Christianity and the Social Crisis: Part 2

Last updated on: September 13, 2007 at 6:37 am by J. Ryan Parker

Christianity and the Social Crisis: Part 2 2007-09-13T06:37:03-07:00 J. Ryan Parker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Here is my response to the second chapter of Christianity and the Social Crisis, “The Social Aims of Jesus,” and Tony Campolo‘s reactions to it.

I am thankful that Tripp included me in the list of responders to the re-release of Walter Rauschenbusch’s Christianity and the Social Crisis. I admit with some embarrassment that I might not have read it otherwise. As I read through the table of contents, I immediately knew which chapter on which I would focus. I chose Rauschenbusch’s section on “The Social Aims of Jesus” because I am interested in how we retain Jesus’ teachings in an ever-changing cultural, social, technological climate.

Rauschenbusch’s view of Jesus’ life and ministry, and our appropriate response to it, can be summarized in a line from Kevin Smith’s (ir)reverent comedy, Dogma. Chris Rock’s character, Rufus, comments, “Jesus had a good thing going until man built a belief system around it.” Rauschenbusch’s view of the Hebrew prophets carries something of this quip’s truth. Jesus’ ministry continued the early emphasis of the Hebrew prophets’ care for the poor and oppressed and the necessity of creating just and equitable societies on earth. Rauschenbusch argues that we cannot fully understand the life and work of Jesus apart from this rich religious history.

Throughout this chapter, Rauschenbusch focuses on Jesus not being a social reformer, his relation to contemporary movements, his purpose as an active proponent of the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom’s impact on Jesus’ ethics, Jesus’ emphasis on conduct over ritual, his teachings on wealth, his social affinities, and his revolutionary consciousness. All of these elements are deeply imbued with a social consciousness. Despite Evangelical assertions to the contrary, I do not feel that Rauschenbusch avoids individual concerns but that they are rather implicit in his social emphasis. The individual matters insofar as (s)he contributes to a healthy society.

Rauschenbusch realizes the tendency of subsequent groups and individuals to appropriate Jesus’ teachings to their particular ends or movements. Rauschenbush rejects any efforts at this…unless of course they align with efforts to fight injustice and oppression. Far from seeing Jesus as a violent revolutionary or the Kingdom of God arriving by some future cataclysmic event, Rauschenbusch places the responsibility squarely on contemporary Christians to bring about the Kingdom of God through gradual, peaceful, organic change.

Perhaps I can flesh out more of my thoughts on this chapter by responding to Campolo’s response. Campolo begins by praising Rauschenbusch’s emphasis on bringing about God’s Kingdom in the here and now rather than waiting for it by and by. He laments Evangelicals’ slow arrival at this reality and its assertion to work for the poor and oppressed. Campolo, apparently speaking for the Evangelical community, finds four shortcomings in Rauschenbusch’s text. First, Campolo writes, “He does not clearly affirm the traditional church belief that Jesus was fully God incarnate. There is no doubt that Rauschenbusch affirms divine qualities in Jesus, but it is not at all clear that he views Christ as the second member of the Trinity” (77). Here, it seems as if Campolo fails to see the forest for the trees. Such a complaint runs contrary to the Hebrew prophets and Jesus’ emphasis of conduct over belief (ritual). Does an Evangelical obsession with the necessity of believing in the Trinity trump modeling one’s life after Jesus’ advocacy for the Kingdom of God?

Campolo argues second, “[…There] is a sense in which Rauschenbusch fails to grasp the radical sinfulness of the human race” (77). To counter this sinfulness, Campolo cites the need for “personal conversion in which an individual enters into a dialogical and transforming relationship with a living Christ” (78). Ironically, I would argue that if one follows Rauschenbusch’s argument to its conclusion, she would experience a radical transformation with a living Christ, not only personally, but in her surrounding community as well. Whether Campolo’s wish is exemplary of the Evangelical death grip on personal/individual faith or not, Rauschenbusch’s words counter: “Theologians have felt no hesitation in founding a system of speculative thought on the teachings of Jesus, and yet Jesus was never an inhabitant of the realm of speculative thought” (72). “Speculative thought” might be another way of describing an incessant emphasis on personal salvation. Moreover, we cannot doubt that Rauschenbush was keenly aware of the prevalence of sin, given his life-long involvement in the most “sinned against” communities in this country.

Third, Campolo claims, “We Evangelicals also have trouble with Rauschenbusch’s view of Scripture. […We] cannot accept Rauschenbusch’s belief that parts of the Bible need not be taken seriously since they are more reflections of the political pressures under which they were written than revelation from God” (78). Once again, I fear that the Evangelicals are too easily offended here. I do not think that Rauschenbusch does not take certain parts of the Bible seriously. Rather, taking it more seriously than most Evangelicals, he chooses to major on the majors. Again, Campolo might be letting a belief system stand in the way of a Kingdom ethic.

Finally, Campolo argues, “I do not believe there is necessarily a contradiction between Rauschenbusch’s idea that the kingdom of God emerges as individuals come together to form a movement through which God effects change and the traditional evangelical belief that God intervenes at the eschaton, bringing history to a dramatic and apocalyptic end” (78). I see where Campolo is going here, although part of me believes this is the least significant complaint. Though the promise of the eschaton might be a pacifier to some, it should not deter us from working in the here and now, tirelessly. Moreover, this eschaton has been used to buffer so much suffering that I believe a temporary move away from it, a la Rauschenbusch, might be in order.

In conclusion, what we have here might be irreconcilable differences fueled to a great extent by a (dis)belief in Scriptural inerrancy. Moreover, Rauschenbusch’s arguments for the social implications of Christianity can turn on him, as the Evangelicals consistently do. Rather than focusing on the poor and oppressed, they champion anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-welfare, etc. all the while claiming, like Rauschenbusch, “Whoever uncouples the religious and the social life has not understood Jesus” (42).

Previous Post

September 11, 2007

Responses to Christianity and the Social Crisis: Part 1

Next Post

September 13, 2007 Nature AND Nuture

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Classics DVD Film Music News Pop Culture Events Print Sports Television Uncategorized Video Games

Select a Month March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I saw a vision of four living creatures with four faces—human, lion, ox, and eagle—beside wheels within wheels. Who witnessed this?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Isaiah John Ezekiel Daniel