You may not really prefer the good to the evil, the beautiful to the ugly, the wise to the foolish, the clean to the dirty, the true to the false, because if you prefer the good, beautiful, wise, clean and true to the evil, ugly, foolish, dirty and false you have not loved men who are more of the latter as you have loved those who are more of the former. The exercise of Biblical charity is not enough. In addition God is squeezed in as a link between the giver and the recipient. This is attempted by saying that the giver is a steward, which is true enough in itself. God is said to be the real owner, and then this primary ownership by God is indicated to require of every man that he be a redistributor rather than a possessor.
Stewardship is often only a vague term to cover covetous claims beyond specific charity.
The Social Gospel is ridiculous, because it is contrary- to purpose. The Social Gospel proposes arrangements between men which violate the teachings of Scripture. It teaches that Social Justice is evidenced by equality in the end result in men's lives, which can be accomplished only by unequal laws. To make men who are different and unequal to be alike and equal in the end is accomplishable only by having the laws bear differently on different men. This necessary inequality in laws to accomplish equality in the end result is repeatedly cursed in Scripture.