Jan 23, 2012
The Re-”Emergents” of the Social Gospel
Posted by Pastor Todd Murphy in | Comments (0)
If you have spent any time in an evangelical or fundamentalist church, you have been probably conditioned to reject anything that sounds like the social Gospel. This is understandable. And to be clear, the social Gospel is not “The Gospel.” Unfortunately in many quarters it is making a comeback. But not within the mainline Protestant denominations that went theologically liberal in the 20th century. This is happening within the landscape of evangelicalism in the minds an hearts of her sons and daughters. Essentially for many of the new generation, the old Fundamentalism and Neo-Evangelicalism provided a cold, doctrinaire and rigid system devoid genuine spiritual nurture. It became a place of a choice between mindless conformity or shame and rejection. In the wake of the fundamentalist controversies of the early 20th century, through fear of liberalizing, many turned to a doctrinally structured religion of conformity. If you believed, agreed to, and confessed the party line, you are “in” and you were a Christian. The Christian faith became cognitive, rather than incarnational. Salvation became something that took place in only in the mind. To be sure, salvation cannot be separated from our mind. But still from an orthodox Augustinian standpoint, Salvation is something that God does. The mind is affected in the process of discipleship. But the mind itself does not manufacture salvation for the individual. Any way you look at it, for many who grew up in this, the Gospel became something cold and tyrannical where people were denied the right to ask honest questions. In many ways American fundamentalism is a religion of fear that results in forced homogenization. Moreover, it is idolatry because its trust is actually not in the person of the risen Christ, but in ones’ self willing to “accept” and “believe” the right things which is ultimately a religion of works. It is no wonder this is being rejected by the new generations. It is a gross caricature of orthodox Christianity and that is obvious because of how it has failed not only its own children, but also in how it has failed to bring the Gospel to the world.
Needless to say, those who are coming out of these at times abusive versions of Christianity have every good reason to be offended by it. It is essentially a conditional love. It says, if you do not believe like me, you cannot be in relationship with me. This does not mean we do not strive for orthodoxy. I hold to the catholic creeds and the Reformed confessions down the line. As an example, in a home, nurturing children in the faith needs to possess both unconditional embrace and challenge. Children need to be able to ask questions, doubt, be unconditionally loved, and yet be gently challenged to the the right way of thinking by their parents. The ancient images of God the Father and Holy Mother Church tell us that the church’s role is fundamentally the same. It is to be a place of gentle challenge where orthodoxy is always strived for, but not a forced or oppressive homogenization of belief. Human’s need both the nurture of real community without the loss of self and ability to think through matters of faith.
After this icy experience, this new generation is searching out new waters, and unfortunately many have found their home in the Emergent Church and similar movements. We need to understand that this is also reactionary. Part of what has defined this movement is it wholesale rejection of classic Christian belief. Instead of seeing the problem in “how” right doctrine was fought for, it blames doctrine itself. By doing so, it banishes itself to the be tossed about the waves of doctrinal indifference. The Emergent movement as a reincarnation of the social Gospel is focused on only what people do and not what they believe, failing to see how one inculcates the other. It is the opposite extreme of some forms of Fundamentalism that diminish any emphasis on obedience or good works. The new social Gospel then leans into defining Christianity purely by what we do at the expense of doctrinal commitments.
We need to also be aware of the tendency toward the opposite. As with Fundamentalism and forms of ultra conservative Christianity, there is the polar tendency to react to anything that speaks of “good works.” In other words, for many “conservative Christians,” anything that demands moral obedience to God’s commands is interpreted as the social Gospel or at the least, “works salvation.” This is an equal error. The problem is not being theologically conservative though. I am theologically conservative. The problem then is fear and anxiety. What leads to destructive, judgmental, impatient and abusive relationships is not doctrine itself, but the emotional condition of those who hold to it. The problem with fundamentalism is not its doctrine. It is its fear and unbelief in the face of challenge. Here is the bottom line. If someone really believes a doctrinal position toward God, then they will feel no need to have anxiety and fight about it. Why? Because they really believe that about God and are secure in it. It is only a cornered animal that wants to fight.
What we need to clearly understand is that biblical faith and repentance is neither of these. It is not fear based withdrawal from our neighbor in an effort to guard the castle of orthodoxy. But it is even less an anxious reaction that confuses serving our neighbor with genuine Christian responsibility. Our call is to repent of our sins. In so doing, it moves all the way from top to bottom and back. It applies from the most inner thought life all the way to the homeless person or the grumpy girl at the checkout counter. True repentance is social because as we see in John’s epistles it is revolves around our neighbor. But it is not a response to our neighbor. It is a response to God applied to our neighbor.
Posted by Pastor Todd Murphy in | Comments (0)
Before you post that comment, give it a ponder.
