My friend Joe sent me a link the other day, asking me what I thought about the whole idea of the ‘social gospel.’ The link is a WSJ article by Joseph Loconte of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, discussing the legacy of the ‘founder’ of the social gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch. I encourage you to read it, and thus I will not attempt to recap, other than to say that it is a remarkably precise analysis of the weaknesses of Rauschenbusch’s work. I have great affection for the brothers (Campolo, Wallis, Hauerwas) cited as lauding Rauschenbusch, but I suspect they are more familiar with his legacy than his actual theology.
As Loconte points out, Christianity does not have to be distorted in order to produce works of social justice; indeed, it cannot produce anything if it is eviscerated: “The Christian confession of faith, by itself, offers no guarantee that either individuals or societies will be transformed. But, for believers, not even the smallest steps forward can be taken without it.” This echoes my favorite Dallas Willard quote; in responding to Rodney King’s mid-L.A.-riot plea of “Can’t we just all get along?”, Willard replied, firmly but perhaps wistfully, “No, we can’t… not until we become the kind of people who can get along.” Social change will not occur without personal, spiritual change.The typical response of the evangelical church today to that last statement, however, makes the lionizing of Rauschenbusch understandable. For while it might be uncomfortable to admit, for most evangelicals, social change is not only secondary, it is unimportant or even the wrong direction. Any time or resources spent on justice, reform, or economic efforts would be better spent on evangelism.
But of course it is not evangelism or social action, it is evangelism and social action; better still, it is evangelism as social action, and social action as evangelism. I am encouraged that this generation of college students seems less tied up with either/or statements, and are willing to embrace the both/and, because the Christian work in this world is clearly to be a both/and.
And of course these are not new concerns; they surfaced even in the time of John Wesley, and he had a stinging reply to questions raised by what Jesus says in Matthew 25:31ff. Wesley was asked by skeptical brethren, "what does it avail to feed or clothe men’s bodies, if they are just dropping into everlasting fire?" Wesley would then respond, "whether they will finally be lost or saved, you are expressly commanded to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. If you can, and do not... then whatever becomes of them, you shall go away into everlasting fire."
