If you can't do it right, don't do it at all?

A while ago I posted about the Social Gospel movement of the early 20th century and summarized its accomplishments, goals, and attitudes as best I could in brief. I also mentioned what went wrong with it, but looking back I think I was a bit too brief and yes, too generous.

I say that because basically everyone, regardless of belief about these groups, agrees that out of the Social Gospel came the "mainline" denominations as we know them today... Wesleyan/Methodism, the Episcopal church, PCUSA to name a few names. And personally, I am not in a hurry to see my church or any other still-orthodox church or denomination follow in their increasingly secular, humanist, pluralistic and otherwise heretical footsteps. I do realize that not every person or even every church in these traditions is "heretical" and preaching a false gospel, but on the whole the leadership of these movements, and their public perception, show a neglect of God's truth and a trend toward human-centered religion of popular sentiment, politics, and empty tradition. I do not think I need to expound this too much; only look at current events and the rapidly declining attendance of mainline churches in spite of their growing ecumenism.

My question, then, is this: if, in spite of the good intentions of good Christians in the Social Gospel movement, the most participatory denominations became the most theologically liberal denominations, what does this mean to the church today? In other words, did something simply go fundamentally wrong with the approach and methods of the Social Gospel, or is it an inherent fact that when the church as an institution gets involved in social causes, the gospel will be compromised? Is the Social Gospel an instructive lesson or a foreboding cautionary tale?

To be clear, there is no doubt in my mind that as individuals, God's people are all called to help the needy and oppressed and to live sacrificially. Likewise, governments and rules are definitely ministers of God's justice on earth and are held accountable to wise administration of such. It would seem to follow that the church, local and universal, must also help alieve suffering, show no partiality, and the like.

But it seems to me that for some reason when the church as an institution takes on an agenda other than equipping the saints and spreading the gospel, things often go terribly wrong. (Not just during the Social Gospel era - Crusades, anyone?) I wonder if this is because we are fallen beings, or because this is an exceptionally difficult task - or if we ought not to do this at all.

So when a social cause arises in a community - the ecosystem is endangered, or a man is wrongfully imprisoned, or the county is frantically looking for a way to curb the AIDS epidemic - is it the place of Christ Church of Wherever, led by the elders and backed by church money, to step in? Even more uncertain, is it the place of a denomination - or political-evangelical coalition of whatever sort - to step in? Or are we better off tackling these things simply as Christians under no particular banner but Christ and his kingdom?

Yet another thing I'm not sure about, but that needs to be addressed in our generation. If political-evangelical coalitions are okay, we need to do a better job with them. If they aren't, we're in trouble.