Just Kamping

Update, 13 Oct 20*** I wrote this blog in the midst of unrest within America (it’s still going on). In the aftermath of the death of George Floyd and the subsequent riots, I chose to speak against what I believed was the acceptance of Critical Race Theory within mainstream evangelicalism. Looking back, I believe I was uninformed as to the complexity and nuances of the cultural moment. This post (and the others) was reflexive in nature and I do not believe it added value to the conversation taking place in our neighborhoods (with the exception of the gospel as portrayed in Pt III). Going forward, I will seek to carefully choose the topics I write about and ensure I’m well informed before posting. I still believe Critical Race Theory is harmful, though :)***

First, I’d like to thank all of you who took the time to read Pt. I of this series entitled “Confronting Social Gospels”. And for those who took the time to provide me feedback, ask questions, and clarify terms, your responses were not only encouraging, but edifying. I’m very grateful.

After considering much of the feedback, I have decided to pause my preplanned post for this week and take time to share with you my thoughts on the use of labels when discussing many of the ideas filtering through our current conversations. Additionally, I’d like to define a few terms that will be helpful for the future.

As for our planned discussion, that’s still planned for later this week.

Now, let’s talk labels!

I’ve titled this series “Confronting Social Gospels” primarily because I believe there is a trend in some Christian circles to embrace social ideologies or agendas (fully or in part) that are not rooted in Christ but rather in 19-20th century philosophy. Such philosophy is christ-less and leading proponents would have nothing to do with Jesus except to exploit his teaching and receive support from his followers to acquire legitimacy and power (see note at the bottom).  Do I think well-intentioned brothers and sisters in Christ embrace such ideas knowing their origin and implications? No. I’m choosing to believe the best. And rather than criticize specific Christian leaders or Christian tribes, I believe we should prioritize the discussion of ideas and whether or not claims are true. At the end of the day, truth is what we all should be working toward. Specifically, truth that is rooted first and foremost in the word of God, not in the world or personal experience. Now, I am not espousing we label someone a “Marxist”, “Socialist”, or “Antifa”, even if the ideas they promote align with others who embrace those titles. I think that’s unhelpful. I am also against labeling ideas to dismiss others or shut down a conversation. If I said to someone, “you’re just spewing radical leftist ideology that is better left in the grave with Lenin than on the streets of America”, you can imagine I wouldn’t get very far. Ideas should be discussed, and labels can help anchor ideas in their context. Simply put, labels should be used as tools for conversation, not as grenades to maim. When I wrote of Critical Theory and publicly denied tenets of Liberation Theology, I did not do so to dismiss or shut down conversation, but to anchor us somewhere. Therefore, let me say that labels can be good, but we should not be quick to label people and we should not dismiss their ideas if we intend to have civil dialogue. I will admit that I can be quite snappy in my writing, and if it seems to get in the way of civil dialogue, feel free to tell me. I’ll consider the feedback!

Now to define some terms. When I say “those within The Social Gospel movement”, I mean those who reduce Christianity and “gospel” ministry to a horizontal plane where man’s relationship to man and the world around him is emphasized/prioritized over the vertical plane of man in relationship to God. Due to this dichotomy, many proponents will claim to be doing “kingdom work” in their service to others, while neglecting the proclamation of the good news that Israel’s God has become King in and through Jesus Christ. This service may lead to great social change, but if void of the gospel it is powerless to change the fundamental problem with mankind. Without a vertical shift in man’s relationship to God, there is no hope for horizontal unity, no matter how much we work for it.

Within the Social Gospel Movement throughout history, you’ll find many different variations of thought and emphases. Many Social Gospel proponents have started well and gospel-centered, but unfortunately, the tension between the horizontal and vertical can slide good intentions into heterodoxy, or deviation from acceptable standards or beliefs. Birthed from this was the Social Gospel Theology of Rausenbusch in the 1910s and Liberation Theology of the 50’s and 60’s. One could even contend that the social issues we face today in the U.S. are not due to a lack of social progress, rather social progress has been powerless to change the hearts of men. Preach social progress more than Christ and expect nothing less. I included proponents of Critical Theory in my last post because I believe when Critical Theory is followed, it espouses a view of man that is unbiblical and promotes liberation from homogeny as it’s desired end and not new creation. New creation is not found in liberation from power structures, it’s found in reconciliation to a holy God.

But why do those within Social Gospel circles believe that preaching the gospel to societal problems solves nothing? Why do I believe preaching the gospel is exactly what we need? More of that to follow in Pt. III.

Feel free to drop a note in the comments or reach out to me on social media!

-Kyle

P.S. When I said that some exploit the teachings of Jesus and receive support from his followers for the purpose of acquiring legitimacy and power, I was specifically referencing the BLM organization. BLM has received much support from Christians motivated by their moving name. However, at the height of such visibility, BLM changed their “About” section to be less radical and more enticing to a moral crowd, ultimately seeking their support. I wanted to provide proof but BLM has now blocked access to their historical data.