1

Conception of God in the Theology of God of Social Gospel

By Okitakoyi Lundula

Social gospel is a 19th to 20th American Protestantism movement that

applies the Christian principles to the social problems of the universe. It focuses
on justice and establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. The spiritual faith
of the Christian religion has to be based not only on the spiritual understanding
of God but also on social actions of love and solidarity. Rauschenbusch is the
pioneer theologian of the social gospel movement; he believes that the teaching
in Christianity and social crisis has to be rested firmly in the tradition of Jesus
and the early Christian church. He says, The social gospel is a permanent
addition to our spiritual outlook and its arrival constitutes a stage in the
development of Christian religion.1 He also adds that, The social gospel fuses
the Christian spirit and the social consciousness in a new outreaching toward
God and remarkable experiences of his comfort and inspiring power.2 The social
gospel considers God as democratic, being near humanity and involved in the
social, economic and political problems of the world. Social gospel movement
has to work hand in hand with systematic theology and the church to facilitate
the ecclesiastic and social understanding of God. The implication of this
1
2

Walter Rauschenbusch, a Theology of Social Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1945), 2.

Ibid., 20.

2
movement in the modern world constitutes a potential progress in the
improvement of the human condition as it emphasizes on equal right and social
justice. It also facilitates the understanding of both the vertical and horizontal
relationship between God, universe and the neighbor. Rauschenbusch considers
social gospel as the orthodoxy3 of Christianity, just as James Cone believes also
that there can be no Christian Theology that is not social and politic.4

Considering Rauschenbuschs conception of God, the doctrine of social

gospel puts strong emphasis on the immanence of God with less consideration
on the transcendence of God which, he qualifies as old dogma or autocratic
conception of God. The social gospel portrays God through social actions of
love and solidarity. Therefore, the God of the social gospel is considered
democratic rather than autocratic. From my point of view, to reach the fullness of
conception of God, both aspects, democratic and autocratic, in other words
immanence and transcendence, are to be taken into account. These two
conceptions are not to be exclusive but mutually overlapping to bring a complete
definition of God. This paper will focus on demonstrating how God can be fully
considered both autocratic and democratic without excluding any of these
natures.
3
4

Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology of Social Gospel (Nashville, Abingdon Press), 2.

James H. Cone, God of Oppressed (NY: Orbis Books, 1997), 75.

First, it is crucial to locate the theology of Rauschenbusch as we refer to

different definitions of Gods relationship with humanity. According to Ted5, the
term deism refers to God being separated from and uninvolved in the world
while theism is defined as God being separated from the world yet involved in it.
With respect to an autocratic and democratic definition of God, it is clear that
according to Rauschenbusch, the autocratic conception of God relates to deism,
while the democratic conception to theism. Ted argues that, Theist contends that
there is one single divine reality that is distinguished from the cosmos yet
involved in the continued processes of cosmos. The God of theism created the
world in the beginning and continues to act within the world through
providence and governance.6 Therefore, it is clear that the theology of social
gospel is theistic.

From the social gospel point of view, the theistic conception of God is
based on the democratization of the divine being with less consideration of the
autocracy of God. This is where Rauschenbusch believes that the theistic God
should be a God of providence and love. He says that, When Jesus took God by
the hand and called him our Father he democratized the conception of God.
5
6

Ted Peter, God of the Worlds Future (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 123.
Ibid., 124.

4
He disconnected the idea of God being far away from the work of his hand but
lowering him to the realm of family life, the chief social embodiment of solidarity
and love.7 This proves the unilateral conception of God in the social gospel
based on the immanence and democratic conception of God.

Historically, unlike the social gospel view, the Hebrew Bible portrays God
as transcendent and a supreme being who is above all the creatures. In
metaphysical thought, God is beyond the physical realm and cannot be grasped
by the senses. Plato considers God beyond the reach of human knowledge. In a
scholastic view, God was imagined far above; in an upper part of the universe,
remote of all we do, interfering when necessary, but very distinct.8 In the
medieval method, God was a feudal lord, holding his tenants in a grip from
which there was no escape9 With reference to the reformation theology, God
was seen as a despotic leader; this refers to an absolute ruling system in which
God is pushed way from the world. Rauschenbusch disregards these views and
qualifies them as old dogma or autocratic conception of God, favoring the
democratic conception which is based on the nearness and participation of God
in the worldly social life.

Rauschenbush, 175.
Ibid., 172.
9
Ibid., 173.
8

5
Rauschenbusch considers the old dogma or the autocratic conception of
God, less important to the modern understanding of God. As far as the
democratization of God stands as a protest against the autocratic conception of
God, the God of social gospel is near and involved in the worldly life. In the
doctrine of social gospel, the immanence of God in the universe is the natural
basis for the democratization of God. By democratization of God, Rauschenbusch
means God being immanent, present and involved in social, political and
economic concerns of the universe. In his book on The New Theology, Campbell
supports the idea of democratizing God through the immanence of God by
saying, The staring-point of the new theology is a re-emphasis of the Christian
belief in the divine immanence in the universe and mankind. 10 The
concentration on the immanence of God in the social gospel is true and correct;
however, it may constitute a danger and mislead the categorization of social
gospel to the pantheistic theology, where God is undistinguished and confused
with the world. This is one of the consequences of denying the autocratic nature
of God.

Rauschenbusch believes that the appellation of God as the Father in the

Bible constitutes a disconnection of God from his autocratic and despotic throne

10

Reginald J. Campbell, the New Theology (NY: Macmillan, 1912), 4.

6
and the connection to the democratic and immanent presence of God in the
universe. He also argues that, one of the highest redemptive services of Jesus to
the human race based on lowering God to the level of family life, considering
him a Father. Based on the scriptures in the New Testament, Rauschenbusch
emphasizes the nearness of God to the universe by holding the ministry of Jesus
as a model of life and relationship. Rauschenbusch uses Pauls writing to support
the fatherhood relationship of God to the world. Paul says, For you did not
receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of
sonship/adoption which leads us to cry, Our Father. (Rom 8:15) From the
social gospel perspective, this scripture implies that the old dogma brings the
spirit of slavery that makes the world considering God a feudal Lord or the
master of all; while the social gospel brings the spirit of freedom, liberty and
sonship to the divine world relationship.
In the doctrine of social gospel God is not only the spiritual
representative of humanity; but God is identified by it. In God we live and move
and have our being and in us God lives and moves...11 On his side, James Cone
in the theology of liberation, considers God as being involved in the resolution of
social and political problems of the humanity. He says, God is a political God,
the Protector of poor and the establisher of right for those who are oppressed. To

11

Rauschenbusch, 49.

7
know God is to experience the acts of God in the concrete affairs and relationship
of people12 Wherever God is isolated, the religion drops back to a pre
Christian stage of religion which refers to the old dogma. In other words, the
isolation promotes the individualism system that affects the law of love of the
neighbor. For Rauschenbusch, the individualism is related to old dogma and it
affects the love of neighbor. Landy says that, Our philosophical and economic
individualism has affected our religious thought so deeply that we hardly
comprehend the prophetic views of an organic national life and of national sin
and salvation.13 Unlike the God of Greek philosophy who is removed from the
history, the God of the Bible is involved in history, and Gods revelation is
inseparable from the social and political affairs of Israel. 14 Therefore, the
immanence of God disconnects God from the isolation position to the Gods
involvement in the social, politic and economic affairs of the world.

Somehow, Rauschenbusch is right in disqualifying the autocratic

conception of God in the modern world. This conception can affect the worldly
understanding of God and become a model of inspiration to world leadership,
viewing God as bigger than the rest of people, accumulating all the resources,

12

James H. Cone, God of Oppressed (NY: Orbis Books, 1997), 57.

Benson Y. Landy, A Rauschenbusch reader; the Kingdom of God and the Social Gospel
Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1957), 7.
14
Cone, 57.
13

(NY:

8
powers and land. This is what several modern politicians, especially those of
developing countries, copy to become above the Constitution and the law,
willing to be a subject of worship, ignoring the aspect of love and the right of the
voiceless majority. This is what Rauschenbusch qualifies as a despotic system
that is based on absolutism and dominance of a singular ruler over the group.
The good example may be that of African post-colonial leaders, who portray
themselves as small god because of wealth and authority they accumulate over
themselves. Like in the old dogma, political leaders lift themselves higher than
the rest of society and become more powerful than everyone else. William
Tordoff15 believes that authoritarianism and dictatorship were marked
characteristics of African one-party regimes in the post-independence period.
This was due to an accumulation of power, authority, land and resources, willing
to enrich and become different from the ruled society. This type of leadership
reflects the autocratic system which according to Rauschenbusch isolates God
from the world.

The social gospel becomes important to the current conflicted world,

portraying the ministry of Jesus as based on love and social justice as a model of
leadership for the social, political and economic worldly development.

15

William Tordoff, Government and Politics in Africa (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002), 8.

9
Rauschenbusch argues that, As long as kings and governors were the greatest
human beings in the public eye, it was inevitable that their image should be
superimposed on the idea of God.16 From the social gospel point of view, Our
universe is not a despotic monarchy, with God above the starry canopy and
ourselves down here; it is a spiritual commonwealth with God in the middle of
us.17 The democratization of God characterizes the participation of God in
social, political, economic and spiritual problems of the world. In the theology of
social gospel, For Rauschenbusch, the religious, political and social conflicts that
we have in the world are also supported by the way he world considers God. He
says that, The conflict of the religion of Jesus with autocratic conception of God
is therefore part of the struggle of humanity with autocratic economic and politic
conditions.18 He also adds that God has to follow the political, social and economic
changes that occur in the world; and he argued that, The worst thing that could happen
to God would be to remain an autocratic while the world is moving toward democracy.19
On his side, Trimiew says, One common denominator among social gospelers
was their belief that the gospel of Jesus Christ should work to alleviate social,
political, and economic problems.20

16

Rauschenbusch, 170.
Rauschenbusch, 49.
18
Rauschenbusch. 174.
19
Rauschenbusch, 178.
20
Christopher H. Evans, the Social Gospel Today (Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 2001), 27.
17

10
I would agree with the social gospel people that the gospel has to deal not
only with spiritual life but also with aspects of worldly life; the kingdom of God
has to be reflected from the world. Rauschenbusch believes that the kingdom of
God is humanity organized according to the will of God; he argues that, Since
love is the supreme law of Christ, the kingdom of God implies a progressive
reign of love in human affairs This involves the redemption of society from
political autocracies and economic oligarchies.21 The idea of the kingdom of
God has to be present and future; this cannot limit the expectation of the
kingdom of God only to worldly life but also life to come, which is still a
mysterious to earthly understanding of Gods plan. This present kingdom reflects
the nearness and the immanence of God that introduce the democratic
consideration of God. On the other hand, the future aspect reflects the autocratic
conception in the farness of God that relates to transcendence and supremacy
of God explaining the life beyond the present.

I see Rauschenbusch leaning more on the democratization of God, the

conception that lowers God to the level of father, family and worldly life. He
portrays God as a model of leadership by living among the people and for the
people. In the social gospel, the transcendence of God is not really considered

21

Rauschenbusch, 142.

11
because it furthers the presence and participation of God to the worldly
problems of humanity. Unlike Rauschenbusch, I would argue that God has to be
considered both transcendent and immanent, or in other words, autocratic and
democratic. This dipolarization cannot be exclusive; for emphasizing either side
or neglecting either side is to fall into serious error. To consider Gods
transcendence with the exclusion of the immanence of God or democratic
consideration is to fall into a deistic conception of God, while to accept the
immanence of God without considering Gods transcendence or the autocratic
conception of God is to fall into pantheism. Therefore, the autocracy of God
has to be fused to democratic view of God to reach the level of understanding of
God not only as spiritual leader who is above the cosmos but also as Emmanuel,
God with us.
Gods transcendence can be identified through his divine nature, being the
creator, far different from humanity, above, beyond and outside of all that he
made. The old dogma or the autocratic view of God gathers other qualifications
of God that beyond the physical realm for instance, the conception God as
omnipotent, omniscience, supreme and absolute. In the other side, the
democratization of God reflects the immanence of God. This consideration is
based on the nearness relationship of God to the universe. The ministry of Jesus
Christ on earth has been a palpable example of Gods involvement in social and

12
worldly life. The presence of Jesus on earth facilitates the understanding of the
democratization of God, and Gods participation in the economic, politic, social
and spiritual problems of the universe.

To understand the dipolarization of God through the autocratic and

democratic conception of God; it is crucial to refers to the notion of soma and
pneuma. The pneuma provides a good environment to understand God as
transcendence, autocratic and beyond the physical realm; while the soma refers
to the physical life and it helps to understand the democratic and immanence
nature of God. That is why the Christian faith has to focus in both soul and soma
to understand God. Dr. King says, any religion which professes to be
concerned about the soul of men and is not concerned about the social and
economic conditions that scar the soul, is a spiritually moribund religion.22

To support the idea of God being both autocratic and democratic, the
theory of abstract and concrete poles as explained by Hartshorne, can constitute
an important tool in the understanding of the autocratic and democratic
principles. Without taking his deistic position, the terms used in his theology
may help us to understand the double nature of God defined in this paper. The
22

Douglus Sturm, Martin Luther King Jr, as democratic socialist. Source: Journal of Religious Ethics, 18
Fall 1990, p 79-105. Publication Type: Article

13
abstract pole refers to those elements within God that never vary; this is beyond
the human understanding and can be related to the autocratic conception of God,
which is based on the transcendence of God. And yet the concrete pole explains
the organic growth in Gods perfect knowledge of the world.

Unlike Rauschenbusch, considering the democratization of God and

lowering God to the level of social family, I would say that this conception
lowers God to a small sphere of society with less consideration on other
important aspects of Christianity that are beyond the social life like the kingdom
of God. In other words, it keeps the church to the worldly level of a club or a
social movement, reducing God to the anthropomorphic level. In this conception,
there is ignorance of other qualifications of God such as the omnipotent,
omnipresence and omniscience. Social gospel is, of course, a model of solving
worldly problems such as socio-politico-economic issues of this temporary
dwelling and has less emphasis on beyond the worldly life. The political,
economic and social changes that occur in modern society cannot move God
from the autocratic level to the democracy as the world turns to be democratic.
However, God is supreme, above all life; the universe has to consider God
autocratic where God should be seen so and democratic where God deserves to
be democratic.

14

Focusing on the fatherhood relation of God with humanity, it is real that

the social gospel lowers God to the level of humanity. This anthropomorphism
constitutes the unilateral definition of God. Professor John Mbiti says, The
concept of God as the Father also comes out in prayers, indicating that people
think of God not only as the universal creator-father, but also as the personal
Father with they communicate and to whom they may turn in time of need.23 By
calling God Creator-Father, Mbiti includes both aspects that are repeatedly
mentioned in the above paragraphs. The Creator brings in the idea of a
transcendent God, who is far and beyond the human understanding, being
author of all life in the inverse. While Father brings in the meaning of the
social and immanent God; and Gods involvement in the family problems.

Traditionally, the African theology portrays God as both transcendence

and immanence, far and near. Professor Mbiti says, The two attributes are
paradoxally complementary; God is far (transcendence), and men cannot reach
him; but God is also near (immanence), and he comes closer to men. 24 This is
true and can be proved by the practical consideration of God in some ethnical
groups like Lugbara in Congo and Uganda. The Lugbara conceive God in two
23
24

John Mbiti, The Concept of God in Africa (NY: Praeger Publisher, 1970), 92.
Mbiti, 12.

15
aspects, one of which is transcendence and the other, immanence. In his
transcendent aspect, God is creator, takes breath away, and is out of contact with
his creation;25 while the immanence reflects the presence and participation in
finding solution to the problems of the creature.

God cannot be considered only as a spiritual leader, supreme and

transcendent as defined in the autocratic or old dogma conception of God, but
also as social leader, who encourages the actions of solidarity and is involved in
social, political and economic life of the humanity. Rauschenbusch says, The
triumph of the Christian idea of God will never be complete as long as economic
and political despotism prevail.26 In the same way, I can also add to this
statement by saying the conception of God will never be complete if the
transcendence and the supremacy of God are ignored in the democratization of
God. Social facts are to be added to the spirituality and transcendence of God.
Therefore, the gospel has to deal with both autocratic and democratic
consideration of God to define the completeness and fullness of God. The
democratic view of God calls humanity to serve, honor and uplift the weak,
disregarding the social class's inequality and injustice (briefly, the application of
love of God and consideration of the neighbor); while the autocratic has to deal
25

Mbiti, 14.
Raushenbusch, 176.

26

16
with the reflection on the transcendence of God, being far from the world, the
author of all and above all the creatures. God is both democratic and autocratic,
near and far, immanent and transcendent. To emphasize in either side and
neglect the other side is to fall into serious error that affects the conception of
God in modern societies. To believe in the democratic conception of God
disregarding the autocratic becomes a risk that brings the social gospel to
pantheism; while to believe in autocratic or old dogma only is to fall into deism.
Therefore, it is crucial to build a balance in conception of God that facilitates the
understanding of God as both immanent and transcendent with respect to both
democratic and autocratic quality of God.

17

REFERENCES
Benson Y. Landy, A Rauschenbusch reader; the Kingdom of God and the Social Gospel
(NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers), 1957.
Campbell R. J. New theology (NY: The Macmillan Company), 1912.
Christopher H. Evan, Social gospel today (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press),
2001.
Cone H. James, God of Oppressed (NY: Orbis Books), 1997.
Evans Christopher Hodge, Theology for the middle: Social Gospel Liberalism and
Ministry of Ernest Fremont Tittle (Evanston: Northwestern University),
1993. Dissertation.
Hartshorne Charles, Divine relativity, a social conception of God (London: Oxford
University Press), 1948.
Hick John. Existence of God (NY: The Macmillan Company), 1964.
Leech Kenneth, Social God (London: Sheldon Press), 1981.
Mbiti, John S. Concepts of God in Africa (NY: Praeger Publisher), 1970.
Peter Ted, God of the Worlds Future (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 1992.
Rauschenbusch, Walter, Gospel for the social awakening (NY: Association Press), 1950.
Rauschenbusch Walter, A theology of Social Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon Press), 1945.
Rauschenbusch Walter, Christianizing the Social Order (Chicago: The Pilgrim Press),
1912.
Sturm, Douglas, Martin Luther King Jr, as democratic socialist. Source: Journal of
Religious Ethics, 18 Fall 1990, p 79-105. Publication Type: Article.
Tordoff William, Government and Politics in Africa (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press), 2002.