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.