In Introduction to Liberation Theology and the Social Gospel

A colleague of mine was writing some reflections about tradition for a seminary course when he said:

There is one other tradition I am somewhat confused about, and that is social justice. I read this book for a class during undergrad and thought it seemed out of place. I’ve got nothing against social justice, but it seems to me like it should be growing out of another tradition. I’ve never pictured anyone going to a “social justice” church. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Many. And more importantly, this topic is timely and relevant. Consider, that out of all the branches and brands of the American church, it was young and active social gospel Christians that voted for our current President. It appears our attitude towards theology can, indeed, affect our lives a great deal.

What is the Social Gospel?

Proponents of the “social gospel” and “liberation theology” emphasize the social and societal aspect of Christianity more than all other aspects. Being a Christian doesn’t so much have to do with particular beliefs about God, man, and salvation as it has to do with living a selfless, pious, and active Christian life. “Deeds, not creeds” is the battle-cry. Redemption, therefore, isn’t only about redeeming individuals from sin, but about liberating people from “oppressive social structures” and stopping the “dehumanization” that occurs in various cultures.

Given this particular slant, the social gospel takes on three major features. First, great emphasis is given to the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ teachings about the poor. So-called “red letter” Christians (i.e. Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo) who place the words of Jesus on a higher plane of relevance than the rest of Scripture are common in the social gospel movement. Second, social justice issues like poverty, global warming and environmentalism, child labor, AIDS, and education become the primary, manifested battles of the Christian faith (but not abortion). As such, the third feature naturally emerges: “deeds, not creeds.” Doctrine and debates about what serves as distinctive beliefs of the Christian faith stay on the sidelines. What matters is what you do and how you live, not what you believe or what you teach. In the words of Edward Schillebeckx taken from Gustavo Gutierrez’ A Theology of Liberation, “The church has for centuries devoted its attention to formulating truths and meanwhile did almost nothing to better the world. In other words, the Church focused on orthodoxy and left orthopraxis in the hands of nonmembers and nonbelievers.”

One of the largest proponents of a social gospel today is Tony Campolo. Campolo is the former spiritual advisor of President Bill Clinton and Professor of Sociology at Eastern University. He said in an interview with Colbert in 2007, “Jesus transcends partisan politics. That’s what’s wrong with the religious right… they have made Jesus into a Republican, and he’s not!” He stresses how “Neglecting the poor is a sin,” (Speaking My Mind, 198). He also said in the same volume, “Evangelicals claim in their defense that truth has always been narrow-minded. Using logic, they say that even as 2 + 2 = 4, so it is that the truth about the way to eternal life is narrowly defined…(Matt. 7:4).” Indeed, Campolo tends towards the more liberal side of Christian theology when it comes to homosexuality, the ethics of war, and gender roles, where he boldly asserts that withholding ordination from women is “dehumanizing.”

Another contemporary leader of the social gospel includes one of Campolo’s co-authors, Brian Mclaren (see Adventures in Missing the Point). McLaren is more popularly known as the father of the “emergent church” and author of A Generous Orthodoxy. Like all emergent types and social gospel proponents, he makes the classic distinction between religion and relationship, between faith and religion, saying, “I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God.” In addition to such straw-man arguments, he said in a 2006 edition of Leadership Journal, “If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are ((nuanced)) and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren’t sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.”

Other figures either directly or indirectly associated with these movements include Ronald J. Sider (author of Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger), Jim Wallis (Sojourners), and others.

The Origins of Liberation Theology and the Social Gospel

“The American social gospel movement represented the most practical and concrete expression of classic liberal theology.” – Stanley Grenz

Generally speaking, today’s liberation theology and social gospel movements was forged out of the life, work, and thought of three prominent figures: Albrecht Ritschl, Walter Rauschenbusch, and Gustov Gutierrez. To understand the nature of today’s church and its teachings about a social gospel, it is necessary to briefly look at each of these men.

Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889) was one of the first “classic liberals” in America. He had all the features of a liberal mindset (see Grenz, 20th Century Theology, esp pp. 51-52):

1. Christianity had to adapt to a new scientific and philosophical mindset without somehow losing itself.
2. Christianity had to have freedom to reconstruct its traditional beliefs.
3. Christianity had to focus on the practical and ethical element of faith.
4. All of these new reconstructions and accommodations to culture and the world had to be based on something other than the Bible.

Unsurprisingly, Ritschl was a heretic. He rejected the doctrine of inherited sin, the Council of Chalcedon (451), and that Christ was the bearer of the world’s sins. In any case, three emphases of Ritschl’s thought laid the foundations for a mature version of the social gospel:

1. The kingdom of God (as opposed to a stress on Christ).
2. Sin as “selfishness” (as opposed to unfaithfulness to God).
3. “God is love” as the ultimate climax of Christian theology (as opposed to a multifaceted doctrine of God that balances love/hate, justice/grace, etc.)

Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918) experienced the poverty of New York first hand and had something to say about it. In 1907 he wrote Christianity and the Social Crisis, which contains the following:

No man shares his life with God whose religion does not flow out, naturally and without effort, into all relations of his life and reconstructs everything that it touches. Whoever uncouples the religious and the social life has not understood Jesus. Whoever sets any bounds for the reconstructive power of the religious life over the social relations and institutions of men, to that extent denies the faith of the Master.

Like Ritschl, Rauschenbusch had some more liberal leaning views regarding the substitutionary atonement of Christ and the infallibility of Scriptures. But Walter also believed that capitalism was part of “the kingdom of evil in American life,” (Grenz, 61), and, following the line of Ritschl, he placed tremendous emphasis on the social kingdom. His plans to redeem both souls and social structures took the form of Christianizing the Social Order (1912). Rauschenbusch’s most important work, A Theology for the Social Gospel (1917) reevaluated virtually every major Christian doctrine in terms of the social kingdom.

Gustavo Gutierrez refined the thought of Rauschenbusch and started a global movement. He was born in Lima, Peru, and is considered the father of Latin America Liberation Theology. He received a Ph.D at Union Theological Seminary (New York) in 1960 and was an observer of Vatican II. He wrote A Theology of Liberation, which contains the following:

“The poor deserve preference not because they are morally or religiously better than others, but because God is God, in whose eyes ‘the last are first.” Xxviii

“Discourse about God comes second because faith comes first…we believe in order that we may understand…the effort of reflection has an irreplaceable role, but one that is always subordinate to a faith that is lived and receives guidance within the community of the church.” Xxxiv

“Theology is reflection, a critical attitude. Theology follows; it is the second step…Theology does not produce pastoral activity; rather it reflects upon it. Theology must be able to find in pastoral activity the presence of Spirit inspiring the action of the Christian community.” 9

“In the liberation approach, sin is not considered as an individual, private or interior reality…sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of fellowship and loving relationships among persons…sin is evidence in oppressive structures.” 102-103

“To sin is to refuse to love.” 113

“Christians have not done enough in this area of conversion to the neighbor, to social justice, to history. They have not perceived clearly enough yet that to know God is to do justice. They still do not live in one sole action with both God and humans.” 118

One can clearly see the fruition and evolution of Ritschl and Rauschenbusch’s thought. It wasn’t long and liberation theology started gaining traction. In 1962-65, the Roman Catholic Church was holding the ecumenical Vatican II meeting. This opened the doors for more socially-active movements. In 1968, the massive Episcopalian CELAM II Conference set out to identify “institutionalized violence.” This second major meeting symbolized the beginning of almost a world-wide recognition of the liberation theology movement.

Evaluation and Conclusion

In summary, liberation theology and the social gospel have the following trends:

• Theology is always contextual, never universal. There is a devaluing of such assertions as “objective truth.”
• Theology and the Christian life should be built on the “sociology of knowledge.” Our behavior and the needs of society determine our understanding of God and our worldview, not the other way around (where our worldview determines our behavior).
• Sin is not just individual, but societal. As Gutierrez said, “In the liberation approach, sin is not considered as an individual, private or interior reality…sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of fellowship and loving relationships among persons…sin is evident in oppressive structures.” A Theology of Liberation, 102-103, emphasis mine
• Christians need to take political action, not merely spiritual action. There must be action, not simply contemplation.

Stanley Grenz offers additional insight in 20th Century Theology:

Nearly all liberation theologians use Marxist social analysis to understand the particular situation of poverty in Latin America…capitalism is inherently evil…socialism…is the ideal form of economies. (220)

The liberation theology movement seeks to break down the physical/spiritual distinction. If you really love God, your actions will show it. God and the Exodus is the perfect example, liberation theologians argue.

Moreover, theology is actually a second step in method.

Discourse about God comes second because faith comes first…we believe in order that we may understand…the effort of reflection has an irreplaceable role, but one that is always subordinate to a faith that is lived and receives guidance within the community of the church. Xxxiv, A Theology of Liberation

Criticism of Gustov Gutierrez is necessary at this point.  A person is already doing theology to some degree if a person knows how to live or if that person has faith. Gustov cites Anselm and Augustine and their famous quote about believing before understanding. But they are not saying faith comes before any theology or theological knowledge. Understanding is not entirely absent from faith. When a person has faith, he has faith in something. He has at least some understanding of what it is, otherwise he could accidentally believe in Allah or Buddha just as much as Jehovah.

The first stage or phase of theological work is the faith that finds expression in prayer and commitment. To live the faith means to put into practice, in the light of the demands of the reign of God, these fundamental elements of Christian existence. Faith is here lived “in the church” and geared to the communicator of the Lord’s message.

That’s impossible. It’s only if we have defined first these “fundamental elements.” If the first phase of theological commitment is purely “prayer and commitment,” to whom or what are we praying to? As soon as a Christian answers that question, he/she has just done theology, which disproves this whole argument. And if faith here is lived “in the church,” what is the church? To answer that requires to do theology first. And what is the Lord’s “message”? How can Christians do this first phase without having at least known what the Lord’s message is? Again, theology is central.

Theology is reflection, a critical attitude. Theology follows; it is the second step…Theology does not produce pastoral activity; rather it reflects upon it. Theology must be able to find in pastoral activity the presence of Spirit inspiring the action of the Christian community. Theology of Liberation, 9

In conclusion, the liberation theology movement has stressed more practical elements of the Christian faith and held the Body of Christ accountable for not giving proper attention to the poor. With growing monopolies and international corporations taking advantage of underdeveloped countries, Gustavo’s message may have been needed. However, while some of Gutierrez’ arguments are consistent and biblically-based, we always have to ask at what cost they come. Should the Bible really be interpreted purely in terms of our experience, or should we be trying to understand the historical context of the Bible first, and then interpreting our experience in light of that revelation? Sin can be both structural and individual, and perhaps the liberation theology movement has neglected the power of individual choices while holding societal structures accountable for the evil in today’s world.

Arguments from today’s social gospel proponents, on the other hand, lack consistency. Just as it is common to hear Campolo say that Jesus is not a Republican, it is common to hear McLaren say “I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God.” The obvious problem is, no one is arguing those things. No thoughtful Christian is saying Jesus is a Republican or that human beings are saved by objective truth and not Jesus. The social gospel movement is plagued with this kind of straw-men type argumentation. Very little fruitful interaction is taking place, while misrepresentations and overreactions tend to dominate the public square.

Neither the left nor the right understands the reasons the left and the right came into existence in the first place. And both sides assume that their opponents don’t understand the other. The religious right assumes that the left has no idea how important objective truth, doctrine, and contemplation really is. Meanwhile, the left assumes that the right has no idea how important social action and justice is. The right says “worldview affects your behavior” while the left says “your behavior and experience affects your worldview.”

In brief, the theological right screams “creeds!” while the theological left screams “deeds!” – as if Jesus or anyone in the New Testament made such a distinction! Both Romans and James are in the Bible for a good reason: so that Christians will keep balance and knit their hearts close to their heads. It is only a rational and godly thing to pursue this end.