Thoughts on Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century by Walter Rauschenbusch

The original Christianity and the Social Crisis was published in 1907, and the version I read was a 100 anniversary edition, with responses at the end of each chapter from popular religious/theological leaders of our day, such as Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Cornel West, Stanley Hauerwas, etc.

While I certainly don't agree with everything Rauschenbusch had to say, I am amazed such a book was written over 100 years ago, and that such insight into social issues came from a minister, of all people. It was refreshing for me to read something so honestly critical, yet still hopeful, and there is so much it has given me to think about, but I'd like to highlight a few points, and if any of them seem interesting, you should read the book!

One of his most central points has clearly shaped the history of American theology ever since - that Christianity has greatly strayed from the message of Jesus by turning sin and salvation into something that is merely personal and private, and in doing so has neglected to acknowledge sin that is deeply embedded into our social structures, and the responsibility of repentant sinners to repent of social sin as well as personal sin, rather than just blindly accept and participate in oppressive and unjust functions of society. He points to the example of the Hebrew prophets, and Jesus' fulfillment of that example, to show what the role of the church in speaking out against injustice and defending the oppressed should be.

Back to the history of American theology, Rauschenbusch is known as the father of the Social Gospel movement, and in the last hundred years there has been a big split between mainline 'liberal' churches that focus on social works, and evangelical 'spiritual' churches that focus on evangelism and saving souls for the life to come. The history and tragedy of this split is acknowledged by Ron Sider in his Good News, Good Works, in which he argues that it should not be an either/or, but a both/and. My impression of Rauschenbusch was not that he was calling people to neglect the personal dimensions of salvation, but that he was asking them to realize that genuine regeneration should transform society as well.

Indeed, Rauschenbusch placed tremendous faith in the potential of the church to contribute to what he refers to as 'the' social movement. Much has changed since the time of writing, and while Rauschenbusch envisioned some kind of movement that would lead to common ownership of the means of production (as he saw private ownership to be the root of the class divide and the exploitation of the working class), he clearly did not envision the brand of socialism and communism that came to be in some places in the world the following century. He envisioned a system that would make use of industrial and technological advances, but that would distribute the profit among the workers rather than concentrating it in the hands of the few. He saw that inequality to not only be unjust, but as something that would inevitably lead to economic collapse as the masses would be left unable to purchase/consume, and the economy would fall flat on its face. His hope was that the church would intervene on behalf of the workers before this led to some cataclysmic event.

Rauschenbusch emphasized that nearly every other agent in society serves to defend the status quo and promote the interests of those who benefit from defending it. Basically, the media and various organizations serve to perpetuate what Marx would refer to as the ruling ideology. As long as people buy into that ideology, they will not question the social system. The only way to balance things out, according to Rauschenbusch, is to spend as much time in contact with those who are exploited as with organizations promoting the interests of the wealthy. In doing so, one can attain a more balanced perspective.

Rauschenbusch saw the social movement as being at hand, like buds on a tree ready to blossom. The church had the potential to act at a very crucial moment in history. In the afterward, Rauschenbusch's grandson, Richard Rorty, a secular humanist philosopher, asserts that the church failed to act when it had the chance, and now that crucial moment has passed, and Christianity has the smallest potential for social impact that it has ever had in history. I would have to disagree with Rorty, as his focus is narrowly on post-Christian Europe and the U.S. (which I do not believe to be less Christian as he asserts). Yet, looking to Latin America, Africa, and Asia, more Pentecostal, charismatic, and independent forms of Christianity are popping up all over the place.

The question is: what form of theology are they endorsing? These growing groups of Christians have tremendous potential to engage the social issues of our time, but they whether or not they do is largely dependent on their theology. Everywhere I went in Brazil, from the slum to the big city to the rural town, I encountered the theology of wealth and prosperity preached in evangelical churches, even (and especially) in poorer areas. Besides being almost a complete reversal of the gospel and setting mammon on the same level as Jesus, all that serves to do is to distract from social consciousness of the actual causes of poverty.

Another bad, and often related, theology I encountered is a fatalistic one - the idea that things are the way they are because that is God's will, and therefore, to try and change anything is like fighting against the will of God. Such a theology creates a blind acceptance of conditions as they are no matter how bad it is, and no matter who is responsible. It reinforces the status quo, when in fact God might be quite outraged with the unjust status quo and looking for someone to voice His heart on behalf of the marginalized.

Evangelical eschatology is often similarly fatalistic, especially when it comes to those with dispensationalist tendencies. If people believe that things must get worse, and everything bad that happens is an unavoidable sign of the times, and nothing can make it better until Jesus returns, it creates a certain indifference to tragedy, or even worse almost an excitement about it. Why work for peace if wars are just a sign the end is near? Just let things go the way they must because we can't stop it anyway and Jesus will fix it all in the end, and if we try to intervene we might actually delay Jesus' coming. When actually the same signs have been going on since the birth of Christianity, and the only biblical condition given to precede Jesus' second coming is that the gospel be preached in every nation. Needless to say, despite my disagreement with Rorty's conclusion that the church has lost its chance to play a part in the social movement, I certainly agreed with his assessment of how Rauschenbusch would feel about the Left Behind series! Anytime people learn their theology from fiction novels or study notes (e.g. Scofield Reference Bible) rather than the Bible itself, things can take a turn for the worse.

Bad theologies and theologies that do not go beyond reinforcing the status quo are what have kept Christianity from being a larger force for social transformation. Of course, some good has come, such as the biblical basis for the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. (apparently King was influenced by Rauschenbusch). Yet, I believe much more is possible. Thankfully, if the church doesn't respond, God will find another way to act, but if the church were to actually commit to following Christ at the cost of forsaking comfort, to live among, seek to understand, and be solidary with the marginalized rather than ignore them or blame them for their own condition, and to be willing to let go of all of her precious preconceptions and engage in a process of thorough self-examination to determine what is from God and what is from our culture, then the church could once again be a tremendous force for positive social transformation.

Finally, one last thing that left me with a glimmer of hope was Rauschenbusch's hope in the social sciences. He had great faith in what they could become over time, as they were only in their infancy when he was writing. He hoped they would help shine more light on the complexities of society, because he understood that social issues had to be addressed by addressing their causes, yet we cannot address what we do not understand. As someone who majored in sociology in college and is currently applying to PhD programs, I found a bit of encouragement in the hope Rauschenbusch had in what sociology could become and what it should be. One of my biggest frustrations as a sociology major was that I felt I was learning about how all of these forces in society work to perpetuate inequality and injustice, yet merely to understand how it worked. What is the point of understanding how much the world sucks and exactly how it sucks unless there is something that can be done to change it? And Rauschenbusch's answer is that something can be done to change it, the church has a role to play in that as it is called to continue ushering in the kingdom of God as Jesus began, and sociological study is needed to inform the understanding of what can be done.

Accutane and Ulcerative Colitis

It's hard to miss the ads now calling on previous Accutane users who have developed ulcerative colitis to go to court. I never took Accutane (though my dermatologist recommended it at one point as Differin and Benzomycin didn't totally clear up my acne, but being forced to sign a form saying I would have an abortion if I became pregnant while on the drug was enough to clue me into the fact that it had dangerous side effects not worth risking over mild-moderate acne). Yet, seeing the ads on TV aroused in me a certain indignation over the fact that a drug causing chronic, life-destroying diseases could be on the market for so long (thankfully, thanks to paying out millions to victims, Accutane is now off the market, but the generic makers of isotretinoin have yet to follow suit). I can only imagine how those with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's who took Accutane must feel knowning that a drug they took to clear up acne caused them to have a serious "autoimmune" bowel disorder that they will have to live with the rest of their lives. Even for those who have already won and have yet to win multi-million dollar settlements, no amount of money can take away the pain, the dependency on expensive medical treatment, the hospitalization, the surgeries, the frequent bowel movements, etc. that they will have to deal with the rest of their lives.

Even for those with ulcerative colitis, who have the option to get "curative" surgery by having their colon removed, their lives will never be the same. As someone who had a successful "j-pouch" surgery three years ago, I can say it is better than living with severe ulcerative colitis, but it is nothing like going back to normal (unless you consider 6-8 bowel movements per day normal). While it is amazing that the body can function without a large intestine, and that the j-pouch presents a relatively normal alternative to an ostomy, a body without a colon is not the same. From small things like increased sweating to increased susceptibility to dehydration, to more bothersome things like a host of foods that don't get completely digested (and itch, burn, or poke on the way out) to having to make sure you are near and free to use a bathroom at all times (not to mention being self-conscious about it) to waking up at night to use the restroom, life never goes back to what it was like before the disease.

After seeing the Accutane ads, I began to wonder if other related retonid drugs may have a connection to ulcerative colitis as well, as I started using Differin shortly before developing UC. If there is a connection, even if it is a weaker one due to it being a topical drug, hopefully it will come to light as such drugs are much more widely used than Accutane ever was.

Of course it also causes one to wonder how such a destructive drug even got on the market, and to wonder regarding the potential yet unknown or unproven side effects of other drugs that have been FDA approved.

I'm back ;)

Okay, so I've gotten a bit of flack for 1) only blogging once every six months, and 2) calling Philadelphia spiritually dead. So I hope to remedy both of those with this post.

1) I love writing, but it was a lot easier to blog regularly when it was the only writing I got to do. Now that I am writing for work and for school I feel like it is all I do, which leaves less energy to blog.

2) Apparently I have just been to the wrong churches in Philadelphia. I live in the "Main Line" area so perhaps what I am experiencing is more "death by suburbia" than anything else. We did attend a church last Sunday (on the Main Line) that struck me as very alive, welcoming, and committed to social justice. The service was a bit traditional for my taste, but the sense of community I felt, even though it was my first time there, is what the church is supposed to be. I still have yet to experience more of the emerging church movement...but from what I've heard that is alive and well in Philly, and I hope to experience more of that during my time here.

Spiritual impressions of Philadelphia

I am from Oregon - which I've heard is the most "unchurched" state in the US.

I worked as a missionary in a large slum in Brazil, where we sought to bring the gospel to residents in a way that would bring profound spiritual and social change.

But I have never been somewhere that feels as spiritually dead as Philadelphia.

Perhaps part of what gives it that "feel" is the cold climate culture and people being rude and mean in general. But it goes beyond that.

The rich and poor live side by side, well not literally, because they are in their own neighborhoods of course. But within the greater Philadelphia area, there is great economic disparity - on one end those struggling to make it on minimum wage jobs (I don't know how anyone could afford to live in this city on minimum wage), and on the other those who are so well off they don't have to think twice about spending money. These two different worlds, though so geographically close, don't often intersect. They generally have their own churches, shopping centres, and modes of transportation. They can usually live in their own bubble without bumping into the other too much.

It makes me ask, what would the coming kingdom of God look like in this city? How would things start to change? I had hoped to find glimpses of the kingdom in churches here - but instead, for the most part, I found churches modeled after the already existing social patterns - and even worse churches fighting to maintain their own tradition rather than usher in the kingdom of God.

Since arriving here in late August, I have been to Presbyterian, Baptist, Mennonite, and Quaker churches, as well as an independent charismatic African-American church. Some of these churches preached a solid biblical message, others a somewhat watered-down message with occasional scriptural references, others you wouldn't even know you were in a Christian church. The majority of churches in the city seem to be smaller, somewhat enclosed communities simply seeking to maintain their existence and the way they have always done things. Most (not all I have been to) seem to have strayed from the gospel, from the good news of the kingdom, and the feel when you walk in is just "dead" - no delight or rejoicing in worshiping God. It's like the spiritual death that hovers over the city has engulfed the churches as well, whatever light is left has been covered with a basket. Surely a church that is different, that practices genuine fellowship and openly proclaims the gospel in all its fullness would shine forth as a city on a hill, a light in such a dark place? I still have yet to find such a church here...a church that is alive in a place of death. But I'll keep looking.