Thank you for the analysis, Phil. Given this theological viewpoint, multiple accounts from the Bible pop into mind that might buttress their perspective such as the rich young ruler and Peter saying, "Silver and Gold I do not have, but what I do have I will give to you . . ."

I appreciate, too, the contrast you provided with what they teach and what the Bible professes. Still, from my POV, it seems that social causes "in the name of Christ" are becoming more of a norm in our society - even outside of liberation theology congregations. To what extent this socially-concious movement gibes with the Bible, I believe, remains in the heart of the individual believer.

Being involved with our church's student ministry I've paid attention to where many of our students end up after High School in their walk. More than a few have ended up in churches that have really shaped an attention towards social activism. Part of this phenomenon is the type of students who graduated from our ministry, but social causes such as Invisible Children, the Crisis in Darfur, and getting clean water to thrid-world areas are common causes espoused on Facebook and other social sites by our students away at school.

These students are neither liberation theology blacks, nor are they attending churches that seem to advocate a liberation theology, per se. There is a greater attention being paid, however, by this generation to social causes than past generations and I think many of them seem to attach the cause of Christ to their motives in these social activities.

Certainly, I believe that God would want us, as a nation and/or people, to help other peoples who are in need. Whether or not a Christian is serving Christ or their own selfish motives to appear giving or obtain friendships through like causes with others remains in the heart. I really appreciate the social causes I've mentioned, but getting someone clean water is not as important as getting them the water that will quench their eternal thirst.

I've found myself frustrated, at times, at students who more fervently support a cause than their walk with Christ. The problem, as I see it, is that they can attach their fight for such a cause to their walk with Christ. They seemingly make the two causes synonymous and view their fight for opressed people from afar as discipleship. Once again, feeding the hungry is good (What you do to the least of these . . .), but it is not more important than sharing the Bread of Life.

Perhaps I am looking at this poorly (IITPAIY?) and would appreciate any rebuke or correction, if necessary (in love, obviously).

I look forward to the next post.

Quaid,

Your comment impresses upon me something that has been whirling around in my noggin for ages. I am, more and more, of the opinion that the American church should emphasize charity and help to the least of these more than it does (though many churches already do a lot, most could do more, I think). I don't see that as in any way mutually exclusive to sharing the Gospel (and I am not saying you do either because I know you don't).

In other words, I wish we did more, and balanced them better. I wish I did more.

But when it comes to students and our former students, my response is generally "let's look again in ten years". It is so easy to be "socially active" these days - there are so many outlets. But so much of it is painless. Anyone can join a facebook group. Anyone can "raise awareness about Darfur", or decry global warming, or "Fight for the oppressed from afar", i.e., from the comfort of a dorm room. The sixty year old people in our church who sort cans at the food pantry do more social good, quietly and without fanfare, than most of our former students do (to date, at least).

I don't want to minimize the real good many of these students do. But I'm more inspired by the ones who have actually left the country and put some skin in the game, spreading the gospel and doing good works (I think of Rachel A., who went to Cuba, Kelsey B. on the medical mission to Africa, and many others).

I'm not sure how much this meshes with your previous comment, but it was on my mind :-)

Quaid,

Good thoughts.

Not all churches that espouse the "Social Gospel" buy into Liberation Theology, but Liberation Theology has had a pretty big influence on many of these churches.

Anyway, setting liberation theology aside for a second, "the social gospel" has been a problem in the the church for decades now.

What we call our more theologically liberal churches, which are most mainline denominations including, but not limited to the United Church of Christ (not to be confused with churches of Christ), Episc., Presby, Lutheran, Methodist etc...

Have become proclaimers of "the social gospel". They don't preach what we call the gospel. They don't call people to respond in faith to the offer of eternal life available in Christ. In fact, none of the elements that we Evangelicals normally proclaim are talked about: original sin, the need of a savior from sin, Christ's substitutionary death on the cross, the need to have a personal relationship with Christ, receiving God's forgiveness by grace through faith etc...

The "Social Gospel" is all about loving your neighbor. This is why your more liberal and mainline churches are very good at community service. IN fact that's all they do or talk about. That's what these churches have become: Religious community service organizations.

I think you have touched on the problem with this: giving someone a cup of cold water in Jesus' name is a good thing. We should do these things, and too many Evangelical churches talk about heaven only and are guilty of what James said we shouldn't do, we say to our neighbor, "I wish you well, keep warm and well-fed" without doing anything about it.

However, if we meet physical needs only, and don't save people from eternal hell, then we've done something akin to giving someone with lung cancer an aspirin and a band-aid.

Christians and churches must balance the two - meeting needs in this life and in the one to come. And in my opinion, meeting needs here should be done for the purpose of leading people to faith in Christ.

Whereas, social gospel churches meet needs here for its own sake. As far as your students are concerned, you are right. They are in danger of falling into the same trap, equating loving your neighbor with loving God. The two go hand in hand, for sure. But they are not identical. We must do both.

I think its great that today's young people are caring about such things (of course young people have been like that since the 60's so its nothing new) And it's good that they desire to put feet on their faith. Faith without works is dead. But works without faith is also worthless.

The key is balance. I would encourage you, with your students, to affirm them in their desire to help others, but remind them that both physical needs and spiritual needs are important. And they really aren't equal. Not even in Scripture. Jesus did in fact tell us to store up our treasures in heaven. And there are many scriptures that point us to this truth, I think. One is in service to the other. We meet physical needs to express God's love, and point people to salvation which is available through the cross.

"Man does not live on bread alone..."

I think it meshes very well and I agree that the more time passes, the more we will know about the true heart of some of these individuals. I suppose that we could say the same of myself.

I, too, believe that American churches (and, coincidentally, our church) should do more to help social causes, or at least prioritize them for a congregation who may be willing to help.

To oversimplify things, I guess it comes down to looking at life in two different ways:

1. I exist for the cause of Christ and my life is in His hands. Because He has called me to love the least, I will go to _______ and help them there and will raise awareness of _______ so that Christ may be glorified.

2. I exist for myself/my community/as a part of the world and I am also a Christian. People in the world need help and causes to help them are becoming more and more popular with those I am around. I choose to help these social causes. Coincidentally, my faith endorses this fad, so in aiding this cause, I am becoming more spiritual. I will make certain that my faith is mentioned when telling others so that they may be more spiritual, as well.

As I mentioned, this is an over-simplification, but I think it illustrates that people can be working these causes out of convenience, popularity or the desire to do good as opposed to the desire to make Christ (and/or His love) known to the nations. To make Christ secondary in one's life is to relegate him to places He does not belong.

Time will tell . . .

Quaid, were you and I writing at the same time?
Did you have a chance to read my response (comment 3?)

Weird, how close together our comments were.

By the way, for anyone who is still paying attention, what really bugs me out that video clip I posted is that Hannity doesn't listen to Jeremiah Wright. He was too intent on making his point. And I wonder if his refusal to admit that he hadn't read the books Wright mentioned was ego. Or did he see Wright's question as a distraction from "the real issue".

I think Hannity missed a real opportunity. Hannity should have said, "No, I haven't read those books. I'm not familiar with Black Liberation Theology or Liberation Theology. Would you please explain to us what that is?"

That's long been a peeve of mine with Hannity. When he has guests with opposing points of view (which is a good thing), though he has every right to argue his point and should, he doesn't seem to really listen to what the person is saying.

It's like Asbell and I used to talk about. If you want to disagree with someone or a point of view, you don't pick the looniest argument they have, or the looniest proponent and oppose that. That's too easy and not fair.

You pick the most intelligent and articulate proponent of that point of view to respond to. You deal with the STRONGEST arguments of the other point of view.

That's fair. That's intellectually honest. And that's what "proves" you are right. What does it prove if you can beat hillbilly joe in a debate? But if you can show that their strongest argument doesn't hold water, then you don't have to waste time on the weak ones.

I think Liberation Theology makes some good points. I disagree with it, but I think it is fair, right and responsible to really listen and respond to what they are saying.

Too many of us haven't really been listening. That's my purpose in these series of posts that I will be doing over the next few days. I will be saying more about all this, not to disparage Jeremiah Wright, but to give him a fair hearing, and then respond to that... not just give knee-jerk reactions to sound-bites.

Philip and Quaid,
I am reading a book called "The Liberating Pulpit" by Justo and Catherine Gonzalez right now for a preaching class. Per Quaid's two points with regard to the social and liberating aspects of the Gospel, there would be no disagreement with what I am reading in the book. I think when many people look at liberation theology, they are looking at 1980s liberation theology. It has morphed and changed considerably in the last 20-25 years, to the point where many of its best arguments (as Philip suggests with regard to honest debate) have been incorporated into more evangelical and orthodox theologies without tipping the canoe into the rushing waters of conflict. What I am saying is that there is no one "Liberation Theology" to disagree with anymore. There are theologies that contain liberation perspectives that may politicize the Gospel beyond its intent, so when we say we disagree with Liberation Theology, I would ask "Which one? What part? What about the ones that don't say that?" This is of course true of every branch of theology. I couldn't agree more about giving someone like Rev Wright the respect of outlining his theology. I think we would all be surprised at how much we align with what he says as a Black Liberation Theologian.
Peace!
Seth

Philip and Quaid,
I am reading a book called "The Liberating Pulpit" by Justo and Catherine Gonzalez right now for a preaching class. Per Quaid's two points with regard to the social and liberating aspects of the Gospel, there would be no disagreement with what I am reading in the book. I think when many people look at liberation theology, they are looking at 1980s liberation theology. It has morphed and changed considerably in the last 20-25 years, to the point where many of its best arguments (as Philip suggests with regard to honest debate) have been incorporated into more evangelical and orthodox theologies without tipping the canoe into the rushing waters of conflict. What I am saying is that there is no one "Liberation Theology" to disagree with anymore. There are theologies that contain liberation perspectives that may politicize the Gospel beyond its intent, so when we say we disagree with Liberation Theology, I would ask "Which one? What part? What about the ones that don't say that?" This is of course true of every branch of theology. I couldn't agree more about giving someone like Rev Wright the respect of outlining his theology. I think we would all be surprised at how much we align with what he says as a Black Liberation Theologian.
Peace!
Seth

Shrode,

We were writing at the same time. Now that I have a bit of a break in my work day, I came back here to see what the scuttlebutt was on this post. (is that how you spell scuttlebutt?)

I couldn't get through the video you posted. Hannity very often does this to his guests and I can't take it when he does. He's fine when he's talking on his own or with Colmes, because he lets Colmes get his point in, but he often berates his guests. He'll also say, "To be fair to you, let me outline some of the things people are saying about you . . ." This really isn't fair to go over every detail and then try to argue them. He cuts guests off. This clip you've given makes me like Dr. Wright more and Hannity less.


Seth-
Thanks for your words. As I was reading Shrode's post, I knew that there were probably 1,000 varieties of what he was discussing. Everything is like that in our Starbucks culture. Everything is unique and everything is the same. You're right in acknowledging that each church can be very different.

I think, however, that one can say,
"These are the main tenets of _________. Since you evolved from ________, you likely believe some or all of these tenets. If you believe in this, that or the other part, then know that what you believe is contrary to scripture. Hopefully, this is not the case."

But it is certainly understood that what was written here isn't true of every liberation theology church just like emergent and emerging mean almost nothing along with evangelical, conservative or Christian, in today's society.

Unless you're a true conservative ;)

In Hannity's interview of Wright, both parties could and should have handled it differently for the benefit of those listening and those genuinely wanting to understand. Pastor Wright began asking his questions to Hannity about what he had or hadn't read before he first should have answered Hannity's question. In any interview process, that should be the sequence of events. If he had first answered Hannity's question, then he could possibly have posed his own.

paul is right. had j. wright answered the question given by hannity the interview would not have gone the direction it did. but wright like others (farhakahm) are not interested in saving the oppressed but instead championing their cause. if it means stretching the truth so be it. black liberation theology will eventually go by the way side as did marxist theology.