The woman in my elaboration was using the phrase, incorrectly, to describe a soteriology. And she had originally heard it from her father, who was using it, correctly, to describe a religion-based political movement.
Probably that political movement doesn't qualify as a soteriology per se. Though its adherents probably thought that it was a way of doing the things that a Christian is morally required to do.
Granted, as protestants, the Social Gospellers wouldn't think that salvation comes through good works, but they WOULD think that good works are something that a saved person would do(*).
But anyway, let's just say the woman was using "Social Gospel" incorrectly to describe any Christian schematum that supposedly overemphasizes helping others.
(*) That, incidentally, is a checkmate I've seen Catholic apologists play against protestants...
CATHOLIC: So, if good works aren't required for salvation, I can be saved, but still behave like a total asshole to everyone.
PROT: No.
C: Why not?
P: Because a saved person wouldn't act that way.
C: So, in other words, a saved person can always be guaranteed to perform good works.
P: That's right.
C: And so then if someone DOESN'T perform good works, we can assume he's not saved.
Granted, as protestants, the Social Gospellers wouldn't think that salvation comes through good works, but they WOULD think that good works are something that a saved person would do(*).
It may be christocentric but it's as good as I have come up with. It describes people if faith whose faith draws them to the NDP platform.
The Social Gospel in its weekday form was secular and open to anyone. It's how you got different Protestant Churches to stop squabbling. One reason the Catholics didn't join was they stayed away, not that the Protestants pushed them away.
Religion in Canada is essentially tribal, not class based. In politics the Social Gospel was about pragmatic measures, not theology. That was for churches on Sunday.
It's the Modus Vivendi that keeps the coalition happy.
As far as I am aware Social Gospel stuff started in the CofE in the 19th century when parishes were opened in the new industrialised (and poverty ridden) towns. It was also there in non-conformist initiatives like Saltaire and especially Port Sunlight.
At the same time (or a little later) The RC Church started to explore the societal implications of the Gospel which eventually led to Liberation Theology and base communities. Wiki has a pretty good overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching
I dont think it was stand-offishness that kept the Churches apart. I think it was that parallel developments were happening in the days before the Ecumenical Movement had got going.
To me it comes to the same thing. As I joke, the CCF stank of Protestatism which was the kiss of death in pre 1960's Quebec. That's why the CCF only ever elrcted one MLA there.
It may be christocentric but it's as good as I have come up with. It describes people if faith whose faith draws them to the NDP platform.
The Social Gospel in its weekday form was secular and open to anyone. It's how you got different Protestant Churches to stop squabbling. One reason the Catholics didn't join was they stayed away, not that the Protestants pushed them away.
Religion in Canada is essentially tribal, not class based. In politics the Social Gospel was about pragmatic measures, not theology. That was for churches on Sunday.
It's the Modus Vivendi that keeps the coalition happy.
As far as I am aware Social Gospel stuff started in the CofE in the 19th century when parishes were opened in the new industrialised (and poverty ridden) towns. It was also there in non-conformist initiatives like Saltaire and especially Port Sunlight.
At the same time (or a little later) The RC Church started to explore the societal implications of the Gospel which eventually led to Liberation Theology and base communities. Wiki has a pretty good overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching
I dont think it was stand-offishness that kept the Churches apart. I think it was that parallel developments were happening in the days before the Ecumenical Movement had got going.
To me it comes to the same thing. As I joke, the CCF stank of Protestatism which was the kiss of death in pre 1960's Quebec. That's why the CCF only ever elrcted one MLA there.
I would imagine that during La Grande Noirceur, the CCF's socialism alone woulda been enough to make the party verboten in Quebec, regardless of the confessional affiliations of the leadership.
(Though there's arguably a chicken-and-egg aspect to that, since a socialist party in Quebec at that time could not have attracted many leaders from among those who wanted to remain socially respectable Catholics anyway.)
Thanks for posting Gramps. I enjoyed reading it. I wonder whether the Christian left in America is less visible because its values are already a part of secular society, and find expression through popular movements that are not labelled Christian and do not necessarily see their Christian roots. This is a triumph, a major achievement.
The huge possibility I see is for Black Christianity, in all its shades, to set the agenda, not only for the Democratic party but for America. Are existing church networks strong enough to form the lymphatic system of the Body Politic in the South? If they are, then the sorts of voter suppression methods recently enacted in Georgia will not be successful.
The huge possibility I see is for Black Christianity, in all its shades, to set the agenda, not only for the Democratic party but for America. Are existing church networks strong enough to form the lymphatic system of the Body Politic in the South? If they are, then the sorts of voter suppression methods recently enacted in Georgia will not be successful.
It might be too late for Georgia--it has gone blue in the metropolitan areas and the population in the red areas is shrinking. Watch Texas.
Some of the most enjoyable threads on the Ship for me have been the ones learning about American political history from real people, not just history textbooks and newspaper editorials.
It has been quite enlightening to learn about the intricate complexity of Anerican politics when you're not an American.
Likewise, I enjoy explaining some of the intricacies of Canadian politics, history and culture. It's not the United States and religion is one area where we more markedly differ.
Other publications may shy away from the intersection of faith and politics but here we embrace it. I find it makes politics more understandable generally.
I can say the same about learning from Canadians, Australians, Scots, Irish, Welsh, and Brits too.
Well, not enough, it would seem Gramps to realise that Scots, Welsh and some Irish are 'Brits'.
By 'Brits' do you mean English?
It'd be like me saying that I've learned a lot here from Californians, Texans, people from Washington State and Americans.
Some of the most enjoyable threads on the Ship for me have been the ones learning about American political history from real people, not just history textbooks and newspaper editorials.
It has been quite enlightening to learn about the intricate complexity of Anerican politics when you're not an American.
Likewise, I enjoy explaining some of the intricacies of Canadian politics, history and culture. It's not the United States and religion is one area where we more markedly differ.
Other publications may shy away from the intersection of faith and politics but here we embrace it. I find it makes politics more understandable generally.
I can say the same about learning from Canadians, Australians, Scots, Irish, Welsh, and Brits too.
Well, not enough, it would seem Gramps to realise that Scots, Welsh and some Irish are 'Brits'.
By 'Brits' do you mean English?
It'd be like me saying that I've learned a lot here from Californians, Texans, people from Washington State and Americans.
(*) That, incidentally, is a checkmate I've seen Catholic apologists play against protestants...
CATHOLIC: So, if good works aren't required for salvation, I can be saved, but still behave like a total asshole to everyone.
PROT: No.
C: Why not?
P: Because a saved person wouldn't act that way.
C: So, in other words, a saved person can always be guaranteed to perform good works.
P: That's right.
C: And so then if someone DOESN'T perform good works, we can assume he's not saved.
P: Umm...
Normally I saw this used by Protestant apologists against Catholics! I.e. "yes, of course we do good works, which are the evidence that we are saved, but they're not the cause of our salvation. Contrariwise you believe that your good works are a contributory factor to your salvation, indicating that you are not saved and that your good works are worth nothing!"
Comments
The woman in my elaboration was using the phrase, incorrectly, to describe a soteriology. And she had originally heard it from her father, who was using it, correctly, to describe a religion-based political movement.
Probably that political movement doesn't qualify as a soteriology per se. Though its adherents probably thought that it was a way of doing the things that a Christian is morally required to do.
Granted, as protestants, the Social Gospellers wouldn't think that salvation comes through good works, but they WOULD think that good works are something that a saved person would do(*).
But anyway, let's just say the woman was using "Social Gospel" incorrectly to describe any Christian schematum that supposedly overemphasizes helping others.
(*) That, incidentally, is a checkmate I've seen Catholic apologists play against protestants...
CATHOLIC: So, if good works aren't required for salvation, I can be saved, but still behave like a total asshole to everyone.
PROT: No.
C: Why not?
P: Because a saved person wouldn't act that way.
C: So, in other words, a saved person can always be guaranteed to perform good works.
P: That's right.
C: And so then if someone DOESN'T perform good works, we can assume he's not saved.
P: Umm...
If it's good enough for St. Paul...
To me it comes to the same thing. As I joke, the CCF stank of Protestatism which was the kiss of death in pre 1960's Quebec. That's why the CCF only ever elrcted one MLA there.
Like I said, in Canada religion is tribal.
I would imagine that during La Grande Noirceur, the CCF's socialism alone woulda been enough to make the party verboten in Quebec, regardless of the confessional affiliations of the leadership.
(Though there's arguably a chicken-and-egg aspect to that, since a socialist party in Quebec at that time could not have attracted many leaders from among those who wanted to remain socially respectable Catholics anyway.)
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/25/religious-left-politics-liberal-471640
The huge possibility I see is for Black Christianity, in all its shades, to set the agenda, not only for the Democratic party but for America. Are existing church networks strong enough to form the lymphatic system of the Body Politic in the South? If they are, then the sorts of voter suppression methods recently enacted in Georgia will not be successful.
It might be too late for Georgia--it has gone blue in the metropolitan areas and the population in the red areas is shrinking. Watch Texas.
Well, not enough, it would seem Gramps to realise that Scots, Welsh and some Irish are 'Brits'.
By 'Brits' do you mean English?
It'd be like me saying that I've learned a lot here from Californians, Texans, people from Washington State and Americans.
Good point.
Normally I saw this used by Protestant apologists against Catholics! I.e. "yes, of course we do good works, which are the evidence that we are saved, but they're not the cause of our salvation. Contrariwise you believe that your good works are a contributory factor to your salvation, indicating that you are not saved and that your good works are worth nothing!"