In the late nineteenth century two powerful forces sweeping across America changed the Protestant church forever. First, the industrial revolution unleashed the forces of urbanization and industrialization. More and more people, including women and children, began to work in factories with long working hours and intolerable conditions. Poverty rose dramatically. Second, modernism seized hold of most institutions of higher education and dramatically changed the way theology was taught. For the first time in American history, a majority of Protestant pastors and teachers came to reject doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the resurrection, the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, and the substitutionary atonement.

One such pastor was Walter Rauschenbusch. A Baptist and the son of a German immigrant, Rauschenbusch was deeply impressed with the powerful forces of industrialization and modernism. Disturbed at the rampant urban poverty he observed, he soon became convinced that the doctrines of the faith in which he had been raised simply were not relevant or capable of meeting the needs of the modern world. In particular, he became convinced that the church was far too concerned with saving individuals from hell and not nearly concerned enough about saving masses of people from poverty and injustice. In 1917 Rauschenbusch wrote in A Theology for the Social Gospel, “The establishment of a community of righteousness in mankind is just as much a saving act of God as the salvation of an individual from his natural selfishness and moral inability.”[1]

Thus was born the Social Gospel. In the decades that followed a chasm opened up between two wings of Protestantism. The fundamentalists committed themselves to the fundamentals of the faith and to saving individuals, thus largely withdrawing from broader social involvement. The modernist mainline, on the other hand, optimistically committed itself to, among other things, bringing about what John C. Bennett called “social salvation.” Sociologists widely discussed what they called secularization theory, which included a strong confidence in the end of conservative religion in America.

By the 1950s, however, two world wars, the Great Depression, and the onset of the Cold War had irreparably damaged the social gospel movement. Modifications of its theology by well-known theologians such as Bennett, Reinhold Niebuhr, and H. Richard Niebuhr failed to bolster a growing sense of futility. At the same time, figures such as Billy Graham and Carl Henry were leading a new, more optimistic and energetic movement out of fundamentalism. The new movement, evangelicalism, quickly emerged as a powerful religious and social force. By the 1970s evangelicalism was shaping presidential elections and sociologists were beginning to drop secularization theory. Evangelicals became more known for their social and political involvement than mainline Christians were. Protestantism had completed a virtual about-face.

Today American religious political activists are still divided into two basic tendencies.[2] Conservatives are strongly supportive of the role of religion – particularly the church – in public life. They are particularly involved in fighting abortion and same-sex marriage, but they tend to support neoconservative Republican positions on foreign affairs and national security. Progressives are more wary about the role of religion in public life and tend to be more concerned about issues such as poverty, the environment, and social justice. Conservatives tend to view America as a historically Christian nation, while progressives are less sure. Both are convinced that in their social engagement they are following the teachings of Jesus.

What is fascinating in all of this is that although evangelicals have caught up with and even passed progressives in their political activism, one thing hasn’t changed. Evangelicals are still convinced that America must be changed one individual at a time, while progressives still believe our focus should be on social structures and systemic injustice. The majority of conservative political activists believe that if most Americans were Christians our greatest social problems would go away, while progressives are convinced that even if most Americans were Christians we would still have major social problems.

It is difficult to know what to make of all this. Is it a good thing that Christians, both progressive and conservative, have become so politically active? Are we too quick to equate the progress of the kingdom of God with political and social affairs in America? Has America ever been a Christian nation? Why do progressive Christians not seem to care about the prevalence of abortion and the collapse of the family? Why are conservatives so often callous about poverty, race, the environment, and torture? What role does the denial by mainline churches of fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith have to do with all of this? Do conservative Christians have a coherent theology of social and political engagement? Do these two groups have anything to learn from one another?

These are the sorts of questions I hope to explore in this column in the months to come. As a Christian with confessional Reformed theological convictions I have long been convinced that the social and political face of Christianity is a fundamental part of our witness to Jesus Christ. I believe there is much in the social and political history of Christianity for which to mourn, and much else for which to rejoice. I identify with the principled positions conservatives have taken on abortion and same-sex marriage, but I believe we also have something to learn from more progressively minded Christians, even if they are theologically liberal. As I engage these issues I intend to ask hard questions and avoid simplistic answers, all the while drawing on biblical covenant theology and the history of Christian political theological thought. I hope any who might read my thoughts will find them challenging, thought-provoking and, ultimately, helpful in their attempt to follow our Savior Jesus Christ.
______________
Matthew J Tuininga is a doctoral student in Ethics and Society at EmoryUniversity in Atlanta, Georgia. He is a graduate of CovenantCollege (B.A., 2004) and Westminster Theological Seminary in California (M.Div., 2009). He has experience working in both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government and is a licensed exhorter in the United Reformed Churches of North America.

[1] Rauschenbusch, 139-140.

[2] This, and the following data is derived from a 2009 study conducted by the University of Akron, in Ohio.