Where is the "Social Gospel" tradition in US politics?

[Minstrel Boy]

I've been watching, with equal parts of horror, fascination and boredom, DUers rip each other apart over religion. I've been tempted to jump in, but I hesitate, because I think the terms of reference are too foreign for me.

Historically, in Canada, when Christians have been politically mobilized, they have been mobilized on the Left.

Many of the founders of Canada's socialist party - the CCF, which became the NDP - were ministers and people of faith. They saw it as their priority, as men and women of God, to see the hungry were fed and the homeless were sheltered. It is because of that Social Gospel tradition that Canada has public health care.

Our largest Protestant denomination is a uniquely Canadian institution called the United Church of Canada (not to be confused with Unitarian), which is sometimes called "the NDP at prayer." It is institutionally radical. Longtime NDP MP Bill Blaikie, who finished second in the last leadership contest, is also a United Church Minister. Here's a snip from an interview a couple of years ago:

How does your Christian faith inform your politics?

Blaikie: My faith does inform my politics. If you judge your politics by whose side you should be on, I think it's pretty clear from the Biblical tradition whose side God is on. It's the vulnerable and oppressed. It's not on the side of the powerful or corporate elite. It's also clear that any society that reduces us to competitors-as opposed to co-operators-is not in tune with the Biblical message. Who is in charge? Who is in Lord? If the current powers and principalities which I regard as the global corporations -they're running the world and it's their view of the world that's in charge-then I think that's contrary to a view which holds that, instead of the view of the corporations, it should be the worldview that we have in the Biblical tradition and other faith traditions as well.

http://www.thesocialedge.com/archives/gerrymccarthy/2articles-sep2002.htm


See how my frame of reference is skewed when I read DU's religion wars?

And where is America's Social Gospel?

[NAO]

1. The Social Gospel: Jesus Condems the Culture Wars AND the G(reedy)OP

The "Christian Right" has got it WRONG on both the "values agenda" and the right wing economic/abolition of social programs agenda.

On Being a Christian Nation

Part I: Jesus vs. The Social Conservatives - Culture Wars in the Time of Christ
- Let Him Who Is Without Sin Condemn the First Gay (John 8:3-11)
- Foreign Objects in the Eyes, or Jesus Teaches Us How (and to Whom) to Apply Biblical Laws (Matthew 7:1-3)

Part II: Jesus vs. The Economic Conservatives - Did Jesus Teach Personal or Social Responsitility?
- Seperating the Sheep from the Goats, Based on Domestic Social Policy - Subsistence Programs (Matthew 25:31-46)
- Not My Responsibility? The Pharasee and the Levite Had Excuses, too (Luke 10:30-37)

Part III: Putting Parts I and II Together - On Being a Christian Nation
- What Parts of the Bible Should we Apply to Nations and to Government Policy?
- What Parts of the Bible Should we Apply only to Individuals?

**********************

Part I: Jesus vs. The Social Conservatives - Culture Wars in the Time of Christ

Let Him Who Is Without Sin Condemn the First Gay (John 8:3-11)

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Foreign Objects in the Eyes, or Jesus Teaches Us How (and to Whom) to Apply Biblical Laws (Matthew 7:1-3)

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Part II: Jesus vs. The Economic Conservatives - Did Jesus Teach Personal or Social Responsitility?

Seperating the Sheep from the Goats, Based on Domestic Social Policy - Subsistence Programs (Matthew 25:31-46)

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Not My Responsibility? The Priest and the Levite Did'nt Think So, Either (Luke 10:30-37)

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Part III: Putting Parts I and II Together - On Being a Christian Nation

What Parts of the Bible Should we Apply to Nations and to Government Policy? What Parts of the Bible Should we Apply only to Individuals?

The Religious Right frequently emphasizes that God will Judge us "as a Nation". They combine this notion with their condemnation of certian behaviors of individuals, and this is the basis of the "culture wars". They rally for the government to pass laws that uphold Biblical standards. They want to outlaw sodomy, and ban gay marrige. Thus, they maintain that as Christians, we should not only observe God's commandments, but enact them as govermental legislation.

Curiously, when passages such as Matthew 25:31-46 are discussed, they typically quickly assert that charity - helping the poor, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and so forth, should be left to individuals and to the churches. They do not agree that these programs should be on the national agenda, nor do they beleive that welfare and other subsistence programs are properly the duty of the federal government.

Well, there you go. Those passages are so incredibly obvious, it boggles the mind how Christians can miss them so completely.

That they ALSO miss the point of the passage from Matthew 25 (Jesus vs. the Economic Conservatives) too is even more baffling!

And as if that were not enough - they are working to have the values agenda (which is nothing more than the condemning of others based on the Laws of Moses) built into the structure of government...but when you talk about building the helping of the poor, the feeding of the sick into the structure of government, they immediately launch into right wing talking points about how THAT is not the proper role of government, but should be left to private individuals and charities.

Now the words of Jesus quoted above indicate, beyond any doubt, that the exact opposite is correct in both cases. Adherence to the Laws of Moses SHOULD be left to private individuals and at most, the churches. We have been commanded by Jesus NOT to engage in the moral condemnation of others. Conversely, we have been commanded to feed, clothe and shelter those in need.

If Christians REALLY want a Christian nation, they should vote for a ban on condemning of sinners (unless of course you are 100% sin free, in which case feel free to blast them) AND they should provide a MANDATE for social programs.

[jdj]

2. but in the U.S., chrisitanity is a brand. It is a marketing campaign.

It has nothing to do with religion, really.

The "office" for that corporation is the church.

I'm waiting for the day when the xtians here who cry that the right has co-opted their religion start withdrawing from their churches and forming progressive left-wing churches. Because they are complicit with these people as long as they are sitting in the pews beside them.

[DearAbby]

3. Christianity in America is big business

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Uhhhh---Most of us are already in left-wing churches

There are a lot of Unitarians, UCCers, Episcopalians, United Methodists, ELCA Lutherans and liberal Catholics on this board. Those are the churches that the right wing loves to hate.

My church numbers among its communicants a transgendered glam rocker, and it sent a peace delegation to Cuba, among other things. I'm supposed to go to a MORE left-wing church?

[Dark]

5. America has a social gospel, a socially-conservative gospel. n/t

[carpetbagger]

6. Institutional vs. Media religion. That's your answer.

We have liberal denominations, including the United Methodist Church of Bush and Cheney. They don't have a voice in mainstream politics, social discourse, or personal decisions in this country. They say things, but nobody listens.

Religious discourse in this country is much more of a media event. Conservative Christians have TV and radio stations, liberals do not. Conservative Christians produce mass-published, feel-good books designed to rally the masses, and liberals produce scholarly books designed to educate. Conservative preachers and organizations set the agenda, liberal Christians react to them. It's reached a point where if you have some proclivity towards Christianity, it really does appear at times that you have only the conservative religious machine to turn towards.

In a nutshell, liberal Christianity, or specifically liberal white, protestant Christianity, lacks the mass appeal that is necessary in modern American life for a movement's success, given the lack of Biblical literacy, historical grounding, and the Paris Hilton/JR Ewing values system that pervades society. We have no media, no dynamic preaching, no campus movement, no popular press (i.e. no liberal "inspirational literature"), and very few churches that push aggressive organizing and outreach (i.e. megachurches in the making).

The Catholic Church used to be considered "the Democratic Party at prayer". Those days seem to be numbered. The causes are similar, but the presence of an anti-Vatican II pope, as well as the combination of a politically active leadership and a laity not sharing the European mistrust of a policial church, add to the mix.

My experience has been horrible with respect to trying to find a theologically progressive church. There are several of them in the city I live in, but most of them cater to upper-class professionals (I'm one, but my wife doesn't work, and I'm a bit too Scotch to appreciate a mix of money and religion), and their outreach is primarily to gays, peace activists, and ethnic minorities who don't generally feel comfortable in nearly all-Anglo churches anyway. Liberal churches offer nothing to my children. That's not their focus, and that's their death knell.

[QC]

7. In the past, American Christians tended to mobilize on the Left.

Think Abolitionism, the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th century, the Civil Rights Movement, William Jennings Bryan's populist economics, etc. The whole politicized fundamentalist "Jesus is a Republican" phenomenon is not even thirty years old.

[NAO]

8. I've heard that "The Great Awakening" was financed by Robber Barrons...

Someone told me "The Great Awakening" of the 19th Century, with all of it's traveling "Revival Evangelists" was heavily funded by Big Business interests as a way to get people away from thinking about worldly wealth and political action by diverting them into Evangelical Religion.

Where is our Robert Ingersoll? If he came forward, would he be allowed to speak in public forums?

Robert Green Ingersoll

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/index.shtml

http://www.secularhumanism.org/ingersoll/bio.html

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/ingersoll/