Problems with the Liberal Gospel
By Lee Edward Enochs
President,
Rogue Reformation
A Critique of the Social Gospel
How should Christianity relate to the social order around them? How should Christians deal with poverty in technologically advanced Western Civilization? Does the Kingdom of God only affect a person individually or should it affect the entire social order of a given society?
These questions and others related to the possibility of formulating a Christian sociology in modern industrialized society are raised in Walter Rauschenbusch’s book entitled, A Theology for the Social Gospel. Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918), was an influential American Baptist Pastor of German descent, who taught at Rochester Theological Seminary in upstate New York and is considered by many to be ideological father of the “Social Gospel” movement made popular by civil rights leaders Martin Luther King (1929-1968), Caesar Chavez (1927-1993) and other activists during the turbulent 20th Century. Rauschenbusch was greatly impacted by the grinding poverty and injustices he saw in the lives of his parishioners while serving as a pastor in New York Cities “Hell’s Kitchen” neighborhood and attempted to formulate a distinctly Christian theology, sociology, and ministerial methodology that directly related to helping the urban poor and down trodden of a given society[1].
Summary
In A Theology for the Social Gospel, Rauschenbusch states that true and authentic Christianity opposes organized evil that represses and subjugates people and proposes that the “kingdom of God” establishes a just and equitable social life for all people (39). Rauschenbusch argues under the heading “The Challenge of the Social Gospel to Theology” (1-10), that we need to abandon undue dogmas and traditions and adapt the message of Christianity to the respective social-political setting it finds itself in. It must contextualize itself and make itself relevant to contemporary culture or run the risk of being eviscerated or rendered ineffectual by modern men and women. Rauschenbusch argues, “If theology stops growing or is unable to adjust itself to its modern environment and meet its present tasks, it will die (1). Rauschenbusch postulates the thesis that Christianity must “establish some connection between religion and social feelings and experience” in order to reach many working and educated people within contemporary society who are “craving a social interpretation and application of Christianity” (3). Rauschenbusch argues that Protestant theology needs periodical reform and rejuvenation and as the Church stood for the essential Trinitarian doctrines of the Council of Nicaea and Luther’s stand for the doctrine of Justification by grace through faith alone, the church should proceed with these reforming tendencies and adopt the social gospel as an essential tenet of the historic Christian faith (12-22).
In the second chapter of A Theology for the Social Gospel (9-22), Rauschenbusch argues for the “theological readjustment” of Christianity along “social gospel” lines. Rauschenbusch states, “The social gospel calls for an expansion in the scope of salvation and for more religious dynamic to the work of God” (11). Rauschenbusch furthermore argues for the abandonment of overtly doctrinal Christianity for a practical faith with an emphasis on the “kingdom of God” and the “simple arguments of Jesus” (16). Rauschenbusch argues that the social gospel is the religion of the people and approximates the religious yearnings of all peoples irrespective of their backgrounds and is devoid of the excess doctrinal baggage that many Christians have been bogged down in (17). Throughout A Theology for the Social Gospel, Rauschenbusch argues for a theology of the Kingdom of God, based on the simplicity of Jesus teachings found in the first three gospels. Rauschenbusch argues that Jesus came to preach a message of hope utilizing certain social and ethical teachings that liberate humanity from repression and genuinely lifts a person up from their harsh circumstances. Rauschenbusch places a tremendous emphasis on his understanding of the “Kingdom of God” that had been long forgotten due to the undue Hellenization of Christianity (25). Rauschenbusch argues “the doctrine of the kingdom of God was left underdeveloped by individualistic theology and finally mislaid by it almost completely” (25).
Rauschenbusch argues in chapter three that such a social gospel view of the kingdom of God is neither alien nor novel to authentic Christianity but is ultimately what Jesus had in mind in his public ministry as detailed in the synoptic gospels. Rauschenbusch ultimately argues in his book that Christianity has been weighed down unduly by too much emphasis on propositional doctrine and must return to the practical and social teachings of Jesus that help a person in his or her particular economic and political context. Rauschenbusch argues that Western Christianity has been overly influenced by the “competitive selfishness” of capitalism (29) and must return to a socialist model of economics. This socialist and anti-Capitalism view of economics is seen throughout the book . Rauschenbusch argues the social gospel liberates and sets a person free from the “consciousness of sin” (31-37) when a person realizes their place in the kingdom of God. Rauschenbusch also argues that the “social gospel opens our eyes” to the ways in which religious men are to implement the teachings of Jesus on earth (39).
Rauschenbusch summarizes the significance and importance of the social Gospel when he writes, “The social gospel is above everything practical. It needs religious ideas which will release energy for heroic opposition against organized evil and the building of a righteous social life” (42). In chapters four through ten (31-77), Rauschenbusch gives a liberal theological and social gospel understanding of the consciousness of sin, the fall of man, the nature and transmission of sin, the super-personal forces and the kingdom of evil and argues that the social gospel can help liberate people who have been repressed by sinful governments that have been corrupted through sin and the fall. Rauschenbusch further discusses the implications of the social gospel and Christian doctrine under chapters entitled, “The Social Gospel and Personal Salvation” (95-109), “The Salvation of the Supernatural Forces” (110-117), “The Church as the Social Factor of Salvation” (118-131), “The Kingdom of God” (131-145), “The Social Gospel and the Conception of God” (167-187), “The Holy Spirit, Revelation, Inspiration and Prophecy” (188-196), Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: (197-207), “Eschatology” (208-239) and “The Social Gospel and the Atonement” (240-272).
Critical Evaluation
Throughout A Theology of the Social Gospel Rauschenbusch is guilty of the logical fallacies of Equivocation and Redefinition wherein the person postulating a given argument jettisons the normative linguistic and historical-grammatical usage of a term in order to attribute and utilize a fabricated meaning to a term without warrant or justification.
After manufacturing this spurious meaning of a given term, the person employing this less than honest rhetorical device then utilizes this spurious definition in attempting to further their argument. In other words, analogous to the false Biblical hermeneutical practice of Eisigesis (reading a false meaning into a text), a person arguing via Equivocation and Redefinition redefines a word or term and then runs with this false meaning of a word or term to make a point. In a Theology of the Social Gospel, Rauschenbusch constantly redefines historic Christian theological terms along liberal theological Social Gospel lines and thus abandons the normative historic Christian doctrines pertaining to God, Sin and Salvation.
Rauschenbusch sees everything through the lens or paradigm or presupposition grid of the liberal Social Gospel and does not attribute the normative historic Christian meanings to important theological terms. Another logical fallacy Rauschenbusch utilizes throughout A Theology of the Social Gospel is the Red Herring fallacy of the use of a “Staw Man Argument” wherein one of the participants of a debate attributes a false position to his debate opponent and in turn attacks the false position instead of the actual argument made by his or her opponent. Logician T. Edward Damer writes, “The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent’s position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the “straw man”—not held by his opponent.”[2]
Rauschenbusch is furthermore guilty of using a “Staw Man” line of argumentation against historic Christianity since he attributes to historic Christianity theological positions and arguments that historic Christianity in fact does not hold such For example, in the first chapter of A Theology of the Social Gospel, Rauschenbusch writes, “The social gospel is the old message of salvation, but large and intensified. The individualistic Gospel has taught us to see the sinfulness of every human heart and has inspired us with faith in the willingness and power of God to save every soul that comes to him.
But it has not given us an adequate understanding of the sinfulness of the social order and its share of sins of all individuals within it. It has not evoked faith in the will and power of God to redeem the permanent institutions of human society from their guilt and oppression and extortion” (5).
This just a blatantly false statement with no resemblance to the truth pertaining to historic Christianity which in the teachings of the Old Testament Prophets, Jesus Christ and the Apostles clearly deal with issue of societal equity and fairness irrespective of ones social and economic background. The Bible is replete with verses on social justice (See: Exodus 22:22, 23:6-11, Leviticus 19:15, Proverbs 22:16, 22:22, and 29:7). While it may be true that at the time Rauschenbusch wrote A Theology of the Social Gospel, that many Christians neglected the poor and repressed in society, there were also Christian ministries such as the Salvation Army that had been doing tremendous work among the needy in society long before Rauschenbusch emerged upon the scene to proclaim his “Social Gospel” that has more in common with Marxist and Socialist political ideology than it does authentic and historic Biblical Christianity.
A second deadly flaw of Rauschenbusch’s A Theology of the Social Gospel is his reliance on liberal Protestant Theology in the guidance of his doctrinal views about God, humanity and the human condition. The “Kingdom of God” mentioned by Rauschenbusch is not one and the same thing with the Kingdom of God mentioned by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Rauschenbusch’s “Social Gospel” is not really the “Gospel of Jesus Christ” at all and the “Jesus Christ” mentioned in this book does not have a one to one cooresponance with the true Jesus Christ of human history and the historic Christian faith. Rauschenbusch has recreated and redefined who Jesus Christ is in accordance with his Socialism and views on the Social Gospel.
For example, Rauschenbusch argues for the inherent veracity of his “Social Gospel” that functions autonomously outside the Christian Church when he says, “The Social Gospel does not need the aid of Church authority to get a hold of our hearts. It gets a hold in spite of such authority when necessary” (13). Rauschenbusch furthermore states that the Social Gospel will do for the Christian Church as what the theological findings of the Council of Nicaea and the Protestant Reformation (13). Hence, Rauschenbusch attributes massive, unprecedented and unparallel importance to his version of the Social Gospel without historical warrant and Biblical justification.
Rauschenbusch is correct in h arguing that Christians need to be concerned about evil, poverty and repression in a given society, since this the command of Jesus in the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and elsewhere in the Bible, but his doctrinal views are not Biblical and in accordance with the authentic Christian Church he attempted to Reform along Social Gospel lines of thinking. In fact, I am not sure if Rauschenbusch was part of the true Christian Church at all.
Rauschenbusch greatly undermines the authority of the Holy Scriptures and the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ when he argues the following concerning the Apostle Paul, The great religious thinkers who created theology were always leaders who were shaping ideas to meet actual situations. The new theology of Paul was a product of fresh religious experience and of practical necessities. His idea that the Jewish law had been abrogated by Christ’s death was worked out in order to set his mission to the gentiles free from the crippling grip of the past and to make an international religion of Christianity.
This above statement made by Rauschenbusch in A Theology of the Social Gospel, is simply false and even heretical since in says that Paul’s theology was formulated due to pragmatic issues instead of being via inspired revelation. Instead of Paul’s theology being part of the exclusively authoritative, inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God, Rauschenbusch rather argues that Pauline’s theology was man made for a given situation.
Conclusion
Rauschenbusch’s theological liberalism and political socialism is ultimately guiding his views of Christianity and when historic Christian teaching gets in the way of his liberal social gospel, it renders it meaningless and relegates all Christian doctrine that disagrees with his thesis to the ash heap of cultural irrelevancy. In A Theology of the Social Gospel, Rauschenbusch sacrifices the historic doctrines of the Christian faith on the nefarious twin altars of theological and political pragmatism and redefines Christianity for his own purposes.
Rauschenbusch is accurate in exhorting us to be concerned about the Kingdom of God, the present social order of things, the poor and the exploited among us, but it can be safely argued from an Evangelical and Bible believing perspective that Rauschenbusch’s views concerning Christianity and the teachings of Christ, the Apostles and the Historic Christian Church are not one in the same by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact, the chasm fixed between historic Christianity and the liberal and pragmatic revisionism of Walter Rauschenbusch in A Theology of the Social Gospel is as wide as the gulf of infinitude fixed between rich man and Lazarus mentioned by our Lord in the Gospel of Luke Chapter 16.
Rogue Reformation 