Opinion of Walter Rauschenbusch

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Rauschenbusch

FF.  I'm currently reading his book A Theology for the Social Gospel.  Beautifully written and easy to understand.

[afleitch]

You should have your own thread for one sided polls about unobjectionable Christian theologists

[Deus Naturae]

I tend to take a negative view of anyone who believes that collectivism is inherently good. HP.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I tend to take a negative view of anyone who believes that collectivism is inherently good. HP.

So you have a negative view of Jesus? 

More seriously, Rauschenbusch promoted the Social Gospel, not the Socialist Gospel, tho unfortunately some libertarians seem to think that anything done to help people in general is socialist.

I'd need to read some of his work to reach a final conclusion, but judging by the Wikipedia article, he seems like a mixed bag.  Certainly he came along at a time when social responsibility needed to be revitalized, but the way the article is written it sounds he overdid it, to the point of marginalizing the need for individual responsibility and the need for an individual connection to the Divine.

[Deus Naturae]

I tend to take a negative view of anyone who believes that collectivism is inherently good. HP.

So you have a negative view of Jesus? 

More seriously, Rauschenbusch promoted the Social Gospel, not the Socialist Gospel, tho unfortunately some libertarians seem to think that anything done to help people in general is socialist.

I'd need to read some of his work to reach a final conclusion, but judging by the Wikipedia article, he seems like a mixed bag.  Certainly he came along at a time when social responsibility needed to be revitalized, but the way the article is written it sounds he overdid it, to the point of marginalizing the need for individual responsibility and the need for an individual connection to the Divine.

I'm not too knowledgable about him so it's possible I'm not understanding the context, but his wikipedia page stated that he believed socialism to be an "institutional embodiment of good."

Anyway, I've got nothing against helping people, it's the idea that the people should be required to help others that bothers me.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I tend to take a negative view of anyone who believes that collectivism is inherently good. HP.

So you have a negative view of Jesus? 

More seriously, Rauschenbusch promoted the Social Gospel, not the Socialist Gospel, tho unfortunately some libertarians seem to think that anything done to help people in general is socialist.

I'd need to read some of his work to reach a final conclusion, but judging by the Wikipedia article, he seems like a mixed bag.  Certainly he came along at a time when social responsibility needed to be revitalized, but the way the article is written it sounds he overdid it, to the point of marginalizing the need for individual responsibility and the need for an individual connection to the Divine.

I'm not too knowledgable about him so it's possible I'm not understanding the context, but his wikipedia page stated that he believed socialism to be an "institutional embodiment of good."

Anyway, I've got nothing against helping people, it's the idea that the people should be required to help others that bothers me.

Then you have a problem with a lot more Christian moral theology than just the Social Gospel movement. Jesus' teachings and strictures and commandments can be interpreted as individual, collective, or both without much violence to the Biblical text, but interpreting them as non-binding recommendations is a stretcher. Unless, of course, what you're saying is that you find it objectionable when specific types of earthly institutions--I imagine you're thinking of governments, in this case--require people to help others, but don't find it objectionable on general principle, which I think is a more defensible position.

Yes, I was referring to state policies, I should've been more clear. Not that I don't have issues with Christian moral theology.

Ah. All right then. I was asking because it is possible to find the entire framework of Christian moral theology odious on the same grounds, but it didn't seem like that was what you were referring to.

Getting back to the original subject, Rauschenbusch is a little concerning to me for the reason that Ernest mentioned, namely his focus on collective social action crowding out the question of the spiritual development of the person. I take the view that principles of Christian charity should operate on more or less every level--from individual to local to governmental to institutional, although petty personal failings and sins at the lower end and the principalities and powers and rulers of the darkness of this world at the upper end can make this difficult to do effectively--and I think that Rauschenbusch focuses on one or a few of these levels to the exclusion of others in a similar way to a lot of the more individualist, (American) 'conservative' Christian thinkers with whom I have trouble, although not as severely or in a way that I find as politically bothersome. I like his rejection of conventional substitutionary atonement but don't think he really replaced it with anything coherent, although some of his writing can be read in such a way as to imply the Christus Victor model, of which I am very fond. I dislike the way he appears to limit the scope of the atonement (again confining it to operate on the social level alone). I would say Rauschenbusch was better as a political and social commentator than he was as a theologian as such. As a political and social commentator, he was wonderful, and his actual influence on Church history has been almost all for the good, but that strain of Christian thought has produced better and more integrated spiritual minds.

EDIT: Also, since this post began life as an edit to my last post, it appears my last post has disappeared, now existing only as the quote in Deus naturae's post, and this post appears before the post to which it is a response. Sorry about that.

[Deus Naturae]

I tend to take a negative view of anyone who believes that collectivism is inherently good. HP.

So you have a negative view of Jesus? 

More seriously, Rauschenbusch promoted the Social Gospel, not the Socialist Gospel, tho unfortunately some libertarians seem to think that anything done to help people in general is socialist.

I'd need to read some of his work to reach a final conclusion, but judging by the Wikipedia article, he seems like a mixed bag.  Certainly he came along at a time when social responsibility needed to be revitalized, but the way the article is written it sounds he overdid it, to the point of marginalizing the need for individual responsibility and the need for an individual connection to the Divine.

I'm not too knowledgable about him so it's possible I'm not understanding the context, but his wikipedia page stated that he believed socialism to be an "institutional embodiment of good."

Anyway, I've got nothing against helping people, it's the idea that the people should be required to help others that bothers me.

Then you have a problem with a lot more Christian moral theology than just the Social Gospel movement. Jesus' teachings and strictures and commandments can be interpreted as individual, collective, or both without much violence to the Biblical text, but interpreting them as non-binding recommendations is a stretcher. Unless, of course, what you're saying is that you find it objectionable when specific types of earthly institutions--I imagine you're thinking of governments, in this case--require people to help others, but don't find it objectionable on general principle, which I think is a more defensible position.

Yes, I was referring to state policies, I should've been more clear. Not that I don't have issues with Christian moral theology.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Socialism and collectivism have both had a number of meanings over the years, so without context I'm reluctant to say which particular meaning those words had for Rauschenbush. Socialism and collectivism need not be implemented from above by the government.

[DC Al Fine]

Preachers like Rauschenbusch have a tendency to veer into "Christ without a Cross" theology. While I don't think he goes that far, he makes a serious error in his attribution of the source of sin. Well meaning HT.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Preachers like Rauschenbusch have a tendency to veer into "Christ without a Cross" theology. While I don't think he goes that far, he makes a serious error in his attribution of the source of sin. Well meaning HT.

Please elaborate.  Are you referring to the 'Fall of Man' as depicted in Genesis?  Rauschenbusch was not a biblical literalist and so would not attribute sin to the creation story.

[DC Al Fine]

Preachers like Rauschenbusch have a tendency to veer into "Christ without a Cross" theology. While I don't think he goes that far, he makes a serious error in his attribution of the source of sin. Well meaning HT.

Please elaborate.  Are you referring to the 'Fall of Man' as depicted in Genesis?  Rauschenbusch was not a biblical literalist and so would not attribute sin to the creation story.

Bad wording on my part.

I can't say this for certain without reading some of his work in depth (I'm working from Wikipedia ), but his distinction between social and individual sins is unnecessary in my view and has the effect of abstracting the personal need for salvation in the eyes of the laity.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Preachers like Rauschenbusch have a tendency to veer into "Christ without a Cross" theology. While I don't think he goes that far, he makes a serious error in his attribution of the source of sin. Well meaning HT.

Please elaborate.  Are you referring to the 'Fall of Man' as depicted in Genesis?  Rauschenbusch was not a biblical literalist and so would not attribute sin to the creation story.

Bad wording on my part.

I can't say this for certain without reading some of his work in depth (I'm working from Wikipedia ), but his distinction between social and individual sins is unnecessary in my view and has the effect of abstracting the personal need for salvation in the eyes of the laity.

Well, I'm not even halfway through with his book, but just an FYI: Rauschenbusch considered sin as something that was inescapable and typically unconscious, not just something that people happen to do.  He thought there was a societal price to pay for basically every sin an individual committed because their impacts on humanity are unavoidable (which I guess you could argue is a little extreme, since not all sins are of the same degree or carry the same consequences for obvious reasons).  However, I'd say it kind of makes sense if you're looking at it through a Calvinist pair of lens, as Calvinism and free will are generally at odds with each other.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, I'm not even halfway through with his book, but just an FYI: Rauschenbusch considered sin as something that was inescapable and typically unconscious, not just something that people happen to do.  He thought there was a societal price to pay for basically every sin an individual committed because their impacts on humanity are unavoidable (which I guess you could argue is a little extreme, since not all sins are of the same degree or carry the same consequences for obvious reasons).  However, I'd say it kind of makes sense if you're looking at it through a Calvinist pair of lens, as Calvinism and free will are generally at odds with each other.

That's not necessarily a Calvinist view of sin.  Indeed, I''m certainly not a Calvinist, but what you describe sounds like my own view of sin.  Because we lack God's omniscience, we can never be absolutely sure of whether our acts are good or evil.  We have free will, but only when we surrender the gift of free will and do as God wills can we be certain of doing good. Calvinism and the other isms that hold to total depravity assert that we are incapable of making that surrender on our own.  But my own view of sin is compatible not only with the monergism of total depravity, but also with synergism and even Pelagianism.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Incidentally, as part of my personal bible study for today, I came across Deuteronomy 29:19-21 which is tangentially related to this. In those verses, especially in verse 21, that if warranted a sinner will be punished individually. "₂₁ YHWH will single them out from all the tribes of Israel for disaster, according to all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law." Coming as this does in the midst of a couple of chapters detailing collective blessings and curses on Israel if they should either follow or abandon the covenant, I'd say that these verses rebuke the concept that societal sins are more important than individual sins.