Have I any idea what I'm doing?

I haven't been posting lately, mainly because of the annual Resolved Conference held last week in Long Beach. I was there from Friday to Monday, and spent the rest of last week thinking about all I heard and saw and sang about. I think that as long as I keep going to Resolved (perhaps only another year, perhaps longer) it will serve as a nice recalibration tool for me. It's not often I hear preaching as expository and "fundamentalist" as as Resolved. It keeps me from neglecting good doctrine, while giving me an opportunity to assess how Reformed theology and compassion, humility, and charity can and should interact.

Anyway, enough excuses. I hope to post regularly from here until spring break.

So, my initial question: have I any idea what I'm doing? With this blog, with my faith, with the topic of social justice. What am I really in for? Integrating Christian doctrine, and specifically the Christian gospel, and even more specifically from a Reformed perspective, with social work is hard. Really hard. It's asking a lot. It would take a lot of personal sacrifice. It would take a lot of local church involvement. It would take a lot of Christian community commitment.

Take the issue of sanitation and hygiene in Africa. We could go and give them fresh water wells and magic filtering drinking straws and ways to take out their trash and not contaminate living areas. Let's say, in theory, this would reduce infant/child mortality by an impressive untold percentange. But wait - the mothers of these children have little in life to hope for. More living little ones also mean more mouths to feed. Little formal education means little understanding of why sanitation is crucial.

So we must not only give materially (or, in American fashion, send out $33 a month) but educate mothers about the importance of sanitary living conditions. We must convince them that it will improve their quality of life in a desirable and tangible way. We must teach them how to use what is available to them - we must teach them to teach their children. But wait - what good does quality or quantity of life do when life consists of only bleak options? Why should the mothers make cleanliness and health priorities when there are more pressing matters like having shelter and daily bread?

So we must not only educate and try to impart hope, but also give a reason to hope. We must not simply treat symptoms but give them The Cure! (Not the 80s band, the gospel.) As John Piper said on Monday at Resolved, "If you don’t care about the spiritual disease, social action is a lie." A mere bandaid or suture is not love or compassion.

You see now how much work this takes. Maybe not anything an individual can do. In fact, certainly not. And certainly not even anything a community or a nation or even the worldwide church can do, because though saved we are still but lazy, selfish, sinful people with our own problems and children and sicknesses.

But we do have Jesus Christ. We do have the Spirit of power and comfort. We do have a call to come and die. And I say this only with utmost fear (what if it comes true!), but... I do hope I'll summon the strength to go and die.

Yay for House Joint Resolution 20

"Congress has gone the extra mile to fight poverty by not only protecting the $1 billion that was at stake, but by allocating an additional $450 million in poverty-focused development assistance.

"There are few places in the U.S. budget where dollars translate so directly into lives saved.... H.J. Res. 20 provided $4.5 billion dollars to fight global AIDS and tuberculosis, another $248 million to fight malaria, and an additional $75 million for refugee assistance. The AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria funding alone represents the largest amount ever committed by the United States to fight three of the world’s most devastating diseases. With this funding, over 350,000 people will receive life-saving AIDS medicines, over one million anti-malaria bed nets will be distributed, and over 120,000 people will receive treatment for tuberculosis.

"This funding is a demonstration of genuine leadership in global development and American security.... an opportunity to the world's poorest people by giving them the tools and the perseverance to fight back against extreme poverty."

from One.org

read H.J. Res. 20 here

The Social Gospel movement, part 3

Two propositions I gleaned from the Social Gospel

Proposition #1: You can be a bleeding-heart liberal, without being theologically liberal.

Let me explain.

When I say "bleeding-heart liberal," I don't mean you support homosexual marriages or abortion. I mean you can honestly care about the environment and global warning. You can care about prisoners' well-being. You can care about the poor and even be angry at those who oppress and take advantage, even if they are a corporation or government. You - yes you - can be wary of capitalism. You could, potentially, care about being kind to animals. And, like some bleeding-hearts, you might even think that War Is Not the Answer.

Personally I think you could even vote Democrat if you felt you had to.

I say all of this in spite of a lot of empirical evidence to the contrary, though. But based on reason and biblical truth alone, it certainly is possible. I really believe that. If you want proof that God (even the "Old Testament version") is a flaming (literally), socialist, bleeding-heart liberal, click here for a sampling of the biblical data.

Proposition #2: It's hard to be a bleeding-heart liberal without being theologically liberal.

Like I said, a lot of empirical evidence says that. Look at what happened to the Social Gospel movement.

What did happen? On the surface level, the answer is simply questionable or just plain bad theology. For instance, a lot of Social Gospel activists had a post-millennial eschatology. According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know), "That is they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort." Not only is practically no one post-millennialist today, but this is a very strange outlook on human effort and our sin nature. Nothing is ever going to be perfect or even close to perfect until this world passes away. Things will likely get worse before they get better. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight til the end. That is called integrity and perseverance and hope. Good theology is faith in God's power, not our own, to bring the kingdom of God. This is just one example of being motivated by skewed thinking.

In addition, they partnered with a lot of unbelievers to combat social justice. This is probably one of the best things Christians can do in (I'm guessing) 80% of such cases. But it can be dangerous if you care more about "the fight" than the One you are fighting for. (I hope there to be a blog post about this dichotomy in the future.) Some churches and Christians became ecumenical in beliefs and interests rather than simply in scope of opportunity. The church became just another social activist, another political figure.

In the term "social gospel" the head of the phrase is "gospel," of which there is one and only one. We can't afford to lose that identity. We should be interested in people and justice, but in the end, there is only one real, all-encompassing interest and that is God. God is the gospel.

Remember, Jesus was not the political, social, and economic revolutionary the Jews thought he would be. He was in a way, but not the way they wanted him. That's why the Jews by and large missed the kingdom. Don't miss it.

The Social Gospel movement, part 2

Yesterday I wrote about the history of the Social Gospel as an American evangelical movement or consciousness at the turn of the 20th century. I wanted to give an idea of why it happened, and a preview of what it did. Today I'd like to explain a bit more about what it did (and didn't) accomplish, and what we could learn from it.

Here are a few characteristics of the Social Gospel's actions:

1. It attacked a wide variety of social problems, including poverty, inequality, alcohol (sometimes its abuse and sometimes just the thing itself), crime, prison conditions, poor working conditions, child labor, racial tension, slums and ghettos, bad hygiene, poor education systems, and the dangers of war. Abortion and homosexuality weren't rampant then as they are today, and Christians were able to disperse to all corners of society to bring aid.

There are thankfully still Christians tackling all these evils, but abortion and homosexuality seem to be all that get publicized. Who is at fault for that public perception matters less than what Christians do to consciously counteract the stereotype. (On the other hand, another lesson is that many battles are worth fighting; some [like Prohibition] might not be.)

2. The intellectuals behind the Social Gospel were often interested in economic theory and, to an extent, a form of socialism (Christian Socialism was born in this time). The Social Gospel also was a defender of libery and democracy. Capitalism was viewed not necessarily as evil but often as an unforgiving system that required human intervention to prevent it from becoming a menace.

I think a lot of people in my generation are tired of the assumed Christian-Republican-Patriot-Capitalist equivalence. Capitalism takes advantage of the reality of human nature quite well. It is also, in some senses, very "fair" by distributing wealth according to success. However, Christians know that in the Bible, blessings are not to be hoarded but shared. We should also recognize, as the Social Gospel did, that capitalism is an inherently unforgiving system that in its strictest form does not provide for mercy.

We should be wise, not submitting to a tyrannical socialism while still realizing the Biblical mandate for unselfish compassion. Unlike the Christian Socialists, I personally have less faith in government's influence, and I feel that distribution of resources is an individual responsibility even more than it is a government responsibility. So while we may rightly desire our government to operate on Christian principles, if it does not we shouldn't follow suit but give all the more to compensate.

3. Both men and women were active and visible in social work. Women showed strength and were agents of mercy to many, like Jane Addams, Ellen Gates Starr and Dorothy Day. Later in the 1930s it shifted from being a predominantly white middle-class movement to having black activists as well.

It's important for everyone to participate in community and compassionate causes. Mercy is not only women's work; politics are not the only acceptable way for men (and only men) to care and make a difference. I don't know if the Social Gospel accomplished this, but for us, I think the ideal would be a group of socially-minded Christians with the same demographics as the general population - both sexes, all ages and races and socioeconomic classes. No one would be able to mistake our reason for gathering; social justice wouldn't be mistaken for a women's cause, a black cause, a middle class cause, or a youth cause. Our sole distinguishing characteristic would be Christ and his kingdom, and the world just might be forced to notice and listen.

4. Above all, the Social Gospel movement was a time in which America saw Christians publicly take the lead in seeking to alleviate social issues. Not everyone who worked with these ministries were Christians, but to a large extent Christians were organizers and playmakers.

Maybe most important of all. A main criticism of the Social Gospel movement is that it lost its focus on the Kingdom of God as its main goal. It sometimes turned the gospel from being primarily spiritual with physical benefits, to primarily physical with a spiritual option. It also elevated the "human" in "humanitarian" and did not elevate God as publicly as he should have been. However, it would be unfair to say that these weren't true Christians or that the gospel was not proclaimed. It was, in sweeping ways. And the world noticed. Meanwhile, today Americans think Christians are "mean." And the Social Gospel's shortcomings are benefits to us who can look back and take precautions not to let it happen this time. So why should Christians be afraid to be social activists once again?

We have let social causes become "liberal" causes instead of kingdom causes. How tragic! It's going to take a lot of work for us to reclaim compassion and justice as part of God's kingdom, which is what they really are. But imagine if we not only started to join movements and organizations but gain trust and become leaders. Those who lead, those who make the cause they fight for nearest to their heart and God's heart, are the ones who can influence the motivation and ideology for WHY we fight in the first place. And that reason is the gospel - which is what the world needs most. So let's take action.

The Social Gospel movement, part 1

"The great ends of the church are
the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind;
the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God;
the maintenance of divine worship;
the preservation of truth;
the promotion of social righteousness;
and the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world."

_United Presbyterian Church of North America, The Book of Order Chapter 1 Preliminary Principles, 1910

This is the first of a two-or-three-part post about the Social Gospel movement in history, and the ways and extent to which it's relevant to the timeless truth and blessings of the Christian gospel. I also hope that, for myself and for anyone who reads this, I can clarify why I would adopt the term "social gospel" (lowercase letters) for this blog.

The Social Gospel movement, with capital letters, refers to a mostly Protestant Christian movement around the turn of the last century. You could say it lasted until Prohibition (one of its more dubious achievements), but you could also argue that its essence lasted until the American Civil Rights era in the 1960s. Maybe, just maybe, part of its legacy was continued by the hippie Jesus Movement into the 1970s, although at that point we can say with some certainty that it was more of a derailed train. At any rate, the quotation above, which is still part of PCUSA's denominational constitution, can be considered the Social Gospel's unofficial manifesto.

Actually, the Social Gospel was no single organized campaign and had no official (or even central unofficial) leaders at the time. It was more of a consciousness among what we'd now call Evangelical Christians. A consciousness of what, I'll talk about more tomorrow; but anyhow, this consciousness grew out of the rapidly changing (and often deteriorative) social conditions of the Industrial Revolution. It came at a time when the awkwardly maturing United States was becoming a nation of activists; political Progressivism was the trend and the Muckrakers were prominent on the front-page news. By contrast, the Social Gospel was not primarily political. It was first and foremost concerned with the Kingdom of God being ushered in, not only into the individual, the church, the family and the home, but into all areas of society.

True Christianity has always cared for physical and social ills like Christ did, but I think there are a few reasons for this sudden reemergence around 1900. The new growth of cities meant the growth of urban decay, and more desperation meant more social breakdown. In addition, I believe it wasn't so much that humanity suddenly got worse (individuals have always been sinners and societies always corrupt), but it probably became much more noticeable for a couple of reasons. First, perhaps because (owing to America's Christian ancestors and an agricultural society) up until the late 19th century families were generally nuclear, small communities generally cared for their needy members, and cooperation rather than competition was generally preferred. Industrialization and urbanization changed much of that. Second, perhaps also because Social Darwinism had begun to challenge the basic assumption that the weak were to be cared for rather than weeded out.

Basically, though not all Americans were Christians, American society had previously tended to operate on originally Christian values. When industrialization swept though, traditional mores were disrupted, and suddenly it became apparent to Christians that much of society was going, literally and figuratively, to hell. Social pathogens stopped laying dormant, no longer held back by conventional courtesy but unleashed by the madness of modernity, and began to ravage their way though society in a new way. Christian mobilization no longer seemed optional but crucial.

If this sounds kinda like the present era, that's because... it is kinda like the present era. And it is probably like many eras before it. Throughout history there have been societal and moral shifts, often followed by conscious Christian efforts to restore and heal.

I think there's a lot to be learned from the Social Gospel movement about how God's people can powerfully introduce restoration and healing and justice today. More on that later. I also believe there were some things about the Social Gospel that were unhealthy and led to a distortion of the gospel itself, which can serve as a warning to us. More on that later too.

What do we mean by 'justice'?

There are a lot of ideas of what justice is, especially social justice, and precious few workable definitions. This one, I liked a lot.

Justice: The order God seeks to reestablish in His creation where all people receive the benefits of life with Him.

Justice has two major aspects. First, it is the standard by which penalties are assigned for breaking the obligations of the society. Second, justice is the standard by which the advantages of social life are handed out, including material goods, rights of participation, opportunities, and liberties.

... Justice in the Bible very frequently deals with benefits. Cultures differ widely in determining the basis by which the benefits are to be justly distributed. For some it is by birth and nobility. For others the basis is might or ability or merit. Or it might simply be whatever is the law or whatever has been established by contracts. The Bible takes another possibility. Benefits are distributed according to need. Justice then is very close to love and grace.

... Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens, wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick (Job 29:12-17; Psalms 146:7-9; Malachi 3:5). Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression (Micah 2:2; Ecclesiastes 4:1). To oppress is to use power for one's own advantage in depriving others of their basic rights in the community (see Mark 12:40). To do justice is to correct that abuse and to meet those needs (Isaiah 1:17). Injustice is depriving others of their basic needs or failing to correct matters when those rights are not met (Jeremiah 5:28; Job 29:12-17).

... Freedom from bondage is comparable to not being “in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything” (Deuteronomy 28:48 NRSV).

... Thus biblical justice restores people to community.... Similarly, interest on loans was prohibited (Leviticus 25:36) as a process which pulled people down, endangering their position in the community.

... Justice delivers; it does not merely relieve the immediate needs of those in dire straits (Psalms 76:9; Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 58:11; Isaiah 62:1-2). Helping the needy means setting them back on their feet, giving a home, leading to prosperity, restoration, ending the oppression (Psalms 68:5-10; Psalms 10:15-16; compare 107; Psalms 113:7-9). Such thorough justice can be socially disruptive. In the Jubilee year as some receive back lands, others lose recently-acquired additional land. The advantage to some is a disadvantage to others.

... The most prominent human agent of justice is the ruler. The king receives God's justice and is a channel for it (Psalms 72:1; compare Romans 13:1-2,Romans 13:4). There is not a distinction between a personal, voluntary justice and a legal, public justice. The same caring for the needy groups of the society is demanded of the ruler (Psalms 72:4; Ezekiel 34:4; Jeremiah 22:15-16). Such justice was also required of pagan rulers (Daniel 4:27; Proverbs 31:8-9).

Justice is also a central demand on all people who bear the name of God. Its claim is so basic that without it other central demands and provisions of God are not acceptable to God. Justice is required to be present with the sacrificial system (Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-17; Matthew 5:23-24), fasting (Isaiah 58:1-10), tithing (Matthew 23:23), obedience to the other commandments (Matthew 19:16-21), or the presence of the Temple of God (Jeremiah 7:1-7).

_Holman Bible Dictionary