose people toward change. This is the political parody of the conviction of sin and the offer of salvation.

“Unfortunately, however, the churches cannot offer political salvation. While they try to lobby and engage in political action in a rather feeble way, the public will not permit them to play a purely political role. In the field of pure politics they have neither the intelligence nor the resources of the Communist Party. Thus, in many cases, liberal Christianity scatters the seed and the Communist Party reaps the harvest.” The social gospel has been a virtual ‘tutor unto communism.’

“Those who have eyes to see are witnessing a marvelous demonstration of how false gods destroy their devotees. The liberal Christian West has cemented an alliance with political and social for ces dedicated to its destruction. Wherever the Communists gain political control, they forcefully suppress Christianity as an opiate of the people. Liberal Christianity uncritically collaborates in its own destruction.”

Bringing those observations down to the present, we can note in our time how the World Council of Churches continues to give large amounts of money to the African guerilla movements which have been murdering missionaries and other Christians and destroying their missions. And consider how our President Carter, despite his profession as an evangelical Christian, continues his support of those guerillas against the new, elected black-led Rhodesian government, despite the appeal of the bishop who leads the government to our President to alter his stand.

The Shift Among Us

Turning to the developments in our own denomination, we can see many indications of the shift of emphasis to social, economic and political matters, although it has not yet gone as far in that direction as such a shift has gone· among the outspokenly Liberal churches. We notice the prominence of such matters in the agendas of our synods and of the RES and the conferences dealing with them which are held at our colleges. We are hearing and will hear more of a program to not only relieve world hunger, but also to “restructure” societies which are seen as contributing to it.

Plausible Arguments

We are finding that it is not easy to be critical of these things because they can often make plausible claims to receiving Christian sympathy and support. Must we not feed the hungry? Hasn’t the Lord taught us to love the poor? Isn’t it our duty to try to correct injustices? Don’t we as Christians have to oppose racial discrimination? Don’t we who hold the Reformed ideal of seeking to apply the whole gospel to the whole of life have to involve ourselves in all of these economic, social and political matters? Must we not seek to maintain, in action as well as talk, Christ’s claim as King over every area of life? Do we not have to criticize and break away from the mistaken practice of many evangelical Christians around us who have often treated the gospel as a thing apart from these earthly concerns and responsibilities? Don’t all of these considerations compel us to give unstinting support to our churches’ material, social and political programs? If the socialists have majored in these concerns shouldn’t we either support and join them, or try to take over the initiative which evangelical Christians have often left to them?

These are the kinds of questions and arguments that would move us, as they are moving many around us, to go along with or promote the trend which we are considering. The arguments might be irresistible if it were not for one objection. That objection arises out of considering what the Lord actually did and taught in His Gospel.

The Lord Feeds Thousands

An incident which we may find especially helpful to us in dealing with these currently troublesome questions is that of the Lord’s feeding of over 5,000 people. The Apostle John gives us the most extensive of the four accounts of it in the sixth chapter of His gospel. The Lord was obviously concerned in ministering to people’s material needs as he miraculously fed over 5,000 of them when they were hungry. And he taught his followers a lesson in responsible stewardship as he ordered them to gather up the food that remained, that nothing be lost” (vs. 12).

The Gospel’s Priority

This chapter of John’s gospel, unlike the other accounts, tells us what followed this event and the Lord’s teaching about it. A free lunch for these thousands of hungry people moved the multitudes immediately to acknowledge Him as the promised Prophet and to determine to “take him by force, to make him king” (vs. 15). They were all eager to accept and follow this kind of Messiah. The Lord, instead of endorsing and trying to work along with this popular acceptance of Him, immediately dismissed the crowd and evaded it. Not to be put off that easily, the people looked for him and when they found him the next day wanted him to repeat what he had done the day before. This He absolutely refused to do, explaining, “Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto . eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you” (vs. 27). They looked for and (as usual) found Biblical and theological arguments to support their wishes, referring to Moses and the 40–year free-food program of the manna in the wilderness. The Lord corrected their misuse of the Scriptures and pointed out that their fathers who had eaten the manna for 40 years died but that what He had come to bring and to be to men would give eternal life.

In refusing to continue giving the people miraculous free food and, more broadly, to be the kind of Messiah and to give them t he kind of material and political gospel which they wanted, the Lord quickly antagonized them and lost their enthusiastic adherence. He deliberately increased the offense to them by teaching them the difficult doctrines about Himself which they could not understand. He explained the purpose of his coming and the character of his work by stating very bluntly what often was, and to this day (also in the Christian Reformed Church) often appears to be the most offensive doctrine of all, that of Predestination (positive and negative) and of the absolute sovereignty of God! He said, “I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me” and “No man can come to me except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day” (vss. 36–40, 43–45).

The bearing of all of this upon our problems is evident. The Lord plainly taught and showed that the character of His Gospel was not determined by people‘s desires or even their “felt needs.” It was in no way controlled by their opinions of “cultural” or “historical conditions.” His role and program was not determined or even influenced by majority vote –not even by the vote of his followers. If God’s predetermined and revealed doctrines irritated and antagonized people, He was neither surprised nor influenced by that. And He taught His followers to be prepared for and expect this kind of reaction, and to follow Him in resisting it.

What does this mean for our stance regarding the material, economic, social and political matters which we have been considering? Must a Christian not try to help people around him? Indeed, he must, as the Bible says, “As we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). But all of such activities are the results, although necessary results, of our all-controlling commitment to the Lord and His gospel. They must always serve, and may never be permitted to over-shadow or displace the gospel. In contrast with the non-Christians whose primary concern is with such matters as food, drink and clothing, the Lord taught, “your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:31–33). The difference between the Christian who knows and worships God and the people around him who do not know God and therefore idolize everything else is fundamental, and talk of our Christian economic, social and political responsibilities may never be permitted to obscure or compromise that difference. We all need the warning with which the Apostle John concluded his first letter.

“We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one. And the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. My little children, guard yourselves from idols” (I John 5:19–21).