Book Review: A Theology for the Social Gospel

A Theology for the Social Gospel by Walter Rauschenbusch (Mansifeld Centre: Martino Publishing, 2011; originally published in 1918. 290 pp)

Walter Rauschenbusch was the leading proponent of the Social Gospel Movement whose mission was to reform society to meet the social needs of the poor through the ministrations of the institutional church. PBS recently called him “one of the most influential American religious leaders of the last 100 years.”

The Nature of Sin and Salvation 

When attempting to manufacture a systematic theology, the nature of sin and salvation becomes integral components of the position. Slight changes in these core beliefs cause vast differences externally. Having previously labored toward the notion of “the social gospel,” Walter Rauschenbusch writes A Theology for the Social Gospel with the aims to fill in the gaps.

Interestingly, Rauschenbusch begins his endeavor under clearly inductive principles. Where many theologians begin with wide-sweeping, theoretical principles and work down toward specifics, Rauschenbusch begins with the assumption that:

“We have a social gospel. We need a systematic theology large enough to match it and vital enough to back it” (1).

Thus, the bedrock principles of theology must fit around the idea of a social gospel.

On Sin 

Next, Rauschenbusch defines the nature of sin. Rauschenbusch rejects the classic conceptions of sin which center on the notion of personal morality. Instead, he offers,

“Sin is essentially selfishness. That definition is more in harmony with the social gospel than with any individualistic type of religion. The sinful mind, then, is the unsocial and anti-social mind” (50).

As the basic tenets of the social gospel recommend, the notion of sin must transform from an individual perception to a collective perception. Sin is not defined by the “do’s and don’ts” of individual morality but the involvement of an individual in a larger group. Rauschenbusch later suggests that sin takes effect in social scenarios; without the opportunity to inflict injustice on another human being, sin lacks an ethical bite.

Sin and the Collective Body 

Having established a social setting under which sin finds meaning, Rauschenbusch expands the meaning of sin to include social groups. For his justification of the moral value in collective organizations, Rauschenbusch quotes Josiah Royce who stated,

“There are in the human world two profoundly different grades, or levels, of mental beings,—namely, the beings that we usually call human individuals, and the being that we call communities.—Any highly organized community is as truly a human being as you and I are individually human” (71). 

The collective actions of a community carry as much weight as the actions of an individual. If a human being is capable of sinful selfishness, an organization is as well. 

On Salvation 

Given the notion of both human and communal sinfulness, Rauschenbusch’s view of salvation carries a similar dualistic nature. On one side, Rauschenbusch affirms an individual salvation when he asserts,

“If sin is selfishness, salvation must be a change which turns a man from self to God and humanity” (97).

Even though he adds the caveat of turning toward humanity, Rauschenbusch aligns himself for the most part with classic views on salvation.

Yet Rauschenbusch takes an extra step, asserting that communities also carry the responsibility of salvation. He writes,

“The Salvation of the composite personalities, like that of individuals, consists in coming under the law of Christ” (111).

In ways similar to the legal standing of corporations as individual citizens, Rauschenbusch believes that the collective actions of an organization are a source for salvific consideration.

On the Church 

For Rauschenbusch, the entity that ties together his theology of sin and salvation is the church. Rauschenbusch argues:

“The Church is the social factor in salvation. It brings social forces to bear on evil. It offers Christ not only many human bodies and minds to serve as ministers of his salvation, but its own composite personality, with a collective memory stored with great hymns and Bible stories and deeds of heroism, with trained aesthetic and moral feelings, and with a collective will set on righteousness” (119).

Therefore, the connection between personal and collective sin and salvation lies with the church. It possesses the ability to speak into the life of an individual and against the injustice of a collective.

Questions on Sin and Grace 

Even though A Theology for the Social Gospel explores the importance of adding collective moral weight to the notions of sin and salvation, certain assertions from Rauschenbusch are questionable. First, he decries the classic notion of universal sin. He writes,

“Theologians have erred, it seems to me, by fitting their definitions to the most highly developed forms of sin and then spreading them over germinal and semi-sinful actions and conditions” (45).

Most Christian traditions consider sin to be sin no matter the depth or consequence. A white lie is as sinful as committing murder. Yet, Rauschenbusch clearly believes that sin is too widely defined. Certainly, we see Christians who take liberty to declare many “gray areas” as sinful.

Despite no clear “thou shalt not drink alcohol of any kind at any time,” many moralists consider such an action as sin. However, the attempt to define a “semi-sinful” state seems dangerous. On the whole, Rauschenbusch argues against a legalistic morality, but I worry he wanders too far in the other direction.

In addition, I see no mention of grace in Rauschenbusch’s theology. There is no note on the Ephesians passage that states, “For by grace we have been saved…” (Ephesians 2:8). For Rauschenbusch, salvation occurs during alignment with God and alignment with the Church body. Given his inductive approach to the social gospel, Rauschenbusch has no need for grace. But isn’t grace the first step and those alignments a response to the original offer of grace? Clearly, Rauschenbusch does not stress a Pauline view in his social gospel. But I am wary that without mentioning grace, Rauschenbusch ignores a portion of the gospel.

Conclusion 

In A Theology for the Social Gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch sets forth an attempt for a systematic theology that fulfills the social gospel from an inductive approach. Focusing on sin and salvation that includes both personal and collective pieces, Rauschenbusch believes that the social institution of the church acts as the fulcrum between the individual and society. Nevertheless, Rauschenbusch’s view of sin and his lack of interest in grace leaves question marks. The gospel offers social aims, and Walter Rauschenbusch’s theology endeavors to provide system around it. If you are interested theology and social justice, Walter Rauschenbusch’s A Theology for the Social Gospel is a must read. However, if you find unorthodox or non-conservative theological positions dangerous, I suggest you steer clear.

Verdict: 3 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: Abraham Kuyper

Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader by Abraham Kuyper; edited by James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998. 512 pp)

Abraham Kuyper was a Dutch politician, journalist, statesman, and theologian. Kuyper studied at Leiden University and received a doctorate in 1862. He founded the Anti-Revolutionary Party and held the office of Prime Minister from 1901 to 1905. A staunch Calvinist and a proponent of conservatism, Kuyper seceded from the Dutch Reformed Church and founded the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. He published many books during his lifetime and died in the Netherlands in 1920.

James D. Bratt is a professor of history at Calvin College. He earned his B.A. from Calvin and his Ph.D. from Yale University. He is also the author of Dutch Calvinism in Modern America.

Comparative Advantage

The economic principle of comparative advantage offers an intuitive level of truth. It argues that individuals/institutions/states ought to produce items that best suit their talents. Comparative advantage is intuitive because it allows the entity to govern the action(s) at which it performs best. This very principle surrounds Abraham Kuyper’s notion of “sphere sovereignty,” the bedrock doctrine behind Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader which is a compilation of Kuyper’s influential writings.

Sphere Sovereignty

Abraham Kuyper’s writing offers much to consider. As a man involved in the church, media, government, and academics, Kuyper dabbles in many spheres. Yet, one underlying principle in all of his work is the notion of sphere sovereignty, the belief that God, the sovereign being over all of life, grants authority to specific spheres to govern each sector to the best of its ability.

A staunch Calvinist, Kuyper conservatively follows in the footsteps of previous Reformed Dutch theologians. As such, Kuyper’s worldview flows from his understanding of God as an absolute sovereign being. Kuyper writes,

“Only God is Sovereign; He regards all creatures, born in royal palace or beggar’s hut, as nothing in comparison with Himself. One creature cannot have authority over another except as God gives it” (307).

Since Kuyper places absolute authority in the hands of God, he views the exertion of authority from one group of people onto another as an affront to the sovereignty of God. For example, when government legislates what the church can and cannot do, Kuyper believes that government has overstepped its sovereign boundaries. While not explicitly stated in a concise rubric, the notion of sphere sovereignty permeates all of Kuyper’s writing.

To understand sphere sovereignty more specifically, Government holds authority over the political realm; church convenes over spiritual matters; universities over matters of education; and businesses/unions on matters of work. Kuyper confirms this idea when he notes,

“State and society are not identical. The government is not the only sovereign in the country. Sovereignty exists in distinct spheres, and in each of these smaller circles this sovereignty is bound to primordial arrangements or ordinances that have been created not by the government but by the Creator of heaven and earth” (241).

Given this position, Kuyper believes that society functions best when each sphere governs itself. Any crossover between spheres in society falls into inefficiency at best and grave injustice at worst.

Real-Life Examples of Sphere Sovereignty

Abraham Kuyper

Reacting against the injustices he readily viewed in Europe and in the colonies of the British Commonwealth, Kuyper proposed the separation of church and state found in the then still-fledgling United States and the separation of government and business in ancient Athenian democracy as examples of sphere sovereignty.

First, Kuyper found the physical and spiritual growth of the United States to be a direct result of the separation of church and state. He argues:

“No longer was there a church in the state nor a state bound to the church. The church of Christ was the point of departure. She was to make sure that the principles of justice and truth held sway in the hearts of the citizens, but the citizens in their everyday life found free organization in the state to be indispensable. Once the ideal of freedom had established itself in the bosom of the church, it inevitably sought civil rights in the domain of the state” (296).

Instead of the church-dominated legislation previously found in Europe, the church in the United States influenced the hearts of the population toward justice and, thus, influenced the legislation of government through the hearts of the citizens, not by the power of the priesthood.

Second, Kuyper found the example of Athenian democracy an excellent illustration of sphere sovereignty. Kuyper writes:

“A better way would have been to follow Solon’s approach in Athens instead of trying to imitate ancient Rome. Solon gave free rein to private initiative. He did not allow the government to get involved in business but merely stipulated that manual laborers constitute their own class of citizens, that nobody be allowed to have two trades at the same time, that foreigners from the outside be allowed to offer competition only if the local craftsmen agreed. Furthermore he gave industry the right to be sovereign in its own sphere and to make its own rules, the only restriction being that it was not to decide anything contrary to the law of the land” (244).

Again, Kuyper proposes that the sector most attuned to the operation ought to legislate its sphere. As Solon’s approach in Athens illustrates, those people that best know their trade will optimally legislate their sphere.

The Decision of One Sphere Influences Other Spheres

On the surface, the logic behind sphere sovereignty is compelling as comparative advantage illustrated earlier. It makes little sense for a career politician to decide the laws that are in the best interest of the church, business, or any other sphere. A carpenter will know the optimal way to fashion lumber; a priest will know the best way to shepherd the flock. But I am not ultimately convinced that sphere sovereignty offers the best solution for the way we organize society.

The decisions of one sphere will always influence other spheres. When business, for example, decides to pursue profit as its highest goal, it will make decisions that could negatively affect other stakeholders. Other spheres, then, have the right to condemn such actions.

At its core, I believe the danger of sphere sovereignty lies in the blinding nature of each sphere. The very reason that sphere sovereignty is compelling is the same reason why it is dangerous. Specific spheres best know their field; they also know little about how their decisions alter other fields.

Thus, I believe it is important for checks and balances between spheres. If one sphere negatively affects another, the other sphere ought to have the ability to authoritatively respond.

For Kuyper, sphere sovereignty begins with an absolutely sovereign God. For one sector to dictate the rules of another sector in society, then, is to reject God’s authority over all spheres. Each sphere, Kuyper argues, ought to sufficiently govern itself.

Despite the pull of comparative advantage that points toward agreement with Kuyper’s view on sphere sovereignty, I argue that sphere sovereignty presents danger for external stakeholders. Too often, people focused on one sphere will make decisions that are in the best interest of that specific sector but negatively harm other stakeholders.

Abraham Kuyper is an influential character in politics and theology. His theories carry much weight in modern thought and it is valuable to understand his positions. For this reason, I recommend Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader to anyone interested in theology, business, and politics.

Verdict: 3.5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links: