Bonhoeffer on the “Social Gospel” and Reconstructing Faith

I have been labeled by some as a Progressive Christian, and even sometimes think of myself that way. That said, my primary identity remains Lutheran, and one of the reasons for that is that I believe that while the work for social justice is profoundly important, it cannot supplant the primary focus of my faith, which is Christ. It’s hard to put my finger on the what difference that makes, but I think a concrete example from the past can help shine some light on the topic.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran who was murdered by the Nazis in 1945, visited the United States and encountered what was then a growing movement towards the Social Gospel. Now, Bonhoeffer cannot be seen as some kind of pro-capitalist, anti-Communist, fundamentalist [1]. Bonhoeffer’s visit to the United States enlightened him on a number of things, and as he traveled the States, he condemned their treatment of minorities (especially African Americans). Bonhoeffer’s own writings repeatedly emphasize the need to feed the hungry and care for the poor and oppressed. But Bonhoeffer never allowed those concerns about social justice to supplant the Gospel. In one enlightening writing, “Memorandum: The ‘Social Gospel,'” Bonhoeffer writes a balanced perspective on the notion of social justice and the Gospel.

The work appears in the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English: Volume 12. He writes, first that the social gospel adherents are the people who are “most interested and participate most in international Christian work,” which gives the impression that it is the majority Christianity of the United States. This, he states, is “mistaken.” But the opposition and majority church of the time, one Bonhoeffer describes as fundamentalist, is highly problematic: “strong financial support from capitalist circles… and adherents of individualistic revival Christianity” (236). Anyone familiar with Bonhoeffer would know each of these was seen by him as deep condemnation. The church situation generally in the United States was seen by Bonhoeffer as having some problems rooted in its organization. While not having state support of the schools was likely seen by him as a major boon given what was happening to the German Christian movement back home, he rightly points out that “Because the church depends completely on the activity of the congregation, there is strong general interest in the church and a close fusion of public with church interests, with all the consequences for the dominance of the pew over the pulpit” (237).

Moving on to the social gospel’s teachings, Bonhoeffer notes that it makes the “gospel entirely relate[d] to the human being in his current situation…” It sees the problem for humans as the “materialistic, atomistic, individualistic, capitalistic” tenor of the age and proscribes the church as the solution; an ethical solution that reduces and conceals the “real Christ” to instead be the “religion of Christ” and makes the teachings of the church merely about “Christ’s teaching,” thus converting Christianity into “an ethical religion (or even only an ethic)” in which “the Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount form its center.” The kingdom of God is seen as an ushering in of an age in which there is true brotherhood among human beings, and this makes God immanent in the world rather than transcendent. The resurrection is seen as a sign and total affirmation of Christ’s teaching of love of neighbor. Social gospel is a religion of action, seeking to bring that version of the Kingdom of God into the world now as the highest goal. Theology is reduced to being a concern only to those who are fundamentalist in their outlook (239-240).

These outlines of the social gospel ring surprisingly true for much modern Progressive theology. I say this as someone who is typically categorized as a Progressive Christian. Bonhoeffer’s words about the social gospel above are so close to so much Progressive theology I have seen. And there’s nothing wrong with seeking to bring the Kingdom of God now, or to usher in an era of inclusion, equality, and love for all people.

Bonhoeffer’s section following this outline of the social gospel is “Appreciation and critique,” and is worth noting at length. First, he states “The unrelenting seriousness with which the practical social problems are shown here, and with which Christians are called to serve, is the decisive contribution of American Christians [involved in the social gospel movement] to the understanding of the Christian message in the entire world… Taking seriously the kingdom of God as a kingdom on earth is biblically sound and is justified…” Clearly, Bonhoeffer resonates with the message of the social gospel over and against the “individualistic” and “capitalistic” concerns of fundamentalist Christianity.

However, the social gospel also caused problems by supplanting theology with Christ-as-ethic. Bonhoeffer writes, “The eschatological understanding of the kingdom, as one that God can create and brings in contrast to the world, has disappeared… Sin is not an unpleasant side effect of human existence; rather it corrupts the innermost core of human beings… Christ is the mediator who reconciles the human being with God and forgives his sins. Cross and resurrection as acts of God are therefore the center of history… God is not the immanent progressive ethical principle of history; God is the Lord who judges the human being and his work, he is the absolute sovereign… The optimism, the ideology of progress does not take God’s commandment seriously (Luke 17:10 [2]). It is modern enthusiasm. It fails to recognize human limits; it ignores the fundamental difference between a kingdom of the world and God’s Kingdom” (241).

Finally, he critiques the social gospel for being an Enlightenment philosophy containing a self-contradictory desire for international and collectivist/individualistic harmony. While such harmony is itself a better ideology than most, it misses the strength of the gospel message when it centers Christ’s resurrection and the coming kingdom of God.

Bonhoeffer’s critique of the social gospel, then, is important to me to understand because it shows how we can resonate and even encourage the goals of the social gospel, or in our own time, social justice while still arguing that to reduce Christianity to the message of human unity actually destroys the very message of the Gospel itself. Yes, we want unity of humanity. Yes, we want peace. Yes, we want to resist the “materialistic, atomistic, individualistic, capitalistic” trend we see in our own times. But no, we must not reduce the message of Christianity to the Sermon on the Mount or see Christ merely as another ethicist.

So much Lutheran theology walks the middle line between views seen to be an opposition. It is neither Arminian nor Calvinist; neither transubstantiation nor merely symbolic in the Eucharist; neither double predestination nor individualized choice of salvation. For our time, perhaps another middle line Lutherans walk is that line affirming both the necessity of theology and yes, even orthodoxy, while also working to bring justice to the world. It’s a line walking the acknowledgement that humanity is sinful and even corrupted by sin–something easier to do outside of our positions of privilege in suburban or urban homes in the United States; when children are made into soldiers, or violence is a day-to-day experience, it is easier to see the corruption of human nature–while also hoping that the God who entered the world in Christ can enter once more and bring healing and holism to humanity. I think it’s worth walking those lines.

Notes

[1]Ironically, his views on Scripture were seen as fairly conservative in his own setting but would be seen by American Evangelicals as wildly liberal today.

[2] “So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’’]'” NIV

All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links

Links

Dietrich Bonhoeffer– read all my posts related to Bonhoeffer and his theology.

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.