Thread: A problem with the Social Gospel? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026018
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
From time to time, I watch Youtube videos of the sermons of Dr Raphael Warnock from Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta, Georgia (Martin Luther King's old church). Now, let me make it clear that I listen to what he has to say because I think he's an amazing speaker. He puts most preachers to shame. I also happen to agree with pretty much everything he says, although his focus is often on American politics, which I don't follow very closely.

BUT, I've found myself worrying where the Christianity is in all of it. I'm sure that Dr Warnock would say that his message is absolutely based in the teachings and ministry of Jesus, and I'm sure that it is the basis of his beliefs. I have no reason to doubt that he is an orthodox Christian. But, despite the Biblical quotations and references to Jesus, I'm not sure that I've ever heard him say anything that I can't imagine being said by a Unitarian minister, or a Liberal Jewish Rabbi, or — for that matter — any centre-left secular person.

Now, it's great to find common ground with these people, but I do worry that Social Gospel preachers are at risk of reducing Christianity to the Categorical Imperative, and Orthopraxy to a mixture of social work and moderately left-wing politics. I'm not saying that there's not a place for those things (I think there very much is), but I can't see how it's distinctively Christian.

Am I just overly sensitive on this point?

BTW: this a very typical example of Dr Warnock's teaching, although not actually a sermon in this case.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I've heard that kind of comment about a number of church activities - are we doing anything the local Lions Club can't do?

Like, there are secular food pantries and church-run food pantries, is there any difference? Do we offer anything that fills the real need better or speaks to other needs the secular providers don't?

When the beggar asks for money, can we say "silver and gold have I none but I'll give you something better than money" and make such a difference in his life he is leaping with joy?

Or are we just one more handout?

Not saying it's a bad thing for a church to run a food pantry, but is that all we have to offer?
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
But "the real need" for the hungry is actually food, isn't it? People are hungry because they have no food, not because they don't believe in Jesus.

Jesus didn't say "For I was hungry and you gave me a Bible, I was thirsty and you told me your Gospel, I was a stranger and you told me about heaven..."

Don't get me wrong, I don't think social work is all that the church should be doing, but frankly it would be a good start in many cases! I personally see that passage in Matthew (amongst others) as a direct call to social action because in serving the other you are serving Christ himself. (Which is not to say that I'm good at doing it...at all...)
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
We've been running a hot supper with most of the publicity going towards the "low-rent" section of the village, getting about 30 or more out to eat, mingle and chat. Very pleasant - they appreciate the offer, they come as they are, the kids play reasonably well, a "good time is had by all".

Several of our congo are now on good terms with quite a few "nones" whom we would not otherwise have met, and there is now the opportunity to be helpful when needed. Trying to keep it low key, but living out the Gospel, particularly the Second Great Commandment.

It is quite obvious that the people who are most ill at ease are our own congregants, many of whom act as if they have to try speaking in another language (which, of course, is somewhat true!)

But the Gospel, or the Bible as a whole, doesn't make sense if you live cloistered away from the rest of us.

A state school is actually a more Christian entity than many (most?) churches, in that the school must accept all the children, regardless of their parents, their social standing, their (in)abilities...

This, in turn, is why so many Christians send their children to some other sort of school ,so said children won't have to put up with real people.

The Church acts more like Hyacinth Buckett than it does Onslow and Daisy. But this is not the message of the Bible.
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
Most of the people I know aren't Christians. One of their first complaints about churches is that they don't practice what they preach. Which they usually think of as the sort of thing Jesus told people to do. If you want to reach those people, that's what you have to do first.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Most of the people I know aren't Christians. One of their first complaints about churches is that they don't practice what they preach. Which they usually think of as the sort of thing Jesus told people to do. If you want to reach those people, that's what you have to do first.
Most of the Christians (and Churches) that I know are, indeed, out there feeding the poor, clothing the naked and so on. Most of the non-Christians I know don't know anything about that, but do know a lot about people protesting on TV about same-sex marriage and abortion.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I would suggest that if the effect of Christianity is to cause people to do good things, that's a feature, not a bug, regardless of whether those are the same good things a virtuous non-Christian would do. The difference comes in acknowledging whom we have to thank that we have been given the ability and will to do to good.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
A couple of interesting quotes from William Booth, Founder of The Salvation Army:


quote:
Nobody gets a blessing if they have cold feet and nobody ever got saved while they had toothache
quote:
To get a man soundly saved it is not enough to put on him a pair of new breeches, to give him regular work, or even to give him a University education. These things are all outside a man, and if the inside remains unchanged you have wasted your labour. You must in some way or other graft upon the man's nature a new nature, which has in it the element of the Divine.

 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Most of the Christians (and Churches) that I know are, indeed, out there feeding the poor, clothing the naked and so on. Most of the non-Christians I know don't know anything about that, but do know a lot about people protesting on TV about same-sex marriage and abortion.
Sadly true for most people, I should think. It's not entirely the fault of Christians, though; people protesting vehemently about social matters like same-sex marriage is deemed newsworthy whereas most of the social action carried out by Christians is pretty low-profile so doesn't make the news.

But of course this means Christians should be aware of the image we're portraying when we protest about what we perceive as society's ills...
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Most of the Christians (and Churches) that I know are, indeed, out there feeding the poor, clothing the naked and so on. Most of the non-Christians I know don't know anything about that, but do know a lot about people protesting on TV about same-sex marriage and abortion.
I agree. This seems to be the problem of a multiplicity of denominations. Any Christian group who gets into the news become, by default, the voice of Christianity to many people.

On the other hand the Anglican church has done itself no favours in its handling of women priests/bishops (a Dead Horses subject I know) or the Occupy movement outside St Paul's. There is a fine line between having a nuanced view of a complex subject and equivocation. And it's not the sort of distinction the media are interested in.

Last time I thought the Church really made a noticeable positive impact on public opinion was during Margaret Thatcher's era. But being a fairly unrepentant leftie I would say that wouldn't I?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
It is noticeable that the new Pope had very positive reviews because he actually spoke about issues that matter in a positive way. How many other church people (clergy or laity) so silent?
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
This is one area where churches could make a real difference but don't.

I think I've referred to this before, but my city's welfare department (as an example) developed a new application process several years ago that seems intentionally designed to prevent the vast majority of applicants (details on request) from actually asking for assistance. The process is almost self-parodying -- ridiculously onerous and cumbersome.

My former church, whose members are largely upper-middle-class, reasonably well-off, were unaware
of this. Such aid to the poor as they gave out was, in theory, intended to assist those who "fell through the cracks," not understanding that the "cracks," in this case, had become more like canyons.

With the new app process, the numbers of people seeking aid from our church began to swell, and before long, our committee in charge of aid was having discussions about "deserving" poor, and developing a screening process to avoid handouts to the cheaters, frauds, service-abusers, etc. of the middle-class imagination. (Not that these don't exist, but the numbers are smaller than most think.)

In short, we were in serious danger of using the city's "turn 'em off, so you don't have to turn 'em down" model as a basis for our own charitable giving.

My experience in helping my clients apply for assorted city welfare benefits was an eye-opener for this committee, and I was happy to see the discussion turn quickly to "But where does Jesus suggest screening people?"

Of course, there's also the problem of churches having shallower pockets than even the city welfare department and wanting to be good stewards of their resources.

I wish churches could consolidate their efforts in ways that put pressure on government-run assistance, making those programs live up to the promises they seem to hold out.

The real problem, AFAICS, is that the majority of US anti-poverty programs do nothing to help their clients out of poverty. Quite the opposite: they maintain their clients in poverty -- with the clients then being blamed for becoming dependent.

One example: Husband deserts wife and toddler; wife applies for & gets state welfare; several months later, wife finds a job with barely-livable wages and no health insurance and wants to take it in order to get off welfare; social worker informs wife she can start working but risks having her kid taken away, as having no health benefits renders her, in the eyes of the state, a neglectful and unfit parent. Guess what the woman decides to do?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I know the food pantry near my house is run by a church only because I know the people who started it. The food pantry has no indication on the building or inside that any church as anything to do with it. Most people assume it's another secular food pantry.

It's great that churches want to help feed the poor, but shouldn't they be willing to drop a hint about why they feel that motivation? A hint that there's more to life than food? Food matters, so does knowing God.

The big secular food pantry refuses to tell it's own clients they can go there for more food. A charity attracts donors/grants by statistical success, they see the free one as competition, a threat to their growth in ability to attract donations (and thus a threat to salary increases).

The secular world isn't going to tell people about the work churches do (if only to keep their secular persona and not seem to endorse any church); the churches aren't admitting they are providing the help, why would anyone think church do anything for the community?

Has "don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing" inappropriately silenced the churches? What happened to "Let your light shine so others can see and be attracted to whatever is motivating you"?

If people have no idea what churches are doing for the community, that's not entirely the newspapers' fault.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Has "don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing" inappropriately silenced the churches? What happened to "Let your light shine so others can see and be attracted to whatever is motivating you"?

If people have no idea what churches are doing for the community, that's not entirely the newspapers' fault.
Great points, Ms Ringer. So how can we let our light shine without inappropriate blowing of our own trumpet? (Mixed metaphors ahoy!) Answers on a postcard, please...

I guess on the personal level, Christians involved in social action should always be ready to speak about our faith when we feel it's appropriate to do so. But judging the appropriateness is no simple task...
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Great points, Ms Ringer. So how can we let our light shine without inappropriate blowing of our own trumpet? (Mixed metaphors ahoy!) Answers on a postcard, please...
A small badge/brooch. It can work wonders - some one agreed to go out with me after a chance encounter because I was wearing a CND badge (Bad people, she told me, don't wear CND badges). We've been married for nearly thirty years.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I sat today listening to people discuss two different food related projects. Lets call them big project and small project. The people who were discussing the projects were interested in raising the quality of food in the projects. However it came across quite clearly that the way clients view the projects is very different.

In big project clients grumble about the food. In the small one clients give praise for the food. The big difference is the ethos behind the two project. The big project focuses on feeding homeless people, the small project focuses on providing a space where all people are treated with dignity (it just happens to do this while providing food).

I would like to say the small one was Christian and the big one was secular. Unfortunately they are both Christian. However I do believe that the focus for a Christian project should not be on doing it efficiently but on seeing the person who has the need. I think by doing that our social outreach activities are shaped by part of the Gospel and become more than just another project.

Jengie
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:


Now, it's great to find common ground with these people, but I do worry that Social Gospel preachers are at risk of reducing Christianity to the Categorical Imperative, and Orthopraxy to a mixture of social work and moderately left-wing politics. I'm not saying that there's not a place for those things (I think there very much is), but I can't see how it's distinctively Christian.

Am I just overly sensitive on this point?

I don't think you're overly sensitive at all.

The Social Gospel is a good thing in its place. But it's not the entirety of the Gospel, nor even its main point. In many churches it's become the tail that wags the dog, and questions of faith are waved aside with bromides about "kingdom work".

It cannot be denied that works of corporal mercy are part of living the Christian life. It is equally undeniable, though, that the focus of the Christian religion is the saving of souls, one at a time. The Social Gospel is good when it serves to help bring people closer to Jesus. When it stops serving that central imperative, it's in danger of becoming a heresy.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Fr Weber: It is equally undeniable, though, that the focus of the Christian religion is the saving of souls, one at a time.
Remind me to never become a part of that religion.

I guess I am influenced by both Liberation Theology and Taizé: both the social and the spiritual aspects are important to me. To me personally there is no struggle or competition between them, they are complimentary aspects of my faith.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Fr Weber: It is equally undeniable, though, that the focus of the Christian religion is the saving of souls, one at a time.
Remind me to never become a part of that religion.

I guess I am influenced by both Liberation Theology and Taizé: both the social and the spiritual aspects are important to me. To me personally there is no struggle or competition between them, they are complimentary aspects of my faith.
I agree that both social and spiritual aspects are important. But once the social aspect becomes the main focus, the church begins traveling down a road which eventually leads away from Christianity.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Fr Weber: But once the social aspect becomes the main focus, the church begins traveling down a road which eventually leads away from Christianity.
If the road to Christianity leads away from the social aspect, I don't want to be travelling it.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Surely there is a healthy medium between saving souls is the goal and social aspect is what matters? It probably says something about me, but I don't see either saving souls or social gospel as the primary message of the gospel. I'd say it's all about about bring humans closer to God. That obviously means tackling sin, but it also means showing people what God's priorities are, which surely include the feeding the poor, nursing the sick etc.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I think the biggest issue I have with some forms of Christianity is this decoupling between social and spiritual aspects.

Spiritual aspects are being to reduced to 'saving people's souls'. I don't even believe in saving people's souls, at least not in the way it is usually portrayed.

'Saving people's souls' is presented as something that's entirely between the person and God: people should repent of their sins and accept Jesus as their saviour in their hearts and yaddayaddayadda. And your sins are usually defined in terms of not listening enough to your preacher, not titheing enough, and especially doing things with your naughty bits.

When I read the Gospels, I see Jesus saying different things: sin is not caring enough about your neighbour. Not feeding, clothing, visiting him or her. Leaving him by the side of the road while feeling all pious.

If there is anything like 'saving our souls' it's being saved from our egoism, it's seeing that there's more in this world than just me-me-me, it's realizing that there is a bigger, spiritual dimension to everything. And in this dimension, Jesus is standing besides us.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
NO LeRoc, dead faith is better than living works. But if you MUST do living works, make sure that you only do it as a pretext for dead faith. That they say the sinner's prayer so they can die and you can go on to the next 'person of peace'.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: NO LeRoc, dead faith is better than living works. But if you MUST do living works, make sure that you only do it as a pretext for dead faith. That they say the sinner's prayer so they can die and you can go on to the next 'person of peace'.
My sarcasm detector is softly beeping here, so I'll go along with that [Biased]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think the biggest issue I have with some forms of Christianity is this decoupling between social and spiritual aspects.

Spiritual aspects are being to reduced to 'saving people's souls'. I don't even believe in saving people's souls, at least not in the way it is usually portrayed.
We don't see much of that attitude these days, though. Most denominations, even the most conservative, realise that they have to do more than simply preach at people. Talk is cheap.

However, in the wealthiest countries, social care can now be provided far more efficiently by secular agencies than by church groups. And as both church finances and the number of practising Christians go down it'll be a challenge for churches to play the role of generous provider or effective champion.

In the developing countries where there are growing numbers of Christians the 'social gospel' may well mean Christians helping each other and their local communities, rather than a wealthy church on one side helping 'poor people' on the other.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
SvitlanaV2: However, in the wealthiest countries, social care can now be provided far more efficiently by secular agencies than by church groups.
In a number of countries the social care provided by the government is being demolished quite rapidly though, not in the least by politicians and parties who call themselves 'Christian'.

quote:
SvitlanaV2: In the developing countries where there are growing numbers of Christians the 'social gospel' may well mean Christians helping each other and their local communities, rather than a wealthy church on one side helping 'poor people' on the other.
This is true, and I have seen some very good examples of that.
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SvitlanaV2: However, in the wealthiest countries, social care can now be provided far more efficiently by secular agencies than by church groups.
In a number of countries the social care provided by the government is being demolished quite rapidly though, not in the least by politicians and parties who call themselves 'Christian'.
Putting the two points together, the church's role could be in campaigning against such moves. It's getting people fed that counts, you don't have to do it all yourself.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
I'm scarcely a Sola Fide type myself (i.e. a firmly believe the Epistle of James when it says 'faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead'), but I would expect the works to be rooted in faith.

I may be displaying a cultural lack of understanding about liberal Protestantism when I say this, but I've always found that Roman Catholics tend to get the balance about right. Not that I agree with every aspect of current RC social teachings, but Dead Horses aside, works like Rerum Novarum and the numerous responses to it, seem to me to be a good example of how works can flow from faith. Similarly with Frank Weston's speech ('Our Present Duty') to the Anglo-Catholic conference. Note that all of these start from the position of faith ('Jesus in the Tabernacle') and move from there to works ('Jesus in the slums'). This, to me, is what makes them a distinctly Christian response to the problems of the world. There are, of course, distinctly Jewish, Islamic, and Buddhists responses to these problems, and other responses routed in no religious understanding.

Perhaps because I'm so used to seeing Christianity in strongly sacramental terms (the main reason why I have not become a Quaker), I lose sight of the connection between our faith and our charity except when presented in strongly sacramental terms.

Perhaps some of the Ship's members from liberal Protestant traditions might explain how they see the connection.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
que sais-je: Putting the two points together, the church's role could be in campaigning against such moves. It's getting people fed that counts, you don't have to do it all yourself.
I agree completely.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Perhaps some of the Ship's members from liberal Protestant traditions might explain how they see the connection.
I don't know about others, but I would say that I think many of Christ's most strongly worded instructions were about loving others, righting wrongs, and showing people God's love. I don't see how we can do that but to fight injustice, and to help the metaphorical widows and orphans.
Don't take this as a criticism, but I don't think God would tell people sorry I'll be taking communion with my besties while you're starving. Feel free to come in for a bit of wine. Communion is a big reason I'm still part of the church. It's very important to me, but if that's all we have, we're the people (Paul?) mentioned who go to communion early and eat up all the food leaving those who have to work late to go hungry.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
S. Bacchus: I may be displaying a cultural lack of understanding about liberal Protestantism when I say this, but I've always found that Roman Catholics tend to get the balance about right. Not that I agree with every aspect of current RC social teachings, but Dead Horses aside, works like Rerum Novarum and the numerous responses to it, seem to me to be a good example of how works can flow from faith.
I'm inclined to look more at the practical level, and I personally know a lot of RC parishes in Latin America that get the balance exactly right at this level.
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
... And your sins are usually defined in terms of not listening enough to your preacher, not titheing enough, and especially doing things with your naughty bits.

When I read the Gospels, I see Jesus saying different things: sin is not caring enough about your neighbour. Not feeding, clothing, visiting him or her. Leaving him by the side of the road while feeling all pious.
...
Mark's gospel includes a report of Jesus explaining what is sinful, and the list includes two activities where people do things with their naughty bits.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
A.Pilgrim: Mark's gospel includes a report of Jesus explaining what is sinful, and the list includes two activities where people do things with their naughty bits.
Let's forget on the 10.000 things that Jesus said about caring for your neighbour and concentrate on those two words, shall we? [Roll Eyes]

In any case, you won't hear me denying that sexual immorality (note that He doesn't define this further) or adultery are bad things. But even those things aren't portrayed here as exclusively between you and God.

If you commit adultery, the problem isn't that you have become less holy and you shouldn't put it right to God. The problem is that you promised to be faithful to someone and you deceived that person.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
My OP was really more about teaching and belief than praxis. Of course Christians are called to help the poor, the sick and the needy.

But if we turn that goal into the primary message of Christianity, how does the mandate of the Church then differ from that of social services? Saying that the Church takes care of people that social services neglect doesn't answer that question (glad that I am that it may be the case).

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

Don't take this as a criticism, but I don't think God would tell people sorry I'll be taking communion with my besties while you're starving. Feel free to come in for a bit of wine.
Well, no, but that's not what Bishop Weston said. It's about the opposite of what he said, which was that Catholic Christians (he was addressing Anglo-Catholics, but the point is broader) are compelled by their sacramental faith to help the poor. I like this approach because it doesn't treat the theology just as window-dressing for social action. Now, obviously, the highly sacramental view expressed by Weston is not going float the boats of most Protestants (most of whom wouldn't think of themselves as worshiping Christ in the tabernacle), but there must be a similar way of stating the call to social action that is rigorous from a more Protestant point of view.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
S. Bacchus: But if we turn that goal into the primary message of Christianity, how does the mandate of the Church then differ from that of social services?
First, I don't think that there is anything wrong with social services or with secular organizations doing social work, and I believe that an exagerrated attempt to 'not be like them' will lead us in the wrong direction.

We do have something extra though as Christians. I'd say we are inspired by Someone who is on a higher, spiritual level, and we try to let some of this inspiration show through in what we do. Whether people want to pick up on that is up to them.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
We do have something extra though as Christians. I'd say we are inspired by Someone who is on a higher, spiritual level
This feels a bit gnostic - 'higher spiritual level'?

It somehow suggests that the incarnation was NOT fleshly.

The body matters because it has been redeemed. Any 'higher spiritual level' than does not take the flesh seriously is not higher anything. It's lower.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
leo: This feels a bit gnostic - 'higher spiritual level'?

It somehow suggests that the incarnation was NOT fleshly.

The body matters because it has been redeemed. Any 'higher spiritual level' than does not take the flesh seriously is not higher anything. It's lower.
Oh, it's just a word I was using. Don't worry, I'm not a gnostic and I definitely believe that the incarnation was in the flesh.
 
Posted by Winstonian (# 14801) on :
 
quote:
But if we turn that goal into the primary message of Christianity, how does the mandate of the Church then differ from that of social services?
I'm making this up as I go, here, so forgive me if this is half-baked. It seems to me that the call to social action in the gospels is grounded in the call to love - and that is different from social services . When we meet people's needs out of love, we treat them, as someone above said, with dignity. We don't just feed them (or cloth, or whatever), but we are willing to listen to them, to engage with them, to make a connection. If we are able to behave as though we actually care about who they are, then they might care enough to hear why we are doing what we are doing, but even if not, we have lightened their load and offered not just sustenance, but companionship along the way, even if for a brief time. Mind, I'm better at making that connection with animals than with people, so this is all pretty theoretical, but that is the direction I would like to be able to take.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
In the discussion as a whole I'm "hearing" the concept of incarnation. Physical and spiritual, both, two natures, two focuses, they meld together, one without the other is incomplete, is not who Jesus was/is and not what we are to be as individuals or as a Christian community.

Both feeding the hungry with no hint of spiritual awareness, and inviting people to worship while ignoring their hunger, miss the point, the beingness, of Christianity.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Hmmmmmmmm. Sorry for the sarcasm. We're in this together. @Belle Ringer. Feeding the hungry is as spiritual as it gets. Is the essence of Christianity, of Christ (although we never see Him do it in the gospels humanly). Regardless of whether one ticks belief boxes. At all. They are two a penny. And I too am feeling my way here like Winstonian. I'm feeling my way to accepting all of tradition, all of the language of evangelism, preaching Christ and Him crucified and transcending it because it alone cannot, does not work. But it has to be embraced. Postmodernly. For me.

So, where do we go from here? How? With the broken guys I pray brokenly with on a Friday night, after feeding them? They love to know that God joins them in their otherwise irredeemable brokenness.

With my colleagues? My children? My neighbours? With my neighbours there is some socializing, a party once a quarter if that. But my colleagues? Christ and Him crucified? You need to say the sinner's prayer? Where will you be if you die tonight?

I could only use these gambits ironically. And then what?

How do Roman Catholics evangelize? The Orthodox?

I can't connect from charismatic-evangelical-Protestantism to the social gospel - including being hospitable, neighbourly - or back.

The social gospel is not negotiable. And the fragmented relationships that engenders cannot be moved on and must not be moved on from.

And I don't know how to relate to Jesus myself to be honest. The Jesus of tradition ... doesn't work. Any and all tradition. And I certainly can't sell Him.

Hmmm?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Feeding the hungry is as spiritual as it gets. Is the essence of Christianity, of Christ (although we never see Him do it in the gospels humanly). Regardless of whether one ticks belief boxes. At all.
I think this is a bit incomplete -- Christ said, "Inasmuch as you have it to one of the least of these My brethren, you have done it unto Me." ISTM that the essence of Christianity is not simply feeding the hungry, but seeing the Lord in them as you do.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
tclune: Christ said, "Inasmuch as you have it to one of the least of these My brethren, you have done it unto Me." ISTM that the essence of Christianity is not simply feeding the hungry, but seeing the Lord in them as you do.
With this I agree.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Absolutely Tom. Which motivates those of us who wouldn't feed the hungry for any other reason I suspect. It's all the more amazing, all the more Christ like in those feeding the hungry who don't see Him.

Again, if the social gospel lacks, what do I add to it? And how? "Turn or burn."?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Again, if the social gospel lacks, what do I add to it? And how? "Turn or burn."?
I think we should be looking for (and then taking!) opportunities to share our faith verbally as we share it through our actions. I certainly don't mean 'Turn or burn', but perhaps something about the hope we have in Jesus. Whatever form of words that works for the kind of person each of us is.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Experience of youth work in both secular and Christian contexts suggests that it's better not to explicitly keep telling the youngsters that you're doing it because you believe in Jesus. They tend to get somewhat turned off and reject Christianity even more than they were already. Being there for them whatever they need at the time has triggered questions that I've been able to answer in a very low key way.

The one or two who "came to Christ" by saying the Sinners Prayer in response to the very explicitly Christian youth worker were far outweighed by the tens or hundreds turned off (I was the sounding board for the moans and groans).

Thinking about it - over 7 or 8 years, I can think of 4 young people who "turned to Christ" and one of those was following a fairly miraculous recovery from taking a drug overdose, when a lot of us were praying. But as last time I saw that youngster they were just out of prison ...

When I've seen explicitly evangelical mission which is trying to convert, those who are supported aren't necessarily that impressed. If I was at the other end I would feel used and patronised. I'd wonder if the people were doing their mission because they cared about me, but because they cared about themselves and their salvation.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Experience of youth work in both secular and Christian contexts suggests that it's better not to explicitly keep telling the youngsters that you're doing it because you believe in Jesus. They tend to get somewhat turned off and reject Christianity even more than they were already. Being there for them whatever they need at the time has triggered questions that I've been able to answer in a very low key way.
Oh yes, definitely. Saying 'I'm here because of the motivation from my faith in Christ' must surely send the accompanying message, '...and not because I actually like what I'm doing here or enjoy spending time with you 'orrible lot!'
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I've heard that kind of comment about a number of church activities - are we doing anything the local Lions Club can't do?

Like, there are secular food pantries and church-run food pantries, is there any difference? Do we offer anything that fills the real need better or speaks to other needs the secular providers don't?

When the beggar asks for money, can we say "silver and gold have I none but I'll give you something better than money" and make such a difference in his life he is leaping with joy?

Or are we just one more handout?

Not saying it's a bad thing for a church to run a food pantry, but is that all we have to offer?
A small town church decided to offer a free dinner every Monday evening, and up to 150 are turning up.

The minister notes that every so often one of the attendees slips into the church to sit there, or asks if they can talk to her privately, or asks if she can give them a bible. Some slip in to a church service, or come along to a bible study/enquirers group. No compulsion... Not what you would expect from, say, a Rotary project.

GG
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Absolutely Tom. Which motivates those of us who wouldn't feed the hungry for any other reason I suspect. It's all the more amazing, all the more Christ like in those feeding the hungry who don't see Him.

Again, if the social gospel lacks, what do I add to it? And how? "Turn or burn."?
Martin, without meaning any offence to you, I can't understand a word of any of your posts on this thread. They might as well just be random syllables as far as I'm concerned.

Could you possibly rephrase them in a way that I might understand? To begin with, 'turn or burn' seems to signify something important to you (as if it stood for a major theological idea, perhaps?), but it's not a phrase I've ever come across in any context.

I may just be an idiot (it's been suggested before), but I don't feel I can address your points without understanding them.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
None taken S. Bacchus [Smile]
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
A.Pilgrim: Mark's gospel includes a report of Jesus explaining what is sinful, and the list includes two activities where people do things with their naughty bits.
Let's forget on the 10.000 things that Jesus said about caring for your neighbour and concentrate on those two words, shall we? [Roll Eyes]
...
No, I said nothing of the sort.

Jesus's teaching included both instruction on loving ones neighbour and explanation of defiling sin. I think the proportions of the two in his teaching are a little more balanced than 10000 to 2, so how about the suggestion that we all represent that balance accurately?

quote:
If you commit adultery, the problem isn't that you have become less holy and you shouldn't put it right to God. The problem is that you promised to be faithful to someone and you deceived that person.
The problem is both of those, not one or the other.

Angus
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Indeed Angus, they are synonymous.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
It worries me when people from both ends of the liberal/conservative spectrum perceive wrongly that the more or less conservative one is theologically, the more or less interested one is in social justice and the meeting of practical needs.

To that I would say The Salvation Army is very conservative evangelical but has a rich heritage of social work and social action.

It just shows that a bias to the poor need not mean a flight into the strange world of liberation theology.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
It's been a long time since the Salvation Army has had much involvement in doing more than treat the symptoms of an unjust society. Even Booth's modest plans for working communities don't seem to feature any more. Charity can only do so much, vital though it is. Plenty of conservatives do charitable work, some do it very well and achieve great success at an individual level. The problem is a failure to engage with the root economic and political problems - ultimately the system predicated on the love of money.

[ 24. August 2013, 21:41: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's been a long time since the Salvation Army has had much involvement in doing more than treat the symptoms of an unjust society. Even Booth's modest plans for working communities don't seem to feature any more. Charity can only do so much, vital though it is. Plenty of conservatives do charitable work, some do it very well and achieve great success at an individual level. The problem is a failure to engage with the root economic and political problems - ultimately the system predicated on the love of money.
So what would you like the tiny Salvation Army to do over and above its already massive workload?


Trafficking

Unemployment

Food poverty

International Development

All I am saying is that we who are theologically conservative can do just as much if not more than those who see faith issues as less important than social issues.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
What about those of us who see social issues as faith issues?
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
It depends what you mean by social issues Martin. Directly helping people by charitable action is supported by most Christians of whatever type.

If you mean taking political positions in the way Arethosemyfeet was referring to, then obviously you are going to leave a lot of Christians behind. There are Christians on the left, on the right, in the centre, of the political range as well as many with little interest in politics.

If you want to make faith issues out of politics, you have to acknowledge that you're ruling many people out as not proper Christians, in the same way that some theological conservatives do with theological liberals.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
J. is my weathervane. My litmus test. In fact he's just asked me to call. Which he often does. I never do (well that's not true, but most generally). I have to have that degree of control. I offered by text for the first time. So I will.

I can't help him. Apart from listen to a one way, occluded, veiled litany. All statements. All projection. Learned helplessness. Everything is everyone else's fault. He's given up asking for money because I say yes, you can ask and then shake my head. He's got a roof. He eats. And not just at diners now. The church has demanded that he learn to cook. And he smokes. And drinks. And denies it.

And pulls all his hair out. And threatens to immolate himself. He was a girl when I first met him two years ago. He got baptized recently. The vicar took him and the Hope group to Skeggy last week and had him for Xmas dinner.

He really, really exercises me because when I'm with him I feel no sympathy for him. Mainly because unlike other harder nuts there is no conversation. No openness. I am found terribly wanting. That's not 100% true either. He loved it when I opened up about my weaknesses. And I felt toward him. Funny isn't it.

He talks of grieving for the twins HE lost six years ago. But not about their mother who died giving birth to them. Which only works for me if he was the mother.

The church is nicer, kinder but pathetically ineffective because we do NOT hold all things in common and bear one another's burdens as equals. The church gets angry with me for saying this. So I've given up.

Our faith is all but useless, all but meaningless. In the face of such terrible need. And he's one of many. One of five in my text & meet-up flock the marginal. The other four are far more rewarding.

I'd better ring him now hadn't I?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Went to voicemail. Not for the first time. I've directed him and a really first class counsellor in church to each other. He needs to come clean with someone. And it can't be the leadership. Charismatic Evangelical Anglican ... Or me. Or the much older women he's desperate to spend time with. Hmmm. She is that.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Our faith is all but useless, all but meaningless. In the face of such terrible need. And he's one of many. One of five in my text & meet-up flock the marginal. The other four are far more rewarding.

I'd better ring him now hadn't I?
I am sorry to say some people are simply insatiably needy. They can't help it, and they don't even realise they are doing it, but they will suck the life out of you and then when you run out of energy or strength they will turn on you and express rage that you have let them down.

My only advice, fwiw, is to protect yourself with very, very clear boundaries. And make sure that no one person is left to deal with this person on their own. It will take a whole team, and that team will need to support one another emotionally and prayerfully. They will need to agree clear ground rules, and communicate these to the person concerned. If he is not co-operating from his side, there is no need to keep on giving and giving endlessly from yours.

I am sorry to sound heartless, but some people are simply emotional vampires; they will suck the life out of anyone who comes near to them.

Do take care.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Good advice, ACR. I learned through bitter experience as a therapist, to put up good boundaries, and turn the phone off. It's OK to say no, or it can become pure S/M.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Thanks guys. Anglo Catholic Relic, I'm not as daft as I look (And I REALLY like your posts). THE problem is that there is NO team. In a church of 750 people. No such thing. Anywhere as your responses prove. We do NOT hold ALL things in common and bear one another's burdens. We are not communities, not self contained villages, not family.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard

Your friend's situation sounds quite painful for him and you, but I hope that he's benefiting in some way from church life. Otherwise he might as well not be there!

Your comments really bring it home that the social gospel isn't always about what the church does for people 'out there', but about how people care for each other within. I've heard that one of the downsides of large churches is that they can feel very impersonal, so I find it surprising that your church has reached a membership/ attendance of 750 people without anyone addressing that issue. Isn't there a network of small groups where members can support each other? I thought that was routine for your kind of church.

Maybe rather than trying to convince the whole congregation or church leaders of your idea, you could gather your own little team of like-minded people to explore the idea of living in a mutually beneficial way. The team's success might inspire the rest of the congregation in a way that mere words would never do. Your emotionally needy friend - maybe he has a gift to offer in exchange for other people's company? It might not be easy to work out what that is, but helping him to discover what he can give as well as take might liberate him.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
SvitlanaV2 - it's FULL of small groups, of 'MSC's. And there is NOBODY I can network with to be the village needed to raise this 'boy'. And the many others.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Thanks guys. Anglo Catholic Relic, I'm not as daft as I look (And I REALLY like your posts). THE problem is that there is NO team. In a church of 750 people. No such thing. Anywhere as your responses prove. We do NOT hold ALL things in common and bear one another's burdens. We are not communities, not self contained villages, not family.
I did not intend to imply you were daft. [Smile]

If there is no team, then how is it possible to attempt to do what you are doing? I meant what I said about the vampirism; it is simply not safe for anyone to step into such a situation without spiritual and emotional protection.

I regard all Christians as my brothers and sisters. You are perfectly right in that very few reciprocate, and even fewer behave accordingly.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
SvitlanaV2 - it's FULL of small groups, of 'MSC's. And there is NOBODY I can network with to be the village needed to raise this 'boy'. And the many others.
I don't mean to pry, but why did they baptise him and accept him into the church if they weren't going to support him? If there are loads of small groups why isn't he in one, and if he is, how can he be adrift? At the very least, someone must be worried about him backsliding!

The irony, ISTM, is that your church may be too successful. It probably donates far more money to charity than many churches that have signed up to the 'social gospel'. It must be the biggest church in your city, certainly in the top five, so the leaders and membership don't see why they need to change what they do.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Pry away SvitlanaV2. Pry away. We just had our lovely vicar round. He's in the same boat over the same person with knobs on!

Which cockeyedly encourages me. This is how it all works, by not working.

My anthem for this year is Mr. Bowie's ... Lord Bowie's We're Absolute Beginners.

And I'm going to have to be not just tolerant of the charismatic, in the sense of whatever gets you through the day, am I. And the pietistic. Sigh.

And yes it's all related.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's been a long time since the Salvation Army has had much involvement in doing more than treat the symptoms of an unjust society. Even Booth's modest plans for working communities don't seem to feature any more. Charity can only do so much, vital though it is. Plenty of conservatives do charitable work, some do it very well and achieve great success at an individual level. The problem is a failure to engage with the root economic and political problems - ultimately the system predicated on the love of money.
So what would you like the tiny Salvation Army to do over and above its already massive workload?


Trafficking

Unemployment

Food poverty

International Development

All I am saying is that we who are theologically conservative can do just as much if not more than those who see faith issues as less important than social issues.
Seeing myself as neither theologically conservative or liberal (I am liberal on Dead Horses but certainly believe in a physical, literal virgin birth/resurrection/Second Coming), I am not entirely sure that theological liberals - or those who are considered theological liberals, as I probably am - see faith issues as less important. I think faith issues are just seen differently. Also, liberation theology is not a liberal theology at all - the political inclinations of those who believe in liberation theology don't have anything to do with how liberal or conservative they are theologically. I don't see any reason why a Salvationist couldn't be in agreement with liberation theology?

Re the Salvation Army, of course it has a massive workload and of course the work it does makes a massive difference. But (forgive me and correct me if I am wrong) it has not tried to stop the ills it tries to solve from happening in the first place. Why is the Salvation Army not campaigning on social housing/affordable housing issues as a way of preventing homelessness, for instance? That has nothing to do with being theologically conservative or not, it's just dealing with the issues more effectively.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
My denomination, the ELCA, has vigorously embraced the Social Gospel; our current motto is "God's Work: Our Hands." At times I am very happy about this; happy to be a part of a faith community whose members do a lot of good in the world on both an organizational and a personal level.

But unlike years past, when this emphasis was balanced by a fairly clearly and consistently expressed explanation of the "why" of our caring about others...in recent years, both in my own congregation at times and in the church body as a whole, I don't perceive this balance. Sometimes I think some of us see our denomination as little more than a service club that tries to fill the gaps left by public social programs and secular international aid/development.

The rise of socially aggressive, politically right-wing fundamentalism in the US is, I'm sure, a significant part of this...religious discourse in this country has become so polarized and poisoned since the days of Nixon's Southern Strategy and the rise of groups like the Moral Majority in the 1970's that many of us in mainstream/mainline churches have, in an effort to not be perceived as overbearing, judgy, triumphalist "Bible bangers," have lost our nerve and our voice when it comes to expressing our theological beliefs, our faith statements and experiences, outside our own churches. In my tradition's case -- one that until 50 years ago or so was largely concentrated in certain ethnic enclaves, that had a missionary urge back during the settling of the New World but were still very often simply North American outposts of Euroopean state churches, and with a different theological pedigree and understanding than the dominant Protestant cultures in the US -- we've also had difficulty "getting in the game" in the American religious marketplace of ideas; and sometimes it's easier in many respects to emphasize the good we do over what we "believe, teach and confess"; it's an easier way to engage with persons outside our church body and easier to engage with the greater Christian community. And we've recently had series of serious disagreements over biblical interpretation within our ranks that have also made it easier to downplay theology while emphasizing "doing"; because the theological stuff always seems to amp up anxiety and fighting.

What's very interesting is that our new Presiding Bishop seems to have a very robust and "generously orthodox" theological vision and sense of unique identity within the Christian family that she is quite upfront about discussing; this after what I've always perceived as PB's sidestepping matters of faith and religious experience with much insubstational verbal obfuscation that really didn't seem to say anything authoritative or even interesting about God or the Christian story. So we now are in the position of taking the unexpected and exciting and in some ways bold step of electing a new female PB over a two-term incumbent assumed to be a shoo-in for another term...but having her sound in many ways more traditional -- more desirous of un-fuzzy presentation of all the Gospel and a more clearly defined/well disseminated idea of what being a Lutheran Christian means, and more outreach to disaffected conservative members/former members -- all while still maintaining our generally progressive mainline-Protestant character. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the years to come; but I'm sensing that our Social Gospel activities are going to be more closely tied to the idea that an abundant life in terms of care for one another is part of a much larger idea of God's loving intentions for the world and the human family.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
I think John Wesley summed all this up rather well:
“Do all the good you can,
By all the means you can,
In all the ways you can,
In all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as ever you can.”
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
My denomination, the ELCA, has vigorously embraced the Social Gospel; our current motto is "God's Work: Our Hands." At times I am very happy about this; happy to be a part of a faith community whose members do a lot of good in the world on both an organizational and a personal level.

But unlike years past, when this emphasis was balanced by a fairly clearly and consistently expressed explanation of the "why" of our caring about others...in recent years, both in my own congregation at times and in the church body as a whole, I don't perceive this balance. Sometimes I think some of us see our denomination as little more than a service club that tries to fill the gaps left by public social programs and secular international aid/development.

The rise of socially aggressive, politically right-wing fundamentalism in the US is, I'm sure, a significant part of this...religious discourse in this country has become so polarized and poisoned since the days of Nixon's Southern Strategy and the rise of groups like the Moral Majority in the 1970's that many of us in mainstream/mainline churches have, in an effort to not be perceived as overbearing, judgy, triumphalist "Bible bangers," have lost our nerve and our voice when it comes to expressing our theological beliefs, our faith statements and experiences, outside our own churches. In my tradition's case -- one that until 50 years ago or so was largely concentrated in certain ethnic enclaves, that had a missionary urge back during the settling of the New World but were still very often simply North American outposts of Euroopean state churches, and with a different theological pedigree and understanding than the dominant Protestant cultures in the US -- we've also had difficulty "getting in the game" in the American religious marketplace of ideas; and sometimes it's easier in many respects to emphasize the good we do over what we "believe, teach and confess"; it's an easier way to engage with persons outside our church body and easier to engage with the greater Christian community. And we've recently had series of serious disagreements over biblical interpretation within our ranks that have also made it easier to downplay theology while emphasizing "doing"; because the theological stuff always seems to amp up anxiety and fighting.

What's very interesting is that our new Presiding Bishop seems to have a very robust and "generously orthodox" theological vision and sense of unique identity within the Christian family that she is quite upfront about discussing; this after what I've always perceived as PB's sidestepping matters of faith and religious experience with much insubstational verbal obfuscation that really didn't seem to say anything authoritative or even interesting about God or the Christian story. So we now are in the position of taking the unexpected and exciting and in some ways bold step of electing a new female PB over a two-term incumbent assumed to be a shoo-in for another term...but having her sound in many ways more traditional -- more desirous of un-fuzzy presentation of all the Gospel and a more clearly defined/well disseminated idea of what being a Lutheran Christian means, and more outreach to disaffected conservative members/former members -- all while still maintaining our generally progressive mainline-Protestant character. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the years to come; but I'm sensing that our Social Gospel activities are going to be more closely tied to the idea that an abundant life in terms of care for one another is part of a much larger idea of God's loving intentions for the world and the human family.
That all sounds very exciting! Many prayers for the ELCA and your new Presiding Bishop [Votive]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't see any reason why a Salvationist couldn't be in agreement with liberation theology?

Re the Salvation Army, of course it has a massive workload and of course the work it does makes a massive difference. But (forgive me and correct me if I am wrong) it has not tried to stop the ills it tries to solve from happening in the first place. Why is the Salvation Army not campaigning on social housing/affordable housing issues as a way of preventing homelessness, for instance? That has nothing to do with being theologically conservative or not, it's just dealing with the issues more effectively.
First of all, basically because we would still want to focus on individual, personal salvation as being the foundational message of the Gospel and not salvation in a communal/community sense.

As far as campaigning is concerned the army does have a history of challenging evils - the age of consent in the UK was raised to 16 in direct response to The Salvation army's actions over the immoral use of children in the nineteenth century.

In recent years we have openly lobbied and campaigned against the relaxation of the licensing laws, the gambling laws - both issues that affect health, poverty, public safety, etc.

We have a voice in parliament and lobby on a number of issues. We are not a protest organisation and so would not be seen to be as 'public' as other issue-based groups.


I was listening to a fascinating discussion about Martin Luther King Jr's speech this morning which said it would not have had the same resonance, the same world-wide effect had he shouted "I have a complaint" instead of "I have a dream!"

Maybe that's something 'protestors' could take to heart - 'inspiration' and positive modelling of what can be is much more affective than 'declamation' and negative complaining about what isn't there.

We do make our views known to the authorities and use our experience on the ground as weighty 'evidence' if you like.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Perhaps the clue is in the thread title? I don't recall a Social Gospel, only those attributed to Matthew, Mark Luke and John (in the NT) and the so-called Gnostic gospels.

As said above, we were urged to feed the hungry and this should start with food for the body before the soul for the simple reason that people who are physically hungry cannot concentrate on anything else.

I'd suggest the problem may start when we refer to ourselves as Christians - are we? Surely better to refer to oneself (if you have to) as a churchgoer?

And the last thing anyone in need - physical or spiritual - should be asked to cope with is out doctrinal differences and questions.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Perhaps the clue is in the thread title? I don't recall a Social Gospel, only those attributed to Matthew, Mark Luke and John (in the NT) and the so-called Gnostic gospels.

As said above, we were urged to feed the hungry and this should start with food for the body before the soul for the simple reason that people who are physically hungry cannot concentrate on anything else.
No. It's because feeding hungry people is a Good Thing. It's mandated by the Golden Rule, for a start, unless you'd prefer to be left hungry by others.

quote:
I'd suggest the problem may start when we refer to ourselves as Christians - are we? Surely better to refer to oneself (if you have to) as a churchgoer?
That seems upside-down to me.

quote:
And the last thing anyone in need - physical or spiritual - should be asked to cope with is out doctrinal differences and questions.
That's the last thing any poor bugger should have to be exposed to.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't see any reason why a Salvationist couldn't be in agreement with liberation theology?

Re the Salvation Army, of course it has a massive workload and of course the work it does makes a massive difference. But (forgive me and correct me if I am wrong) it has not tried to stop the ills it tries to solve from happening in the first place. Why is the Salvation Army not campaigning on social housing/affordable housing issues as a way of preventing homelessness, for instance? That has nothing to do with being theologically conservative or not, it's just dealing with the issues more effectively.
First of all, basically because we would still want to focus on individual, personal salvation as being the foundational message of the Gospel and not salvation in a communal/community sense.

As far as campaigning is concerned the army does have a history of challenging evils - the age of consent in the UK was raised to 16 in direct response to The Salvation army's actions over the immoral use of children in the nineteenth century.

In recent years we have openly lobbied and campaigned against the relaxation of the licensing laws, the gambling laws - both issues that affect health, poverty, public safety, etc.

We have a voice in parliament and lobby on a number of issues. We are not a protest organisation and so would not be seen to be as 'public' as other issue-based groups.


I was listening to a fascinating discussion about Martin Luther King Jr's speech this morning which said it would not have had the same resonance, the same world-wide effect had he shouted "I have a complaint" instead of "I have a dream!"

Maybe that's something 'protestors' could take to heart - 'inspiration' and positive modelling of what can be is much more affective than 'declamation' and negative complaining about what isn't there.

We do make our views known to the authorities and use our experience on the ground as weighty 'evidence' if you like.
Why does the Salvation Army not regard economic issues as being as important as gambling? Economics affects everybody, gambling doesn't. Where's the protest about disabled people committing suicide over their benefits being cut or called into question? Where's the campaigning for affordable and social housing? As I said above, that would have a big impact on homelessness which is one of the main issues the SA deals with. It seems like the SA is only addressing the symptoms and not the causes of poverty - gambling and drinking (not bad things in themselves after all) are not causes but symptoms of economic oppression. Individual salvation does not mean that the community doesn't matter, and neither does it mean that economics should be ignored as if it's not a social issue.

Sorry, it just seems like the SA are incredibly short-sighted regarding social issues. Stopping people from having a drink won't cure poverty, and it's not something that seems to be a priority in the Bible - but economics is. I get that the SA inherited Victorian morality and filtered its policies through that morality - but Kingdom ideals seem rather anti-Victorian. Surely you can see that the entire system needs to change first? Jesus came to turn the World upside-down, not just tackle a few side-issues.

In my experience, those who protest about issues DO also try to promote positive alternatives, it just doesn't make the headlines because the media is more interested in conflict. And I don't know if you noticed, but MLK Jr did protest about rather a lot as well! You need both.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Sorry, KLB, I was not meaning to say that feeding the hungry is ever a bad thing, I jsut put it in a cack-handed way.

As for saying we are churchgoers, rather than Christians: I know I fail so very badly to tread the path of Christ that I prefer just to think of myself as someone who goes to the church but fails... Churchgoer.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Perhaps the clue is in the thread title? I don't recall a Social Gospel, only those attributed to Matthew, Mark Luke and John (in the NT) and the so-called Gnostic gospels.
There is only one Gospel, and it is not contained in the Bible. The Bible contains four separate accounts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but that Gospel is not written down. The Word of God is alive, not printed.

Similarly, the Gospel is not contained in Scripture; it is alive within believers.

[ 29. August 2013, 08:25: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Sorry, it just seems like the SA are incredibly short-sighted regarding social issues. Stopping people from having a drink won't cure poverty, and it's not something that seems to be a priority in the Bible - but economics is. I get that the SA inherited Victorian morality and filtered its policies through that morality - but Kingdom ideals seem rather anti-Victorian. Surely you can see that the entire system needs to change first? Jesus came to turn the World upside-down, not just tackle a few side-issues.
Maybe it's the job of the CofE, being the established church, to turn the entire system upside down?

Jesus, as we all know, didn't campaign against injustices perpetrated by the Roman Empire. That wasn't his calling - but perhaps it was someone else's. The SA may have its own special calling while other churches have a different one.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Jesus, as we all know, didn't campaign against injustices perpetrated by the Roman Empire.
Maybe in His way, He did. By standing with the victims of these and other injustices.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I think you're saying that Jesus stood with the victims of injustice in this way by being a victim of injustice himself.

Those of us called to address injustice without being victims ourselves have a more complex decision to make in terms of what we can physically achieve with our resources or our degree of influence, which of the many kinds of injustice to focus on, immediate needs versus long-term political strategies, etc.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Yeah thanks Jade Constable you evidently have a greater knowledge, experience and influence than the entire Salvation Army!

As I said, sometimes it's better to lobby in private using persuasion and evidence that comes from experience, rather than shouting and protesting in public.

And let me remind you that no one organisation can do everything - so whilst we do ask questions and make represenations to government I would also ask just exactly what you are doing in your Gothic churches to protest about these things?

The SA is a tiny organiation compared to the Anglican church - maybe you should do the protesting!
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
93
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Sorry, it just seems like the SA are incredibly short-sighted regarding social issues. Stopping people from having a drink won't cure poverty, and it's not something that seems to be a priority in the Bible - but economics is. I get that the SA inherited Victorian morality and filtered its policies through that morality - but Kingdom ideals seem rather anti-Victorian. Surely you can see that the entire system needs to change first? Jesus came to turn the World upside-down, not just tackle a few side-issues.
Maybe it's the job of the CofE, being the established church, to turn the entire system upside down?

Jesus, as we all know, didn't campaign against injustices perpetrated by the Roman Empire. That wasn't his calling - but perhaps it was someone else's. The SA may have its own special calling while other churches have a different one.
I don't think it's the job of one denomination alone to turn the system upside down. It's the job of the church as a whole, including both the SA and CoE. I wasn't saying that it was only the duty of the SA, I was just pointing out that addressing the symptoms and not the causes of poverty is pretty inefficient and not what the church as a whole is there for.

And um, since when did Jesus not campaign against the injustices perpetrated by the Roman Empire? He did when he cast the demon into the pigs, and condemning the Sadducees who were in league with the secular leaders.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yeah thanks Jade Constable you evidently have a greater knowledge, experience and influence than the entire Salvation Army!

As I said, sometimes it's better to lobby in private using persuasion and evidence that comes from experience, rather than shouting and protesting in public.

And let me remind you that no one organisation can do everything - so whilst we do ask questions and make represenations to government I would also ask just exactly what you are doing in your Gothic churches to protest about these things?

The SA is a tiny organiation compared to the Anglican church - maybe you should do the protesting!
[Confused] How on Earth do I, as one member of a large church which does not have a congregational structure, have more influence than the leader of a church within a much smaller and congregational (I think?) denomination? And FWIW, many Anglican churches are small, poor and in modern buildings, before you start with the reverse snobbery.

Of course those in the Anglican church should protest, and many of us do - but as a person on the ground, I just don't see the SA protesting on important issues at all (and no I don't consider gambling and drinking to be more important than tax avoidance and disability rights!). Unlike, say, Justin Welby.

I'm sorry but why does me pointing out my experiences lead you to sarcastically telling me how I clearly have more experience, influence and knowledge than the entire Salvation Army? Of course I don't, but that doesn't stop me (as someone who was homeless and was very poor for a long time) from being able to see where I think the SA is focusing too much on the symptoms of poverty and not the causes. Of course, all churches should campaign on those issues - but since the SA is known for their provision for the poor, it would have more impact coming from them than from say, the URC. All I asked was why the SA doesn't campaign on social housing and disability issues (for instance) - it was a genuine question! 'When I fed the poor they called me a saint, when I asked why they were poor they called me a Communist' springs to mind.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
But Jade, Dom Helder Camara was a supporter of liberation theology, and you know that's not allowed.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
There are already a myriad of competing voices telling our leaders that society would be better if only this that or the other were done. I think there's plenty of room for organisations which focus on helping individual people with problems. The Salvation Army seems to be pretty good at that, I'd be sorry to see them change course too much.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And um, since when did Jesus not campaign against the injustices perpetrated by the Roman Empire? He did when he cast the demon into the pigs, and condemning the Sadducees who were in league with the secular leaders.
What did casting the demons into the pigs have to do with the Roman Empire?

Moo
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Arethosemyfeet: But Jade, Dom Helder Camara was a supporter of liberation theology, and you know that's not allowed.
Supporter? I guess Pele was a supporter of football then.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
SvitlanaV2: I think you're saying that Jesus stood with the victims of injustice in this way by being a victim of injustice himself.
Not only that. I think that listening to the victims of injustice, taking them seriously, seeing them as human beings can be a powerful act too.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And um, since when did Jesus not campaign against the injustices perpetrated by the Roman Empire? He did when he cast the demon into the pigs, and condemning the Sadducees who were in league with the secular leaders.
What did casting the demons into the pigs have to do with the Roman Empire?

Moo
Unclean animals in the holy land symbolised Roman invasion.

Think Legion.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And um, since when did Jesus not campaign against the injustices perpetrated by the Roman Empire? He did when he cast the demon into the pigs, and condemning the Sadducees who were in league with the secular leaders.
What did casting the demons into the pigs have to do with the Roman Empire?

Moo
Jewish people don't eat pork, nor keep herds of pigs, ftm.

The Prodigal Son ended up looking after swine when he took his inheritance and abandoned his family. Clearly there were such herds around, but equally clearly they are associated with gentiles, not Jews.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
There are already a myriad of competing voices telling our leaders that society would be better if only this that or the other were done. I think there's plenty of room for organisations which focus on helping individual people with problems. The Salvation Army seems to be pretty good at that, I'd be sorry to see them change course too much.
But surely the SA would be listened to more than some other groups, given their experience? And helping individuals and campaigning for an end to the problems causing individuals their issues are not mutually exclusive, not by a long way. All Christian denominations need to do both.
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
quote:
there must be a similar way of stating the call to social action that is rigorous from a more Protestant point of view.
Tim Kellers "Mercy to the full range of human needs is such an essential mark of being a Xtian that it can be used as a test of true faith. Mercy is not optional or an addition to being a Xtian. Rather, a life poured out in deeds of mercy is the inevitable sign of true faith."
Springs to mind
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict
Jewish people don't eat pork, nor keep herds of pigs, ftm.

The Prodigal Son ended up looking after swine when he took his inheritance and abandoned his family. Clearly there were such herds around, but equally clearly they are associated with gentiles, not Jews.
That episode did not take place in Jewish territory. It took place in Gadera, which was one of the cities of the Decapolis.

Moo
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
surely the SA would be listened to more than some other groups, given their experience? And helping individuals and campaigning for an end to the problems causing individuals their issues are not mutually exclusive, not by a long way. All Christian denominations need to do both.
I'm inclined to think that campaigning on these issues works best ecumenically. Other than the CofE and the RCC the churches don't have well-known spokespeople who can attract attention. The media doesn't have much interest in what Nonconformist leaders have to say, on the whole.

I also suspect that the SA's famous charity work makes them less willing to appear politically biased than might otherwise be the case. Good PR for them and their work possibly relies on not offending too many people, whereas a self-confident state church doesn't need to worry about this so much. The CofE retains its position of privilege no matter how much it bashes the greedy posh boys of the Tory party or New Labour.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0