Posted by
CRB on Monday, November 12, 2007 7:59:49 PM
In an effort to promote its own apocalyptic eschatology, liberal Christianity declared the "social gospel" as the salvation of humanity.
The great ends of the church are the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind; the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God; the maintenance of divine worship; the preservation of truth; the promotion of social righteousness; and the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world.
But some misunderstand the term and are now attempting to redefine history to their own ends. Keri Wyatt Kent makes her position (p. 13) clear as she discusses the current postmodern influences within evangelicalism:
For years the term "social gospel" was considered a dirty word of sorts in evangelical circles. The thinking was that fighting social ills was not as important as saving souls. But some Christian leaders, especially those in the spiritual formation movement, are hoping that the church is waking up to the fact that those two goals are not mutually exclusive.
Here she avoids the historic definition of the term "social gospel" as a replacement for spiritual regeneration and makes it out to be something that it is not -- social involvement. In doing so she has opened the door to more than just dialogue with the liberal theological community -- she is willing to surrender the essence of an evangelicalism which has for millennia been about both social involvement and spiritual redemption.
Kent also commits the grave error of assuming that the church does not care about the needs of society. She argues from only presumption about the emergent and postmodern goals. While I believe there is more we should do, we should not be driven out of either guilt or a mistaken view of history. That is not a sound approach to either theological principle or practical application.
What is consistent here is the postmodern willingness to dismiss a great deal of epistemology. She throws out the truth of history for a reinterpretation that meets her goal. She has done no different with history here than what Pickstock did to Aquinas -- she reinterprets on whim, not on knowledge or truth.
As do so many postmoderns and emergents today she appeas to the character principles of the Hebrew nation as guides for the church.
Thousands of years ago, God's people practiced spiritual disciples -- prayer, devout study of the Scriptures, fasting, keeping Sabbath and others. And these practices, meant to form them spiritually, did so -- mostly. But eventually, at least with a group of folks that Isaiah was sent to give a talking-to, the practices had become disconnected, empty. A method for manipulating God, rather than imitating His goodness. "Why have we humbled ourselves and you have not noticed?" they ask (Isaiah 58:3), not realizing the irony in their question.
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?" God replies.
And while I agree that these are valid principles to express a mature Christian (and, yes, Jewish) character, they are not the substance of the Christian faith. If they were then we would be Jewish, and without the efficacious work of Christ. But we are not, and we have it.
(Ok. I'll grant that the continuation of her statement does apply this principle to Christian behavior. But the situation is at minimum a confusing one, given her redefinition of "social gospel." That makes her use of this passage questionable. She is being quite inconsistent.)
This approach to history and knowledge is typical among postmoderns of all flavors. The damage that is being done to Christianity of all stripes is significant. (I even take the step that liberal Christians will suffer loss because their prominent theologians, like Tillich, will also lose their meaning.) It's a dangerous road that we are headed down.