In the area we live in, a local Catholic church provides for the “Least of These” through an “Outreach” program. The stakes in the area, along with other churches and groups, supports this Catholic Outreach program with donations of food at Thanksgiving and other times throughout the year on a personal level and in pre-scheduled assignments in which each ward has volunteers that participate in donating time assisting in the soup kitchen by preparing and serving food to the “Least of These”. I personally have assisted in taking truck loads, several truck loads of food each year to the Catholic Outreach program, spent time in their soup kitchen and provided donations of clean, usable clothing.

My wife and I are empty nesters and have a spare bedroom and bath in our home. Our Bishop is the Transient Bishop this year. We told him that we have a spare bedroom and bath for any transient members passing through the area. With our Bishop’s help we have come up with some very strict guidelines and a specified period of time that we will provide for members passing through who are among the “Least of These”. They must participate in Family Home Evening, Scripture Study, and Family Prayer as well as attend church each Sunday. We give them room and board, no charge, so they can take care of more pressing matters within the specified time period. So far the longest has been 4 weeks. We will on occasion drive them where they need to go if they are without transportation or means to pay for transportation and occasionally pay for whatever simple needs they might have. We will not subsidize cigarettes or alcohol period, and tend to be very intolerant of these. So far, have had some very choice experiences and some not so choice.

I see a lot of chatter here about what is and what isn’t “Social Gospel”. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of faith, of charity, of action, but I doubt if there is a lot of this happening. I’m not saying that you should open your home to some less fortunate person. What I am saying is, extend your hand and yes, open your pocket book on occasion. Above all, don’t give cash. Put a person up in a motel for a night or 2, something you would be comfortable staying in. Buy them a meal or 2, a coat, an umbrella, shoes. The simple things mean the most. Where much is given, much is expected. “Sacrifice brings forth the blessing of Heaven” People will remember what you did far longer than what you said.

Perhaps it is some members (more so than the church) who have aligned themselves with an anti-social gospel?

I don’t have the answer, but I do think the social work done by the church deserves its due “props.”

#2, any references for the statements by Elder Oaks? Interesting.

#14 I concur that this post needs a definition for “social gospel.”

Thanks for the post. Good stuff to ponder.

If someone makes alleviating the suffering of the poor their central mission (like say the Salvation Army) that’s fine. I’m not sure that’s the scriptural injunction given our spiritual needs. But certainly charity should be very importance for us.

Certainly you’re right that the way the term applies tends to be more narrowly focused to folks who do more welfare missions as their primary aim. It seems the Church’s main emphasis is on raising a family. (Which I think it correct, mind you, and certainly not exclusive from helping the poor. But there is a different emphasis.)

Is getting Mike’s Hard Lemonade out of grocery stores and into state liquor stores something only the priesthood can do?

I am absolutely not disputing that the monetary gifts members donate and the church distributes are not enormously charitable and useful. And as you both point out, the church administrates many programs that would fit under the social gospel label like welfare and disaster relief. I would say though, that much of what you noted seems to happen in Utah. In the states I have lived in wards do not interact personally with the poor.

I am simply arguing that we are not a social gospel church under the traditional definition of social gospel. The many charitable things we do are wonderful. But traditionally, social gospel churches made alleviating the suffering of the least of these their CENTRAL focus. Our focus, as has been pointed out in other comments, is salvation-our salvation, that of our neighbors, that of our families, and that of the dead. That is our focus and what we spend the majority of our energy on. We are oriented towards preparing for the eternities. A social gospel church believes the gospel is primarily about liberating the oppressed, bringing about the kingdom in the here and now. And as Clark points out, this vision of the kingdom is often tinged with socialistic philosophy. I agree Clark that we have a more self-help focus. And this is for the best I believe. So I’m not disputing that we don’t have our own form and definition of “social gospel. I am just saying we’re not a social gospel church in the traditional mold.

As someone on the left, I am often frustrated that my fellow church members are so comfortable with the material world around them. I wish they would get as energetic about genocide and poverty as they do homosexuality, something which seems so trivial to me.

I think most do. It’s not like most Mormons dwell incessantly about gay marriage or even think about it that much. I think though that most feel they can do more about gay marriage in America than they can about genocide or other such conflicts in Africa. Especially after seeing our “success” in Iraq. I think there is a real question about how much we can successfully do and how much we can actually change.

The ultimate question, as someone brought up, is whether we are to just ease the suffering of people without changing behavior (the typical welfare state model) or whether or emphasis should be on personal responsibility and changing behavior. I think you can see this in say the welfare reform under Clinton. Now undeniably more people will suffer in this approach. However more people probably have behavior changed as well.

If we define the social gospel as merely relieving suffering without dealing with responsibility then undeniably the typical Mormon view isn’t what you guys are talking about. But that, to me, really just raises the issue of what we mean by the social gospel and whether it is correct. Certainly there are cases to be made on both sides with the debate in King Benjamin’s speech about not judging the beggar being key.

Likewise the Church has hardly been stingy in helping out during crises and so forth. Could we do more? Probably. But it’s not like we’re not doing anything.

As someone else mentioned I suspect a big thing is the how of how we do it. I think many (most?) Mormons tend to be wary of more socialist approaches which they (rightly or wrongly) perceive as merely rewarding being poor. The emphasis is on self-help and self-improvement. Once again I think we could have a very good debate about how well implemented that is. And, especially with the mentally ill, I think one can debate how much people can self help. But that is I think a separate issue from the social gospel. If one equates the social gospel with a particular view of how to help then I think that incorrect.

As for hometeaching not being for the downtrodden, I’m not sure I buy that. Everyone is downtrodden at some time. The social gospel can not and should not be purely about the “obvious” people in need. We can’t neglect them but they aren’t the only people in need.

I’d also dispute your claim about money and the social gospel. Most people are time strapped due to various needs. (Dealing with little kids especially) We can help when we are able but often what we are able to do is monetary. And, speaking from having worked with various charities, they need money. I’ve had a lot of friends doing charity work in 3rd world countries and it is often difficult to even serve. A lot of the charities are resource starved except for volunteers from rich countries. They need more money and not necessarily more people. (Especially since often the successful charities are ones teaching people to do things themselves – a lot of places don’t want outsiders doing things for them – they want help to do it themselves) There are exceptions of course. A lot of places can use doctors but how many of us are doctors?

Is that not social enough for you? ..bruce..

You failed to mention fast offerings, the Church welfare program, the welfare activity of bishops, priesthood quorums, and Relief Society, Deseret Industries, LDS Social Services, the Church humanitarian program, welfare missionaries, and so on.

Those activities are certainly more visible in Utah, in some international areas, and in wards that are predominantly lower middle class. The Church is a major sponsor of the primary Salt Lake City homeless shelter. My last singles ward prepared and served food there at least once a year. There are many other wards doing the same thing.

There are also church units for local jails, prisons, hospitals, and retirement centers. My last stake operates a branch for those incarcerated at the Davis County Jail, as well as a branch for a local nursing home. I attended services at a downtown hospital recently as well.

According to http://www.lds.org, humanitarian cash contributions since 1985 total some $205 million, and the value of additional material donations since the same date is estimated at $705 million. There are currently 3,552 welfare service missionaries, including humanitarian service missionaries.

No one should knock the service provided by home and visiting teachers, especially to the disadvantaged and the infirm either.