| !
|
This article or part thereof was copied from Citizendium but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen, and does not include alterations made by others on that site.
|
|
RJJensen 22:52, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
- What use for a "revival" category? To track the many revivals in American and world history that we will eventually have articles on. Many historians have worked on the topic. RJJensen 19:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm concerned about the nutrality that this article gives to the Social gospel. The treatment of the Social gospel in many of the CP's articles belies the fact that the Social gospel was from its very beginning a leftist Liberation theology that violated the tentants of Christianity. Social gospel is the metaphorical nose of the camel being put inside the tent. Liberation theology is simply the whole metaphorical camel completely moved inside. --RickD 22:18, 28 December 2008 (EST)
- Not true. Keep in mind that the Southern Baptists strongly supported some of the main Social Gospel campaigns, especially against liquor and saloons and sexual slavery. The spirit of today's campaigns against abortion very closely resemble the language and rhetoric and organizing techniques of the prohibition campaigns. There is very little in common between Social Gospel and liberation theology and (almost) all the social gospellers strongly rejected marxism. RJJensen 22:27, 28 December 2008 (EST)
- Those are some good points. Most social gospellers did reject marxism. In fact, Reinhold Niebuhr's 1932 Moral Man and Immoral Society promoted marxism as an alternative to the Social Gospel. The reaction by many of his Social Gospel intellecutal friends was one of horror. Yes. You're absolutely right in these points you make. --RickD 22:43, 28 December 2008 (EST)
- Within the movement itself, perhaps there is a right, southern form Social Gospel that rejected Marxism and a left, northern Social gospel that accepted Marxism. If so, someone must have studied such non-uniformity. --RickD 22:51, 28 December 2008 (EST)
- Among the most prominent 50 or so Social Gospel leaders I believe there was only one known Marxist (a rather obscure person from the North). Usually the other 49 made it clear they opposed Marx and favored capitalism. Southern churches were very active against liquor, and also active opponents of prostitution, obscenity and gambling, and they aligned with like minded politicians like Alben Barkley of kentucky (who later became Truman's vice president) Most of the state Baptist conventions had "Christian Life Commissions" that echoed the Social Gospel (they were especially active in Alabama and Virginia) RJJensen 00:53, 29 December 2008 (EST)
- In terms of social engineering by way of popular slogans that capture the public mind and imagination, the Social gospel does seem significant. Nevertheless, if one strips away the power given to it by spectacle of the slogan, what are we left with? Merely a sermon on gradualistic change that merely opposes Marxism on grounds of its radicalism, yet agrees with it in terms of end goals? I myself believe the answer is yes to both questions. And unless there is evidence to prove otherwise, I must conclude that the Social gospel is simply a deceitful and devious form of evil, liberal social change. --RickD 17:14, 1 January 2009 (EST)
- That's too strong. it assumes falsely that the Social Gospel "agreed" with Socialism, which not at all true (Socialists wanted to destroy capitalists and the Social Gospellers supported capitalism). It also leads to a condemnation of modern forms of social action, such as pushing for laws against abortion and drugs. RJJensen 22:53, 1 January 2009 (EST)
- To me, the Social gospel is merely an American Theologia Gloria (theology of glory) whose adherenst were not righteous nor pious becuase they scoffed at Theologia Crucis (theology of the Cross). Pure Theologia Gloria is simply man in love with the works of man, ignoring God, Jesus Christ, Sin, and Salvation. So I still don't see how my thinking is too strong. --RickD 11:49, 6 January 2009 (EST)
- well that's a theological critique. But I don't think they ignored God or sin. RJJensen 12:36, 6 January 2009 (EST)
- Here's a quote from one of the so-believed great liberal Church historians:
| “
|
The Soical Gospel must be understood as a tranistory phase of Christian social thought. It was a submovement within religious liberalism', with a certain view of man and history governing its rationale.[1]
|
”
|
So Sg is liberal.--
RickD 13:52, 6 January 2009 (EST)
| “
|
The key figure for the Social Gospelers as for so many other liberal theologians was Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89), whose Jesus-centured, antimetaphysical theology of the Kingdom of God provided the movement's chief integrative idea.[2]
|
”
|
Yet, Ritschl's Jesus is a fake Jesus and a false god, even by today's standards. --RickD 14:16, 6 January 2009 (EST)
- ↑ A Religious History of the American People, Sydney E. Ahlstrom, Yale University Press, 1972,1158 pp., page 786
- ↑ A Religious History of the American People, Sydney E. Ahlstrom, Yale University Press, 1972,1158 pp., page 789
- Social Gospel was "liberal" by the standards of 100 years ago. The word "liberal" has changed meaning a lot, and many 19th century liberals are now claimed by conservatives. Ritschl had a major theological influence and was very Jesus-centered. but calling it a "fake Jesus" is a theological interpretation. How do we know the real from the fake??? RJJensen 03:41, 7 January 2009 (EST)
