"Historically evangelicals and mainline protestants were all in one group. Along about the beginning of the 20th century there were some protestant theologians who started using the term social gospel. What they meant by that was you don't really need to care about Jesus' personal salvation any more. You don't really have to care about redemption, the cross, repentance. All we need to do is redeem the social structures of society and if we make those social structures better then the world will be a better place. In many ways it was just Marxism in Christian clothing. If we redeem society, then man would automatically get better. It didn't deal with the heart. So they said we don't need this personal religion stuff" - Rick Warren, The Beliefnet Interview
There Rick Warren goes again proving that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. His condemnation of the social gospel in his latest interview with Beliefnet's Steve Waldman repeats another interview he gave a few years ago. Warren apparently read an essay on the evils of the social gospel when he was young and has been mislead and misleading people about it ever since. My guess is that his shrill denunciations come out of a fear that his new found interest in social issues might cause some in the evangelical world to brand him as a social gospler. He has cause to worry. There is deep suspicion of this kind of activity (by that I mean helping the poor and working with AIDS) among evangelicals and Warren has to be careful to shore up his Jesus credentials lest he be tarnished by those who questions his Christian commitments.
Bashing the social gospel is common among old school evangelicals. Author, pastor and Progressive Revival blogger Brian McLaren told me his own own experience: "Like a lot of people from Evangelical backgrounds, in my childhood and youth I was taught that the "social gospel" was nothing but evil. I heard it a thousand times in sermons...Now, of course, I think this kind of anti-justice, privatized-gospel propaganda is evil!"
But of course now Brian Mclaren is also now persona non-grata among the Warren evangelical school. I was part of organizing a conference last summer called Envsion which featured leaders in the new Evangelical movement such as Shane Claiborn, Rich Cizik, Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren. Kay Warren was supposed to be our keynote on the first night but backed out because she wouldn't share a state with Brian for fear of being tarnished by association with his theology and practice.
One of those "theologians" Rick Warren targets is my great-grandfather Walter Rauschenbusch. Just to clarify - Rauschenbusch wasn't a theologian - he was a pastor Warren would do well to learn a bit more about his life, writing and prayers. While he will still have theological disagreements, my hope is that he would at least appreciate the impulse behind his thought and belief and perhaps see a parallel with his own religious evolution.
Rauschenbusch served a church of the working poor in a hells kitchen New York at the turn of the last century. He began with a fairly conservative belief system that only concentrated on the saving of individual souls. Through the people of his congregation Rauschenbusch saw the suffering of his flock at the hands of a ruthless economic system. Rauschenbusch later said that during this time he had buried too many babies who had died needlessly just because they were poor. "How little children died - oh, the children's funerals! They gripped my heart." Rauchenbusch turned back to the bible to see what it said about the poverty aflicting his congregation. The social gospel was the attempt of conscientious Christians to respond to the incredible social inequity of the time.
Warren is right - there was a split among protestants 100 years ago. The Evangelical School did nothing about the suffering of the world preferring to concentrate on the afterlife and "salvation" that came from abandonment of the world in favor of a promised future in heaven. In the meantime the social gospel went on to develop institutions such as the YMCA, the Salvation Army and the National Council of Churches; spearheaded interfaith understanding, and lobbied for social change that reflected Jesus' desire for the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven. Important child labor protection laws, the new deal, the great society and the civil rights movement are products of the social gospel. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote "In the early 50's I read Walter Rauschenbusch's Christianity and the Social Crisis, a book which left an indelible imprint on my thinking." Not a bad heritage - if only Warren would admit it. Mainline protestants have been involved in AIDS work since the 80''s and poverty for the last century. It's nice to see Warren's recent interest.
In my own work I have been generous to the evangelical spirit, and in fact I agree with Warren that the liberal church has lost some of the personal relevance of the Gospel. But that was never the intention of the original social Gospel, as Rauschenbusch himself said - "A perfect religious hope must include both: eternal life for the individual; the kingdom of God for humanity." Rauschenbusch conceived of his work on the social aspects of the Gospel as an addition, not a substitution. My honest feeling is that Rick Warren owes a great deal to Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospel if he were only Christian enough to admit it.
Instead of trashing Rauschenbusch, the social Gospel, mainline protestants and worrying so much about defending Christian orthodoxy of belief, I invite Warren to seek collaboration with those of us who are also concerned with the suffering of the world's vulnerable and are dedicated to doing God's will on earth as in heaven.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I am a PhD student at Princeton, working in detail through all of Rauschenbusch's published writings and biographies.
Frankly, Paul Raushenbush is completely right on this one. In fact, Walter Rauschenbusch's concern for "personal religion," redemption of the soul, and intimate knowledge of God through prayer, worship, and meditation on the cross was perhaps even deeper than this corrective article conveys.
Walter Rauschenbusch wrote at length in every stage of his career about the importance personal conversion and ongoing transformation by God as the foundation of his Social Gospel agenda. He stood against individualism, not personal conversion. He wrote in support of the Welsh Revival of the early 20th century. He wrote with great generosity towards even his theological opponents in the premillennial dispensational camp, seeking to understand what he (and the Social Gospel movement more generally) could learn from them.
He was a progressive, a RItschlian liberal, a bit sentimental and a lot optimistic. In these things, in my view, he was quite naive, or perhaps lacked some of the benefit of hindsight that we have as witnesses to the atrocious 20th century. He also lacked a certain sense of the value of some of the theological movements and dialectics that preceded him. He was deeply conditioned by his intellectual and social environment. He was too patriotic.
However, to suggest that Walter Rauschenbusch or his Social Gospel contemporaries didn't care about "redemption, the cross, repentance," or that there was no Social Gospel critique of the weaknesses of Marxism is simply wrong. Furthermore, like Jesus...and like Rick and Kay Warren...Walter Rauschenbusch was profoundly moved with compassion by the sufferings of his fellow human beings, and he sought with all the tools he saw at his disposal to advance a radical movement to do something about it.
Perhaps Walter Rauschenbusch represents the best of the Social Gospel and is not the "Marxist in Christian clothing" to which Warren was referring. Even if there are worse offenders in Warren's view, it behooves him to be careful how he talks, especially given that he himself is a victim of some stupid, unfounded attacks. Let's not perpetuate tired stereotypes that dismiss entire movements. There are far bigger fish to fry in our historical moment.
I am a PhD student at Princeton, working in detail through all of Rauschenbusch's published writings and biographies.
Frankly, Paul Raushenbush is completely right on this one. In fact, Walter Rauschenbusch's concern for "personal religion," redemption of the soul, and intimate knowledge of God through prayer, worship, and meditation on the cross was perhaps even deeper than this corrective article conveys.
Walter Rauschenbusch wrote at length in every stage of his career about the importance personal conversion and ongoing transformation by God as the foundation of his Social Gospel agenda. He stood against individualism, not personal conversion. He wrote in support of the Welsh Revival of the early 20th century. He wrote with great generosity towards even his theological opponents in the premillennial dispensational camp, seeking to understand what he (and the Social Gospel movement more generally) could learn from them.
He was a progressive, a RItschlian liberal, a bit sentimental and a lot optimistic. In these things, in my view, he was quite naive, or perhaps lacked some of the benefit of hindsight that we have as witnesses to the atrocious 20th century. He also lacked a certain sense of the value of some of the theological movements and dialectics that preceded him. He was deeply conditioned by his intellectual and social environment. He was too patriotic.
However, to suggest that Walter Rauschenbusch or his Social Gospel contemporaries didn't care about "redemption, the cross, repentance," or that there was no Social Gospel critique of the weaknesses of Marxism is simply wrong. Furthermore, like Jesus...and like Rick and Kay Warren...Walter Rauschenbusch was profoundly moved with compassion by the sufferings of his fellow human beings, and he sought with all the tools he saw at his disposal to advance a radical movement to do something about it.
Perhaps Walter Rauschenbusch represents the best of the Social Gospel and is not the "Marxist in Christian clothing" to which Warren was referring. Even if there are worse offenders in Warren's view, it behooves him to be careful how he talks, especially given that he himself is a victim of some stupid, unfounded attacks. Let's not perpetuate tired stereotypes that dismiss entire movements. There are far bigger fish to fry in our historical moment.
I do not hold a graduate degree in this area, but I can tell when generalizations are made where specific, localized references would suffice.
"It should be pointed out that people of Warren's religious type were quite active in persecuting Christians who resisted and fought against Nazi occupation and they morally in Christian terms justified it."
Generalizations being made by both parties here and in many of these postings, including the initial article, seem to be more about expressing frustrations then creating meaningful dialogue. Paul, your second posting was appreciated.
Admittedly, I have not read the entire interview nor can I speak for Warren, but the sentiment seems to be less of "Social Gospelers denied these orthodox Christian beliefs" as much as it was an acknowledgment that there are two extremes: one focusing on social changes the other only on soul changes. Ultimately, both are perversions of the gospel that occur because we are fallible humans. From what I've read, though, your great-grandfather seemed to have his heart in the write place. I hope each of us can say that as future conversations on this issue arise.
Rick Warren's bashing of the Social Gospel is not very constructive to a body of believers--especially these days. Indeed, it seems he has found fault with the very cornerstone of Christian charity, and self sacrifice. He seems more intent on dividing than uniting for a common good. Jesus lived, taught, and died among the have-not class. He said, that those who have become rich should renounce their wealth. Jesus plainly preached a social Gospel, and told his followers to do what is right and just to his fellow man. If we become a body of believers who seek the truth, and help our brothers and sisters, I see these as very consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Warren should embrace the body, and not seek to destroy.
I wonder what Warren thinks of Martin Luther King Jr, a man who lived and died in the work of the Social Gospel of Jesus Christ.
A Letter to Rick Warren
Some people have an Idea that God is inclusive for mans eternal destiny, that all religions and all people will be saved. That God will allow all of mankind to enter into heaven because everybody is good so God must be fair and include everyone! It is true God does love the whole world but God is exclusive about mans eternal destiny without the Savior. To keep this simple man has a problem called sin in which man refuses to believe that there are eternal consequences for having sin, which is a one way ticket to hell. God is holy and he will not allow anyone with sin to enter into heaven. God is hurt and angry about our sin, we have broken his laws, our conscious confirms this. But God is just and good and he knows our need so he provided a solution to our problem. His solution to our problem is to have our sins removed by having our sins placed on someone else, a sacrifice for us; paying for the penalty of the sin we have in our lives. So that someone else would get the penalty of Gods wrath and separation on him that was meant for us. So God sent his son Jesus on a mission from heaven to earth as our sacrifice to die on the cross on our behalf after this happened three days later Jesus came back from the dead, alive. But that’s not all remember I wrote that God is exclusive about mans eternal destiny without the Savior? The only way that Gods promise can be applied to your life is for you to turn from your way of thinking and know that your sin offends and hurts God and call on the Lord Jesus who’s alive to save you. Your sins are then transferred to Jesus for what he did at the cross, dying and being abandon by God because of your sins, for you and because Jesus arose from the dead he is alive you can now enter into a relationship with God. Will you call out to Jesus to save you? It’s your choice to enter in exclusively with God’s grace for you. Where will you want to spend eternity after hearing Gods promise for you?
If the answer was yes that you do want Jesus as your sin bearer, Savior, and you do believe God raised Jesus from the dead you can pray with your voice.
“Dear Lord Jesus save me.”
Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.