Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Rauschenbusch: The Social Principles of Jesus

Rauschenbusch: The Social Principles of Jesus

Last updated on: October 13, 2025 at 5:19 pm by Roger E. Olson

0 Comments

Rauschenbusch: The Social Principles of Jesus 2025-10-13T17:19:26-05:00 Roger E. Olson

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 I begin discussion of Walter Rauschenbusch’s book The Social Principles of Jesus with the first chapter: The Value of Human Life. If you have read the chapter, feel free to comment. If not, feel free to ask a question. In any case, observe the rules stated at the end of this post.

For those who do not know, Walter Rauschenbusch was the leading theologian of the American Social Gospel movement. He died in 1918 after teaching for many years at Rochester Baptist Theological Seminary in New York. He wrote three major volumes: The Social Crisis, Christianizing the Social Order, and A Theology for the Social Gospel.

Like some of you, I suspect, I was raised to think of “social gospel” as a heresy. Only when I read Rauschenbusch did my mind change about that. Yes, it is possibly true that he was not entirely orthodox, but it’s difficult to tell. In A Theology for the Social Gospel he rarely denied any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. But he did reinterpret some, such as original sin, to fit with the “new” thinking of the Progressive Movement. However, he argued that his reinterpretations were not unbiblical even if they were sometimes non-traditional.

In this chapter, The Value of Human Life, Rauschenbusch argues that Jesus regarded all people, even the lowliest in the eyes of society, as loved by God and therefore people of inherent dignity and worth. Although he does not name it “Social Darwinism,” he outlines the enemy and identifies it and argues that Jesus rejected it. That is the idea that since nature weeds out the weak so should we, by neglect if not by force.

Recently here I claimed that there are two kinds of people—individualists and organicists—and asked which Jesus was. And which Christians should be.

One thing is clear from this chapter: Rauschenbusch believed Jesus regarded humanity as an organism with every member responsible for every other member.

Up until the Social Gospel, Christians in America (and elsewhere, I’m sure) thought of Christian social feeling as displayed through charity. The problem Rauschenbusch and I have with that is that even Christians are sinfully given to defining the “worthy poor” as people who are like us—at least in terms of our “work ethic.” And we often broaden that to mean that the “worthy poor” (worthy of our charity) are good citizens, hard working (if they can be), and of strong character. Then we tend to overlook those who are down-and-out because of systemic forces, prejudices, generational poverty, mental disability, etc.

And in Rauschenbusch’s time, and ours, it was becoming manifest to anyone who had eyes to see that charitable organizations and churches could not bear the burden of making life livable for everyone. So Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospel Movement called on the government to step in and help everyone. Not necessarily with cash but with life’s necessities, especially equal opportunity to thrive. Rauschenbusch believed that Jesus would urge his followers with government power (and almost all government leaders in his day claimed to be Christians) to move beyond private charity to welfare. Welfare through things like free public education (with all public schools being equal), rights of workers to strike (extremely controversial in his time), and jobs provided by the government especially in times of economic distress.

But, in this chapter, Rauschenbusch is simply laying out Jesus’s high regard for every individual’s life regardless of his or her social status. That’s the beginning, the foundation of a Christianized society or of a Christian social consciousness.

What does that mean for us in America today with regard to immigrants, even those who are here among us without legal standing? Rauschenbusch talks in this chapter about anti-immigrant sentiment and suggests it is not consistent with the social principles of Jesus. Many Americans think they think that there’s a difference in kind between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants and that it is okay to hate illegal immigrants and disregard their very humanity in how we treat them. But would Jesus think that? He commanded us to love everyone. How are we loving illegal, undocumented immigrants as we tear them away from their families, jobs, homes, and crowd them into concentration camps (whatever they are called) for possible deportation to places they have never been and do not know (e.g., South Sudan)?

And do we acknowledge history which tells us that many of our own ancestors came to America (or its predecessor places) illegally? The first immigrants to North America from Europe were not legal in a moral sense. They simply took over land from the indigenous people. Texas belonged to Mexico when thousands of illegal American immigrants flooded into it and took it away from Mexico.

Am I suggesting that Jesus would abolish borders and boundaries? No, but I am suggesting he would condemn harsh treatment of those who live among us just because they are here without our permission. He would certainly condemn the hatred many even Christian express toward them solely because they are “illegals.” And the fact that many even Christians truly hate them because they are brown and speak Spanish.

*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure your comment is relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.”

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 9, 2025

Two Kinds of People?

Next Post

October 16, 2025 Why I Am an Evangelical Arminian continued

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"No doubt Lewis was inspired by earlier thinkers. Ironically (or perhaps serendipitously) I am now ..."

Roger Olson

The Abolition of Man: Chapter 3: ..."

"I am sure Lewis would agree. After all, as a Christian he believed in original ..."

Roger Olson

The Abolition of Man: Chapter 3: ..."

"If I’m not mistaken, the quote from Lewis is his interpretation of the “Conditioners’” own ..."

Roger Olson

The Abolition of Man: Chapter 3: ..."

"Thank you! It's been a great re-read of a thought provoking, but somewhat dense, little ..."

Øyvind J. Karstad

The Abolition of Man: Chapter 3: ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 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

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I wanted a vineyard so badly that my wife arranged the owner's death through false witnesses. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Ahab Jezebel Naboth