Rick Warren and the Social Gospel

Paul,

It is not only nit-pickingly silly but inaccurate to say your grandfather was not a theologian. Everyone recognizes him as the father of social gospel theology and his recent biographer, C.H. Evans, routinely calls Walter Rauschenbusch a theologian. He was a pastor/theologian-church historian.

That's not the big point,however. I think you are unfair to the legacy of your grandfather. While he clearly "added" social justice to his gospel of personal salvation in his earlier years, there are many who think he shifted from that in his later years. Including AH Strong who chided him for departing too much from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Evangelical critics of Walter Rauschenbusch fastened on to the criticism of him in his later years.

Instead of trashing Warren, Paul, I'd appreciate it if you'd see that Warren represents that evangelicals themselves have come a long way. Rick Warren, my friend, is not the one to pick on. He is at least attempting to add (as did your grandfather) social justice to personal salvation.

Scot,

If you believe that "Warren represents that evangelicals themselves have come a long way", there's some swamp land in florida I'd like to talk to you about.

Sorry, but comparing gay marriage to brother/sister incest isn't much farther along than Jerry Falsewell blaming 9/11 on gays or Pat Robertson blaming gays for Katrina. Warren, belongs in the same odious camp as Rod Dreher, in who's B'net column you can constantly read comparisons of gay marriage to "marrying a plant" (or an orange, or a rock, or any other inanimate object) and gay people to "cancer", "Satan's minions", "Sons of Molech", necrophiliacs, rapists, child molesters, etc.

And in the same boat as 'Rev. Hucklebee, who compares gay people's loving, committed, consenting, adult, human relationships to "marrying an animal or a child".

The 'good' 'Christian' Governor of Oklahoma calls gay people "worse than terrorists".

If you think this is evidence of 'coming a long way', you and a whole host of evangelicals need to reflect on the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" commandment, alongside the "inasmuch as ye have done it [or said it] to the least of these, ye have done it unto Me" Scriptures.

Then again, I thank god for people who have hurt gays and persecuted gays and said all manner of evil against gays falsely - and they do it in Christ's name, no less. I do accept the promise of the 'reward', but would rather get to experience it while I'm alive and not have to wait til I get to heaven.

"Your Name,"
> "The 'good' 'Christian' Governor of Oklahoma calls gay people "worse than terrorists"."

That wasn't our governor, that was a rather scary state representitive by the name of Sally Kerns.

Brad Henry is a Mainline Baptist and generally pretty groovy. We have an astonishing amount of hateful crazy in this state, but Henry isn't a source of any that I know of.

I generally agree with the rest of the comments, however.

By Bashing Rick Warren aren't you defending some type of progressive orthodoxy? What's with the double standard?

I'm not afraid of the term "social gospel," if by that we mean that the gospel of Jesus and the kingdom of God was meant to change the social order, rather than simply individual human souls. What I find incomprehensible is the selling out of the kingdom of God to be in the hands of a government in order to fulfill some of the purposes of the kingdom of God.

Paul you say, 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' of Warren, then go on to say, '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"'.

I assume you are referring to American Evangelicals. Firstly for those of us outside the US, that picture of Evangelicals seems rather invalid (I am in the UK, and we have a long tradition of social justice by evangelicals, certainly 100 years ago).

Secondly, don't you in that reduction fall foul of the same claim about Warren's method of understanding a group and movement?

Thanks to all of you for these great comments. And thanks to those from the other side of the pond for expanding this conversation. I agree that I came off "reductionist" about Warren as Jason Clark posted. My feelings about Warren are mixed, but I admire much of what he has and is doing.

Scott McKnight (who started off the comments) and I exchanged emails and agreed that we both had hit harder than we might of. Sometimes intra faith dialogue is much harder than interfaith - this is often true within the communities of our Jewish, Muslim and Hindu sisters and brothers.

Enough with the trashing on all sides, more with the understanding and transforming people's heart's AND the world to align with Jesus' pronouncement of the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.

Paul you said: '...more with the understanding and transforming people's heart's AND the world to align with Jesus' pronouncement of the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.'

A sentiment I whole heartedly concur with. Thank you for your gracious response to the comments.

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.

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.