God In Social Gospel

1 Conception of God in the Theology of God of Social Gospel By Okitakoyi Lundula

Social gospel is a 19th to 20th American Protestantism movement that applies the Christian principles to the social problems of the universe. It focuses on justice and establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. The spiritual faith of the Christian religion has to be based not only on the spiritual understanding of God but also on social actions of love and solidarity. Rauschenbusch is the pioneer theologian of the social gospel movement; he believes that the teaching in Christianity and social crisis has to be rested firmly in the tradition of Jesus and the early Christian church. He says, “The social gospel is a permanent addition to our spiritual outlook and its arrival constitutes a stage in the development of Christian religion.”1 He also adds that, “The social gospel fuses the Christian spirit and the social consciousness in a new outreaching toward God and remarkable experiences of his comfort and inspiring power.”2 The social gospel considers God as democratic, being near humanity and involved in the social, economic and political problems of the world. Social gospel movement has to work hand in hand with systematic theology and the church to facilitate the ecclesiastic and social understanding of God. The implication of this 1 2

Walter Rauschenbusch, a Theology of Social Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1945), 2. Ibid., 20.

2 movement in the modern world constitutes a potential progress in the improvement of the human condition as it emphasizes on equal right and social justice. It also facilitates the understanding of both the vertical and horizontal relationship between God, universe and the neighbor. Rauschenbusch considers social gospel as the orthodoxy3 of Christianity, just as James Cone believes also that “there can be no Christian Theology that is not social and politic.”4

Considering Rauschenbusch’s conception of God, the doctrine of social gospel puts strong emphasis on the immanence of God with less consideration on the transcendence of God which, he qualifies as “old dogma or autocratic conception of God.” The social gospel portrays God through social actions of love and solidarity. Therefore, the God of the social gospel is considered democratic rather than autocratic. From my point of view, to reach the fullness of conception of God, both aspects, democratic and autocratic, in other words immanence and transcendence, are to be taken into account. These two conceptions are not to be exclusive but mutually overlapping to bring a complete definition of God. This paper will focus on demonstrating how God can be fully considered both autocratic and democratic without excluding any of these natures. 3 4

Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology of Social Gospel (Nashville, Abingdon Press), 2. James H. Cone, God of Oppressed (NY: Orbis Books, 1997), 75.

3

First, it is crucial to locate the theology of Rauschenbusch as we refer to different definitions of God’s relationship with humanity. According to Ted5, the term deism refers to God being separated from and uninvolved in the world while theism is defined as God being separated from the world yet involved in it. With respect to an autocratic and democratic definition of God, it is clear that according to Rauschenbusch, the autocratic conception of God relates to deism, while the democratic conception to theism. Ted argues that, “Theist contends that there is one single divine reality that is distinguished from the cosmos yet involved in the continued processes of cosmos. “The God of theism created the world in the beginning and continues to act within the world through providence and governance.”6 Therefore, it is clear that the theology of social gospel is theistic.

From the social gospel point of view, the theistic conception of God is based on the democratization of the divine being with less consideration of the autocracy of God. This is where Rauschenbusch believes that the theistic God should be a God of providence and love. He says that, “When Jesus took God by the hand and called him “our Father” he democratized the conception of God. 5 6

Ted Peter, God of the World’s Future (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 123. Ibid., 124.

4 He disconnected the idea of God being far away from the work of his hand but lowering him to the realm of family life, the chief social embodiment of solidarity and love.”7 This proves the unilateral conception of God in the social gospel based on the immanence and democratic conception of God.

Historically, unlike the social gospel view, the Hebrew Bible portrays God as transcendent and a supreme being who is above all the creatures. In metaphysical thought, God is beyond the physical realm and cannot be grasped by the senses. Plato considers God beyond the reach of human knowledge. In a scholastic view, “God was imagined far above; in an upper part of the universe, remote of all we do, interfering when necessary, but very distinct.”8 In the medieval method, “God was a feudal lord, holding his tenants in a grip from which there was no escape…”9 With reference to the reformation theology, God was seen as a despotic leader; this refers to an absolute ruling system in which God is pushed way from the world. Rauschenbusch disregards these views and qualifies them as “old dogma” or autocratic conception of God, favoring the democratic conception which is based on the nearness and participation of God in the worldly social life.

7

Rauschenbush, 175. Ibid., 172. 9 Ibid., 173. 8

5 Rauschenbusch considers the “old dogma” or the autocratic conception of God, less important to the modern understanding of God. As far as the democratization of God stands as a protest against the autocratic conception of God, the God of social gospel is near and involved in the worldly life. In the doctrine of social gospel, the immanence of God in the universe is the natural basis for the democratization of God. By democratization of God, Rauschenbusch means God being immanent, present and involved in social, political and economic concerns of the universe. In his book on The New Theology, Campbell supports the idea of democratizing God through the immanence of God by saying, “The staring-point of the new theology is a re-emphasis of the Christian belief in the divine immanence in the universe and mankind.” 10 The concentration on the immanence of God in the social gospel is true and correct; however, it may constitute a danger and mislead the categorization of social gospel to the pantheistic theology, where God is undistinguished and confused with the world. This is one of the consequences of denying the autocratic nature of God.

Rauschenbusch believes that the appellation of God as the Father in the Bible constitutes a disconnection of God from his autocratic and despotic throne

10

Reginald J. Campbell, the New Theology (NY: Macmillan, 1912), 4.

6 and the connection to the democratic and immanent presence of God in the universe. He also argues that, one of the highest redemptive services of Jesus to the human race based on lowering God to the level of family life, considering him a “Father.” Based on the scriptures in the New Testament, Rauschenbusch emphasizes the nearness of God to the universe by holding the ministry of Jesus as a model of life and relationship. Rauschenbusch uses Paul’s writing to support the fatherhood relationship of God to the world. Paul says, “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of sonship/adoption which leads us to cry, “Our Father.” (Rom 8:15)” From the social gospel perspective, this scripture implies that the old dogma brings the spirit of slavery that makes the world considering God a feudal Lord or the master of all; while the social gospel brings the spirit of freedom, liberty and sonship to the divine world relationship. In the doctrine of social gospel “God is not only the spiritual representative of humanity; but God is identified by it. In God we live and move and have our being and in us God lives and moves...”11 On his side, James Cone in the theology of liberation, considers God as being involved in the resolution of social and political problems of the humanity. He says, “God is a political God, the Protector of poor and the establisher of right for those who are oppressed. To

11

Rauschenbusch, 49.

7 know God is to experience the acts of God in the concrete affairs and relationship of people…”12 Wherever God is isolated, the religion drops back to a pre Christian stage of religion which refers to the “old dogma”. In other words, the isolation promotes the individualism system that affects the law of love of the neighbor. For Rauschenbusch, the individualism is related to old dogma and it affects the love of neighbor. Landy says that, “Our philosophical and economic individualism has affected our religious thought so deeply that we hardly comprehend the prophetic views of an organic national life and of national sin and salvation.13 “Unlike the God of Greek philosophy who is removed from the history, the God of the Bible is involved in history, and God’s revelation is inseparable from the social and political affairs of Israel.” 14 Therefore, the immanence of God disconnects God from the isolation position to the God’s involvement in the social, politic and economic affairs of the world.

Somehow, Rauschenbusch is right in disqualifying the autocratic conception of God in the modern world. This conception can affect the worldly understanding of God and become a model of inspiration to world leadership, viewing God as bigger than the rest of people, accumulating all the resources,

12

James H. Cone, God of Oppressed (NY: Orbis Books, 1997), 57. Benson Y. Landy, A Rauschenbusch reader; the Kingdom of God and the Social Gospel Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1957), 7. 14 Cone, 57. 13

(NY:

8 powers and land. This is what several modern politicians, especially those of developing countries, copy to become above the Constitution and the law, willing to be a subject of worship, ignoring the aspect of love and the right of the voiceless majority. This is what Rauschenbusch qualifies as a despotic system that is based on absolutism and dominance of a singular ruler over the group. The good example may be that of African post-colonial leaders, who portray themselves as small god because of wealth and authority they accumulate over themselves. Like in the old dogma, political leaders lift themselves higher than the rest of society and become more powerful than everyone else. William Tordoff15 believes that authoritarianism and dictatorship were marked characteristics of African one-party regimes in the post-independence period. This was due to an accumulation of power, authority, land and resources, willing to enrich and become different from the ruled society. This type of leadership reflects the autocratic system which according to Rauschenbusch isolates God from the world.

The social gospel becomes important to the current conflicted world, portraying the ministry of Jesus as based on love and social justice as a model of leadership for the social, political and economic worldly development.

15

William Tordoff, Government and Politics in Africa (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002), 8.

9 Rauschenbusch argues that, “As long as kings and governors were the greatest human beings in the public eye, it was inevitable that their image should be superimposed on the idea of God.”16 From the social gospel point of view, “Our universe is not a despotic monarchy, with God above the starry canopy and ourselves down here; it is a spiritual commonwealth with God in the middle of us.”17 The democratization of God characterizes the participation of God in social, political, economic and spiritual problems of the world. In the theology of social gospel, For Rauschenbusch, the religious, political and social conflicts that we have in the world are also supported by the way he world considers God. He says that, “The conflict of the religion of Jesus with autocratic conception of God is therefore part of the struggle of humanity with autocratic economic and politic conditions.”18 He also adds that God has to follow the political, social and economic changes that occur in the world; and he argued that, “The worst thing that could happen to God would be to remain an autocratic while the world is moving toward democracy.”19 On his side, Trimiew says, “One common denominator among social gospelers was their belief that the gospel of Jesus Christ should work to alleviate social, political, and economic problems.”20

16

Rauschenbusch, 170. Rauschenbusch, 49. 18 Rauschenbusch. 174. 19 Rauschenbusch, 178. 20 Christopher H. Evans, the Social Gospel Today (Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 2001), 27. 17

10 I would agree with the social gospel people that the gospel has to deal not only with spiritual life but also with aspects of worldly life; the kingdom of God has to be reflected from the world. Rauschenbusch believes that the kingdom of God is humanity organized according to the will of God; he argues that, “Since love is the supreme law of Christ, the kingdom of God implies a progressive reign of love in human affairs… This involves the redemption of society from political autocracies and economic oligarchies.”21 The idea of the kingdom of God has to be present and future; this cannot limit the expectation of the kingdom of God only to worldly life but also life to come, which is still a mysterious to earthly understanding of God’s plan. This present kingdom reflects the “nearness” and the immanence of God that introduce the democratic consideration of God. On the other hand, the future aspect reflects the autocratic conception in the “farness of God” that relates to transcendence and supremacy of God explaining the life beyond the present.

I see Rauschenbusch leaning more on the democratization of God, the conception that lowers God to the level of father, family and worldly life. He portrays God as a model of leadership by living among the people and for the people. In the social gospel, the transcendence of God is not really considered

21

Rauschenbusch, 142.

11 because it furthers the presence and participation of God to the worldly problems of humanity. Unlike Rauschenbusch, I would argue that God has to be considered both transcendent and immanent, or in other words, autocratic and democratic. This dipolarization cannot be exclusive; for emphasizing either side or neglecting either side is to fall into serious error. To consider God’s transcendence with the exclusion of the immanence of God or democratic consideration is to fall into a deistic conception of God, while to accept the immanence of God without considering God’s transcendence or the autocratic conception of God is to fall into “pantheism.” Therefore, the autocracy of God has to be fused to democratic view of God to reach the level of understanding of God not only as spiritual leader who is above the cosmos but also as Emmanuel, “God with us”. God’s transcendence can be identified through his divine nature, being the creator, far different from humanity, above, beyond and outside of all that he made. The old dogma or the autocratic view of God gathers other qualifications of God that beyond the physical realm for instance, the conception God as omnipotent, omniscience, supreme and absolute. In the other side, the democratization of God reflects the immanence of God. This consideration is based on the nearness relationship of God to the universe. The ministry of Jesus Christ on earth has been a palpable example of God’s involvement in social and

12 worldly life. The presence of Jesus on earth facilitates the understanding of the democratization of God, and God’s participation in the economic, politic, social and spiritual problems of the universe.

To understand the dipolarization of God through the autocratic and democratic conception of God; it is crucial to refers to the notion of soma and pneuma. The pneuma provides a good environment to understand God as transcendence, autocratic and beyond the physical realm; while the soma refers to the physical life and it helps to understand the democratic and immanence nature of God. That is why the Christian faith has to focus in both soul and soma to understand God. Dr. King says, “…any religion which professes to be concerned about the soul of men and is not concerned about the social and economic conditions that scar the soul, is a spiritually moribund religion.”22

To support the idea of God being both autocratic and democratic, the theory of abstract and concrete poles as explained by Hartshorne, can constitute an important tool in the understanding of the autocratic and democratic principles. Without taking his deistic position, the terms used in his theology may help us to understand the double nature of God defined in this paper. The 22

Douglus Sturm, Martin Luther King Jr, as democratic socialist. Source: Journal of Religious Ethics, 18 Fall 1990, p 79-105. Publication Type: Article

13 abstract pole refers to those elements within God that never vary; this is beyond the human understanding and can be related to the autocratic conception of God, which is based on the transcendence of God. And yet the concrete pole explains the organic growth in God’s perfect knowledge of the world.

Unlike Rauschenbusch, considering the democratization of God and lowering God to the level of social family, I would say that this conception lowers God to a small sphere of society with less consideration on other important aspects of Christianity that are beyond the social life like the kingdom of God. In other words, it keeps the church to the worldly level of a club or a social movement, reducing God to the anthropomorphic level. In this conception, there is ignorance of other qualifications of God such as the omnipotent, omnipresence and omniscience. Social gospel is, of course, a model of solving worldly problems such as socio-politico-economic issues of this temporary dwelling and has less emphasis on beyond the worldly life. The political, economic and social changes that occur in modern society cannot move God from the autocratic level to the democracy as the world turns to be democratic. However, God is supreme, above all life; the universe has to consider God autocratic where God should be seen so and democratic where God deserves to be democratic.

14

Focusing on the fatherhood relation of God with humanity, it is real that the social gospel lowers God to the level of humanity. This anthropomorphism constitutes the unilateral definition of God. Professor John Mbiti says, “The concept of God as the Father also comes out in prayers, indicating that people think of God not only as the universal creator-father, but also as the personal Father with they communicate and to whom they may turn in time of need.”23 By calling God “Creator-Father,” Mbiti includes both aspects that are repeatedly mentioned in the above paragraphs. The “Creator” brings in the idea of a transcendent God, who is far and beyond the human understanding, being author of all life in the inverse. While “Father” brings in the meaning of the social and immanent God; and God’s involvement in the family problems.

Traditionally, the African theology portrays God as both transcendence and immanence, far and near. Professor Mbiti says, “The two attributes are paradoxally complementary; God is “far” (transcendence), and men cannot reach him; but God is also “near” (immanence), and he comes closer to men.” 24 This is true and can be proved by the practical consideration of God in some ethnical groups like Lugbara in Congo and Uganda. “The Lugbara conceive God in two 23 24

John Mbiti, The Concept of God in Africa (NY: Praeger Publisher, 1970), 92. Mbiti, 12.

15 aspects, one of which is transcendence and the other, immanence. In his transcendent aspect, God is creator, takes breath away, and is out of contact with his creation;”25 while the immanence reflects the presence and participation in finding solution to the problems of the creature.

God cannot be considered only as a spiritual leader, supreme and transcendent as defined in the autocratic or old dogma conception of God, but also as social leader, who encourages the actions of solidarity and is involved in social, political and economic life of the humanity. Rauschenbusch says, “The triumph of the Christian idea of God will never be complete as long as economic and political despotism prevail.”26 In the same way, I can also add to this statement by saying “the conception of God will never be complete if the transcendence and the supremacy of God are ignored in the democratization of God.” Social facts are to be added to the spirituality and transcendence of God. Therefore, the gospel has to deal with both autocratic and democratic consideration of God to define the completeness and fullness of God. The democratic view of God calls humanity to serve, honor and uplift the weak, disregarding the social class's inequality and injustice (briefly, the application of love of God and consideration of the neighbor); while the autocratic has to deal 25

Mbiti, 14. Raushenbusch, 176.

26

16 with the reflection on the transcendence of God, being far from the world, the author of all and above all the creatures. God is both democratic and autocratic, “near” and “far,” immanent and transcendent. To emphasize in either side and neglect the other side is to fall into serious error that affects the conception of God in modern societies. To believe in the democratic conception of God disregarding the autocratic becomes a risk that brings the social gospel to pantheism; while to believe in autocratic or old dogma only is to fall into deism. Therefore, it is crucial to build a balance in conception of God that facilitates the understanding of God as both immanent and transcendent with respect to both democratic and autocratic quality of God.

17

REFERENCES Benson Y. Landy, A Rauschenbusch reader; the Kingdom of God and the Social Gospel (NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers), 1957. Campbell R. J. New theology (NY: The Macmillan Company), 1912. Christopher H. Evan, Social gospel today (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press), 2001. Cone H. James, God of Oppressed (NY: Orbis Books), 1997. Evans Christopher Hodge, Theology for the middle: Social Gospel Liberalism and Ministry of Ernest Fremont Tittle (Evanston: Northwestern University), 1993. Dissertation. Hartshorne Charles, Divine relativity, a social conception of God (London: Oxford University Press), 1948. Hick John. Existence of God (NY: The Macmillan Company), 1964. Leech Kenneth, Social God (London: Sheldon Press), 1981. Mbiti, John S. Concepts of God in Africa (NY: Praeger Publisher), 1970. Peter Ted, God of the World’s Future (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 1992. Rauschenbusch, Walter, Gospel for the social awakening (NY: Association Press), 1950. Rauschenbusch Walter, A theology of Social Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon Press), 1945. Rauschenbusch Walter, Christianizing the Social Order (Chicago: The Pilgrim Press), 1912. Sturm, Douglas, Martin Luther King Jr, as democratic socialist. Source: Journal of Religious Ethics, 18 Fall 1990, p 79-105. Publication Type: Article. Tordoff William, Government and Politics in Africa (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 2002.