Here are a few excerpts from an essay I wrote last year on the social gospel in America:
According to historian Howard Zinn, 1,118,000 children under the age of sixteen were employed in this country in 1880. On May 1, 1886, nationwide strikes occurred: 350,000 workers in 11,562 establishments walked off the job. In New York City, 25,000 of them marched in a torchlight parade to protest capitalistic injustice. That year, 1886, was called “the year of the great uprising of labor.” There were over 1,400 strikes involving half a million workers.
The Homestead Strike of 1892 bore witness to the increasing divide between labor and owners. Workers walked off the job in Pennsylvania at the Carnegie-Phipps steel mill. There was violence and bloodshed. At this time a factory worker earned $446 annually, a miner earned $393 per year, a school teacher $273 per year. But Andrew Carnegie’s income was $4,000,000 a year.
December 1907 was a bad month for miners. A West Virginia coalmine explosion killed 361 miners; an explosion in Pennsylvania killed 239 miners; in Alabama a coalmine explosion killed 91 miners. But there were positive signs on the social front: twenty-three states passed laws reducing work hours for men employed in mines, smelters, underground work, and train operators.
Walter Rauschenbusch was a pastor in the slums of New York City. In 1892 he went to John D. Rockefeller and told him, “It has been a hard year for many of our people. Many of them have been laid off for weeks, and even months.” That took guts.
Urban pastors like Rauschenbusch supported the causes of the Progressive Era. These causes included taxation of income and inheritances, safety standards for factories, shorter work hours, accident and unemployment insurance, public health initiatives, old age pensions, regulation of tenements, and conservation of natural resources.
New York City changed Walter Rauschenbusch. He never forgot the funerals he performed for children who had died from disease, abuse, neglect, or starvation. He never forgot the plight of the workers and the unemployed. To him, “the Gay 90s” were not gay at all. Machines, money, and the metropolis were killing people…
And so we have come a long way from those days, largely because people spoke up, churches got involved, workers united, and government policies became more humane—but not without effort and sacrifice. The work goes on now under different circumstances, yet it’s based on the same principles of the dignity of human beings and social justice. The Gospel of Wealth is a false gospel.
February 27, 2011
February 26, 2011
Why American Christians Reject Fundamentalism
American Christians, on the whole, are wary of fundamentalism. The dominant form of Christianity in America has never been fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalists are among us, but most Americans view religious fundamentalism as a form of tyranny. We don’t like tyranny or tyrants. We prefer freedom, particularly religious freedom. Fundamentalism strikes us as oppressive and unfree.
There are theological reasons for this. First, the sovereignty of God. God’s sovereignty over all is not a call to tyranny but humility. If God is sovereign, then I am not! If God is sovereign, then I should be humble about my views and recognize that I could be wrong. God is, in essence, beyond human knowledge. Statements about God and God’s will are always human interpretations; they must be evaluated on a large mental field by many people. This saves us from fanatics and religious tyranny. God is sovereign. We are not. Every human government, institution, and church stands under the judgment of God.
Second, God is free. If we believe in the sovereignty of God, then we also affirm that God can do whatever God wishes to do. We cannot control God any more than we can control salvation. Because God is free, salvation can appear anywhere, anytime, and through anyone. God is not restricted as to the means of salvation or the persons God chooses to be his prophets. Revelation, in other words, can come from all directions, from any source, at anytime, from any place. This is the freedom of God. We cannot restrict God’s revelation, God’s grace, or God’s salvation. We cannot pronounce judgment on who is everlastingly saved or everlastingly lost.
Third, the cross of Christ. The greatest argument against religious fundamentalism is the cross of Christ. Jesus was crushed by the combined powers of altar and throne, church and state. We cannot call the religious leaders of his day “fundamentalists,” but they certainly were not committed to religious freedom! The death of Christ is a warning against religion in politics. How does this connect with our time? Since the late 1970s conservative and fundamentalist Christians in America have been expressing the need to “take back America” for God. They continue to have a political agenda for our nation, to “Christianize” America according to their definition. This is a dangerous blend of religion and politics. This blurs the line between church and state. The cross of Christ condemns the union of church and state; it also condemns the efforts of religious fundamentalists to impose a theocratic ideal on our country.
Finally, the sources of Christian theology keep us from fundamentalist extremes. Over the centuries a method of doing theology has been developed. This method revolves around four sources of truth: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience
The church has used all four sources to discern God’s revelation and God’s will. Fundamentalists reduce the Christian revelation to a book—the Bible—and interpret this book through the lens of inerrancy (an error-free book straight from God). The church as a whole has never done this. Fundamentalism is a freak when compared to centuries of interpretation and discernment by Christians and theologians. Fundamentalism turns Christianity into a “religion of the book,” like Islam and Orthodox Judaism. But Christianity has never been a religion of the book.
Rather, Christian truth has always been a blend of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Ideally, we aim at the Bible without biblicism, tradition without traditionalism, reason without rationalism, and experience without subjectivism. This is balance. We need balance, and there is nothing about fundamentalism that is balanced.
To sum up, we have four checks against religious fundamentalism:
•The sovereignty of God
•The freedom of God
•The cross of Christ
•Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience
These save us from fundamentalism and the tyranny of religious fanatics.
There are theological reasons for this. First, the sovereignty of God. God’s sovereignty over all is not a call to tyranny but humility. If God is sovereign, then I am not! If God is sovereign, then I should be humble about my views and recognize that I could be wrong. God is, in essence, beyond human knowledge. Statements about God and God’s will are always human interpretations; they must be evaluated on a large mental field by many people. This saves us from fanatics and religious tyranny. God is sovereign. We are not. Every human government, institution, and church stands under the judgment of God.
Second, God is free. If we believe in the sovereignty of God, then we also affirm that God can do whatever God wishes to do. We cannot control God any more than we can control salvation. Because God is free, salvation can appear anywhere, anytime, and through anyone. God is not restricted as to the means of salvation or the persons God chooses to be his prophets. Revelation, in other words, can come from all directions, from any source, at anytime, from any place. This is the freedom of God. We cannot restrict God’s revelation, God’s grace, or God’s salvation. We cannot pronounce judgment on who is everlastingly saved or everlastingly lost.
Third, the cross of Christ. The greatest argument against religious fundamentalism is the cross of Christ. Jesus was crushed by the combined powers of altar and throne, church and state. We cannot call the religious leaders of his day “fundamentalists,” but they certainly were not committed to religious freedom! The death of Christ is a warning against religion in politics. How does this connect with our time? Since the late 1970s conservative and fundamentalist Christians in America have been expressing the need to “take back America” for God. They continue to have a political agenda for our nation, to “Christianize” America according to their definition. This is a dangerous blend of religion and politics. This blurs the line between church and state. The cross of Christ condemns the union of church and state; it also condemns the efforts of religious fundamentalists to impose a theocratic ideal on our country.
Finally, the sources of Christian theology keep us from fundamentalist extremes. Over the centuries a method of doing theology has been developed. This method revolves around four sources of truth: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience
The church has used all four sources to discern God’s revelation and God’s will. Fundamentalists reduce the Christian revelation to a book—the Bible—and interpret this book through the lens of inerrancy (an error-free book straight from God). The church as a whole has never done this. Fundamentalism is a freak when compared to centuries of interpretation and discernment by Christians and theologians. Fundamentalism turns Christianity into a “religion of the book,” like Islam and Orthodox Judaism. But Christianity has never been a religion of the book.
Rather, Christian truth has always been a blend of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Ideally, we aim at the Bible without biblicism, tradition without traditionalism, reason without rationalism, and experience without subjectivism. This is balance. We need balance, and there is nothing about fundamentalism that is balanced.
To sum up, we have four checks against religious fundamentalism:
•The sovereignty of God
•The freedom of God
•The cross of Christ
•Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience
These save us from fundamentalism and the tyranny of religious fanatics.
February 18, 2011
The Things That Make For Peace
As I write this, Wisconsin is making front page news. Tens of thousands of protestors pack the capitol, Democratic legislators have left the state, and Republican Governor Scott Walker appears to be in meltdown mode for trying to ram his agenda through the state senate.
In Badger Country we don’t like being pushed around by cocky, upstart governors who act like bullies. It’s a showdown now as Republicans attempt to bust up the unions for state employees under the guise of “cutting the budget because we’re broke.” We’re not broke, and this is not about the budget as much as it is about Republican anti-labor policies.
Republican are not on the side of middle class workers and families; they are owned and operated by large corporate interests. The people have finally marched on Madison and they aren’t leaving. There is now gridlock and stalemate.
Gov. Walker, in my opinion, blew it. He is blind to “the things that make for peace.” He is ignorant about “the day of his visitation.” This is a key moment, a key learning moment. But it appears that Scott Walker is learning nothing. Specifically, he is not learning how to govern. He is not learning that folks in Wisconsin, at least, are committed to consensus-building, negotiation and the democratic process. We don’t like autocrats.
But Walker is a Tea Party person. This is what the Tea Party looks like close up. It isn’t pretty. We can only hope that the people will be heard and respected, and that this right-wing Tea Party spasm will soon pass. Then we can get some rational leadership that understands the art of negotiation, working together, and compromise.
After all, isn’t that what politics is about?
There are “things that make for peace,” as Jesus said. And then there are certain politicians who don’t understand this. Gov. Scott Walker is one of those politicians. He will have to learn his lessons the hard way—and look foolish in the process.
Go Bucky!!
In Badger Country we don’t like being pushed around by cocky, upstart governors who act like bullies. It’s a showdown now as Republicans attempt to bust up the unions for state employees under the guise of “cutting the budget because we’re broke.” We’re not broke, and this is not about the budget as much as it is about Republican anti-labor policies.
Republican are not on the side of middle class workers and families; they are owned and operated by large corporate interests. The people have finally marched on Madison and they aren’t leaving. There is now gridlock and stalemate.
Gov. Walker, in my opinion, blew it. He is blind to “the things that make for peace.” He is ignorant about “the day of his visitation.” This is a key moment, a key learning moment. But it appears that Scott Walker is learning nothing. Specifically, he is not learning how to govern. He is not learning that folks in Wisconsin, at least, are committed to consensus-building, negotiation and the democratic process. We don’t like autocrats.
But Walker is a Tea Party person. This is what the Tea Party looks like close up. It isn’t pretty. We can only hope that the people will be heard and respected, and that this right-wing Tea Party spasm will soon pass. Then we can get some rational leadership that understands the art of negotiation, working together, and compromise.
After all, isn’t that what politics is about?
There are “things that make for peace,” as Jesus said. And then there are certain politicians who don’t understand this. Gov. Scott Walker is one of those politicians. He will have to learn his lessons the hard way—and look foolish in the process.
Go Bucky!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
