The Nation's Pulse
Variations on the Social Gospel
The once formidable National Council of Churches turns 100, sort of.
The National Council of Churches (NCC), which once represented America’s premier churches, sort of celebrated its 100th anniversary recently. Although the NCC was not created until 1950, in a flurry of post-war enthusiasm, its predecessor, the Federal Council of Churches, was founded in 1908.
Meeting in Denver just after the Obama win, the NCC’s General Assembly was notably excited about a new administration more akin to its own century-long liberalism. The pastor of Obama’s former Chicago church, the Rev. Otis Moss, successor to the infamous Jeremiah Wright, keynoted the NCC gathering and was received fulsomely, of course.
But the NCC fête also included more serious self-reflection than is customary. Both in 1908 and in 1950, the NCC and its predecessor represented the prestige denominations of American religion: primarily the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, northern Baptists, and Disciples. All of those denominations are now facing their fifth decades of membership decline and cultural marginalization.
About 30 denominations were present at the start and, remarkably, the NCC is only a few denominations larger a century later. Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists, not to mention Pentecostals, were never persuaded. Most of the Eastern Orthodox, viewing the church councils as the pathway to America’s religious mainstream, gladly did join, though remaining parsimonious in their contributions. About 40 million American church members, or about 25 percent of the estimated total American church membership, today belong to NCC denominations.
The old Federal Council of Churches was founded in the heart of the Progressive era amid vast cultural optimism. Its churches were America’s oldest and wealthiest, and its members included most of America’s political and economic elites. Having accepted doctrinaire Darwinism and Germanic critical attitudes towards the Bible, the council was theologically and politically liberal from the start. Anxious for consensus, it fudged about theology, claiming to locate Christian unity instead in charity and progressive political reforms. The NCC’s predecessor was the old Social Gospel’s chief promoter and legitimizer.
Reminding the NCC crowd in Denver about some of this history appropriately was Gary Dorrien, the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Following a trajectory like the NCC, and now a shadow of its former self, Union Seminary was once the premier school of ascendant liberal Protestants in America. Niebuhr, of course, was the premier American Protestant ethicist of the mid-20th century. At first a leftist critic of the NCC’s predecessor and its Social Gospel, he later espoused Christian realism, which was still liberal, but rejected utopianism.
Sadly, Dorrien repeated many left-wing buzz phrases that are customary for the NCC, and which would probably have irritated Niebuhr. “If those of us who are Caucasian fail to interrogate white supremacism and its privileges, we will resist any recognition of our own racism,” Dorrien inclusively implored. “If those of us who are male fail to interrogate our complicity in sexism, we will perpetuate it. If those of us who are Christian fail to repudiate anti-Semitism and Christian supercessionism, we will perpetuate the evils that come with them. If those of us who are heterosexual fail to stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians, we will have an oppressive church. If we sign up for militarism and empire, we will betray the way of Christ. We need a wider community of the divine good.”
Dorrien did not identify the ostensible Christian promoters of “militarism and empire,” but fortunately his other comments were more thoughtful. He recalled that the 19th century religious revivals included crusades for temperance, anti-slavery, and anti-war causes. In the early 1880s, the Social Gospel began to congeal. No longer entirely believing in the Bible as historical truth, the Social Gospelers thought that “modern scholarship had rediscovered the social meaning of Christianity in the kingdom-centered religion of Jesus.” The social gospel movement was “sentimental, moralistic, idealistic, and politically naïve,” preaching “cultural optimism and a Jesus of middle-class idealism,” Dorrien admitted. It sometimes baptized “U.S. American imperialism,” built schools for blacks but rarely demanded wider justice for them; supported women’s suffrage but did not press for other women’s rights, opposed World War I until the U.S. intervened, and then after the war “overreacted by reducing the social gospel to pacifist idealism.”
Later promoters of more radical Liberation Theology would condemn the Social Gospel as “too middle-class, white, male-dominated, nationalistic, and socially privileged to be agents of liberation,” Dorrien recalled. But the Social Gospel movement, across 60 years, produced a “greater progressive religious legacy than any generation before or after it,” he claimed, probably accurately. Its platform was embodied in the 1908 “social creed” of the NCC’s predecessor, which advocated “equal rights and complete justice” for all people, the abolition of child labor; a “living wage as a minimum in every industry,” social security, an equitable distribution of income and wealth, and the “abatement of poverty.” Operating through the church council, and other organs of Mainline Protestantism, the Social Gospel was progressive but not radical. It defended democracy against Bolshevism and fascism, and largely rejected socialism in favor of regulated private property.
Dorrien hoped that the new era under Obama will help the true believers within the old liberal ecumenical movement revive their old passions for social justice, dormant too long since the Civil Rights era. And he touted the NCC’s new update of its old 1908 social creed, which now calls for “full civil, political and economic rights for women and men of all races,” full employment and a “family-sustaining living wage,” equal pay for “comparable work,” abolishing the death penalty, universal healthcare and progressive tax policies, environmentalism, liberalized immigration laws, nuclear disarmament and reduced military spending. Dorrien admitted that the new creed is “more verbose” than the old one but still “superb.”
Perhaps the expanded social creed excited the mostly gray heads who filled the NCC assembly and who predominate in most of the NCC’s member denominations. But the mass movements behind civil rights and other Social Gospel causes still relied on traditional Christianity’s moral legacy. That legacy ultimately depends more on the Nicene Creed than any social creed. The old ecumenical approach of fudging theology in favor of generic do-goodism could only work for so long. If serious about having a future, the NCC might consider espousing creeds that predate even 1908.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (21) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/04/variations-on-the-social-gospe
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jason | 12.4.08 @ 7:33AM
What's the point of being Christian if all of your views conflict with the New Testament? Why not become a Bhuddist?
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Bob| 12.4.08 @ 8:54AM
So why fudge theology in favor of the pro-life, let the poor die of hunger, don't be concerned about minorities view of Republicans? And what does being Christian have to do with a country that believes in freedom of religion? We should be promoting all religions because there is good in all of them. The religious bigotry shown by Jason is obvious in his statement, "Why not become a Buddhist?" There is no reason we should not welcome Buddhists, Muslims, Mormans, Jews, etc., into our society -- and leadership.
Remember that half of the self-described evangelical voters voted for Obama.
Ryan| 12.4.08 @ 9:12AM
So much "Christless Christianity" these days in those churches. Where is justification? Where is sin? Where is the reason Christ came in the first place? Where is my redemption? Where is the reason for grace? Where is the Cross?
Where is salvation from sin and death?
Where is the Gospel?
Bud Hammons| 12.4.08 @ 9:42AM
I find the following sentence most striking in its irrationality: "It defended democracy against Bolshevism and fascism, and largely rejected socialism in favor of regulated private property. "
Tell me how a movement can simultaneously reject fascism and embrace 'regulated private property'. See Jonah Goldberg's excellent Liberal Fascism for details.
v/r,
-- Bud
Joseph | 12.4.08 @ 9:46AM
1) In reply to Bob, it is simply not true that half of self-described evangelical voters voted for Obama. Not even half of non-evangelical Protestants voted for him. (Details at http://methodistthinker.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/the-evangelical-vote-its-mccain-by-a-landslide/.)
2) Also in reply to Bob, if you will study history, you will find that, far from being unconcerned about minorities, the Republican Party was the driving force behind the 13th (no slavery), 14th (equal protection), and 15th (no racial discrimination in voting rights) Amendments. The Republican Party also championed other civil rights legislation in the 19th century (when the party held both the White house and Congress), as well as the 1957 civil rights bill (again when the Republicans held both the White House and Congress). Further, without Republican votes, the civil rights legislation of the 1960s would never have passed (Pres. Johnson could not get enough Democrat votes, despite having Democratic majorities in both house of Congress).
In addition, Republicans have stood firm as a prolife party, battling against the number one cause of death among African-Americans (see http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14218).
You are correct that people can believe in freedom and justice apart from being followers of Christ. But the fact is that the NCC claims to be a Christian group. I do not see how suggesting that a self-proclaimed Christian group is acting in a manner inconsistent with New Testament teaching can be construed as an example of bigotry toward people of any other faith.
Kevin Dunn| 12.4.08 @ 10:24AM
The point about the NCC is very simple: it is our enemy. It was our enemy in the Cold War and various hot wars, it is our enemy now, and it will be our enemy in the future. The only way to deal with it is to treat its members not as confused, naive or unrealisticly idealistic fellow-Christians, but as enemies committed to destroying our society, nothing more and nothing less.
L. Ross| 12.4.08 @ 11:08AM
Bob:
Your comments on all religions being pretty much the same shows a shameful lack of lack of education on the subject.
Lumping islam "the religion of peace" in with actual semi-peaceful religions is just ig'nant. Yes, there have been shameful acts committed in the name of Christ, or Buddah, or Shiva, etc. But only islam, of all the large religions on the earth, was founded by a child molesting warlord. The fact that mohammed was a warlord still infuses islam with its characteristic violence. Unfortunately, because of people like you, Bob, we have been unable to prosecute our latest crusade (yes folks, that's what it is) with adequate vigor.
Ryan| 12.4.08 @ 11:42AM
There is a large amount of broad-based ignorance on both sides of the issue. There is the one that seems to suppose that all muslims are of the militant islamist variety (American muslims are among the more peaceful branch in their interpretation, as the American public really doesn't put up much with the more militant branches) from the right, and from the left tries to ignore the historical, violent roots of Islam and its seemingly modern violent nature in the Middle East (the mistake Bush made as well - that everyone there would "get along.")
We must also remember that just about any struggle classified as "religious" is also about "power," particularly for those doing the manipulating. It's what the crusades were about, it's what the Muslims are truly fighting over in the Middle East, and it's partially why we're there as well.
David T.| 12.4.08 @ 12:24PM
Bud says, "Tell me how a movement can simultaneously reject fascism and embrace 'regulated private property.'"
Easy, Bud. Fascism subjugates private property rights to the ends of the state. Our Founders developed a system where the use of private property is left to private decisions, except where others' rights or safety might be infringed.
You need to re-read Jonah Goldberg's book.
Next question?
Daphne Kenward| 12.4.08 @ 3:54PM
Islam and the Catholic Church are one of the same coin. Both are based on the Luciferian ideology. Both have a culture of child molestation, the Catholic Church still have that going on to this day and so does the Islamic faith.
Some say they are Christians, and are pro-life, they are the first to start illegal wars to kill people.
Go to their houses they have Machine Guns, and anything they can find to cause death and distruction. These people are full of S...!
Bob| 12.4.08 @ 3:55PM
Joseph, we know the Republican Party TODAY is really concerned about minorities -- they had 36 black delegates at their convention out of the thousands there -- the lowest percentage in years .... Remember that Hispanics, blacks, and young voters are the growing segments of the population.
You were correct on the evangelical statistic, I was looking at the breakout on all religions who said they attended church regularly. There it was an even break.
Marc Jeric| 12.4.08 @ 4:49PM
National Council of Churches is just another union led by far-left goons; given time all unions are eventually led by goons and will destroy their "industries". See the state of automobile, steel, electronics, textile, etc. industries - not to forget education and government services. Services of the NCC to the causes of socialism and communism in foreign countries and in ours are well known to me - a former refugee from one of those.
Alan brooks| 12.4.08 @ 5:57PM
Daphne,
very few Catholics are molesters, >.5%
I'm a Catholic and insulted by your comment, and might add that most kids who are really molested are molested by their families.
And there's more molestation in Islam, far more. (BTW pedophilia has been mainstreamed. On nudist camp websites, there are High definition photos of mostly kids, and they sell DVDs)
The Catholic church is NOTHING compared to the rest of our perverted society.
Daphne Kenward| 12.4.08 @ 8:32PM
Alan.
I apologise, I did not mean to offend you, I am sorry I have some good friends who are Catholics, and would not do that, but it does go on, I also agree, that most children who are molested are molested by family members, you are absolutely right.
Alan Brooks| 12.4.08 @ 8:53PM
It's not your fault.
My family taught me child molesting is "okay under some circumstances".
That's one problem with liberalism, it doesn't always promote mature behavior.
Are Michael Jackson or Roman Polanski conservative? Not too likely.
ruth| 12.5.08 @ 1:31AM
Alan, I think you mean 'moral' behavior. I'm sorry that you grew up in such a difficult environment. I hope you have found peace.
Daphne Kenward| 12.5.08 @ 1:13PM
Ruth.
I also hope, Alan has changed his ways.
ruth| 12.5.08 @ 4:33PM
I think Alan was more of a victim not a perpetrator.
Daphne Kenward| 12.7.08 @ 1:55PM
At least we still have a sense of humour!