Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Matt Black said:No worries! Believe it or not, I have edited out quite a bit of text in the middle of the piece where I refer to the likes of Tony Campolo, Ron Sider and the Social Gospel movement.
Drawing much closer to the centre of the spectrum – Left-of-centre rather than Left-wing – we have a group who are often called ‘social Gospellers’; men such as Ronald J. Sider, an American evangelical theologian who, in his books ‘Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger’ and ‘Evangelism and Social Action’, strives for a balanced view whilst still erring on the side of the poor and marginalised: “Jesus’ special concern for the poor extended to all the marginalised, weak and socially ostracised. In strong contrast to his contemporaries, Jesus demonstrated a special interest in the disabled, children, drunkards, prostitutes and lepers (cf Luke 7:32-50; 19:1-10).”[1] Sider would assert that, at least sometimes, redressing of structural inequalities is as important if not more so than prayer; on the eradication of malaria he writes “Was that not only more effective but also more Christian than praying for the sick one by one…”[2] I would also place within the ‘Left-of-centre’ bracket Tony Campolo, whom I have already quoted above with approval with regard to his criticisms of the Right, and to whom I will refer again later on; I do not have a problem with this as long as readers understand where the various individuals whom I quote are coming from in the spectrum, so that they can reach an informed opinion.
Both Sider and Campolo have good evangelical credentials and indeed there would appear to be little in their soteriological standpoints with which to disagree[3]; in this they differ from the liberation theologians. A major feature in Sider’s approach, and to a lesser extent in that of Campolo, is the need to concentrate on structural as well as personal change. By this it is meant that there are political, economic and social institutions and structures in the world which are inherently oppressive, dehumanising and, in short, downright evil, and that Christians are called upon to dismantle such structures. Here Campolo (describing those on the Left as “New Evangelicals”) sets out the basic differences between Left and Right and the need for structural reform:
“The New Evangelicals charge that the social system is designed to serve the interests of the rich and the powerful, and therefore must be challenged and changed. The call for basic changes in the structures of American social institutions so that oppression may be ended and justice instituted. They want an end to male chauvinism in marriage and a change in the role prescriptions for husbands and wives. They call for a new economic order in which production will be designed to meet basic human needs, rather than to have a primary orientation to maximize profits by producing things that meet artificially created wants. They demand a government that is more committed to human rights at home and abroad than it is to the preservation of its own political and economic self-interests. They argue that the basic value system of the United States is in conflict with the value system presented in the Scriptures. The New Right views the New Evangelicals as a dangerous enemy – and all the more so because of the conservative theological stance which its members embrace.”[1]
Searching for a British equivalent of the likes of Sider and Campolo, I can do a lot worse than Robin Gamble, an evangelical Anglican based in Bradford. He also would seek to tie together evangelism with social change, and he draws a distinction between what he calls the ‘social gospel’ and the ‘spiritual gospel’: “The social gospel sees with a very clear eye that people are living in terrible housing conditions; that their children have little or no educational future; that the aged and disabled are being brushed aside by the enterprise culture. It relates all these and similar issues to God’s loving concern for every part of our lives, and then bases a mission strategy on the need for the church to do something practical and positive about such social evils…Social gospel people tend to be involved with community and maybe political compaigns (sic), and usually come from a liberal or middle-of-the-road theological background…The spiritual gospel attitude sees with an equally clear eye that people are living without Christ; that they have little or no experience of the joy of knowing God in this life, and nothing to look forward to in the future. It relates this to the love of God and the saving death of Christ, and then bases a mission strategy on the need for the church to reach out and tell people of Jesus and his gift of eternal life…Spiritual gospel people tend to be very involved with congregational and maybe even evangelistic campaigns, and usually come form an Evangelical or Anglo-Catholic background.”[2]
A major theme of debate within this Left of centre school of thought is which of the two needs (if at all) – evangelism or social activity – should be the priority for the Christian. This is a point that exercises both Sider and Gamble. Having set out the two apparently competing needs above, Gamble goes on to say, “The Jesus gospel holds together and actually puts into practice the social and the spiritual gospel. It represents the full depth and breadth of God’s love, without missing anything out. It confronts sin and offers salvation in two overlapping zones, the corporate zone and the individual zone.”[3] Having thus apparently allied himself with the liberation theologians who state that salvation can pertain to societies, Gamble goes on to qualify this: “The Jesus gospel brings judgement for the victimisers and compassion and healing for the victims, into this corporate zone…[and] brings judgement against all evil, but it also offers forgiveness and salvation to all evil-doers who are prepared to change their ways and believe” [4](italics mine).
It follows from the above that politically and economically, those on the Left tend to be more interested in government intervention to end the structural causes of inequality and poverty; many favour some form of democratic socialism and believe that the transformation of society from the top down through government programmes is the best way to change things and to create a positive climate for the Gospel, in contrast to the view of the Right earlier referred to.