velvetpage (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
velvetpage) wrote2006-09-20 10:40 am
velvetpage) wrote2006-09-20 10:40 am
Pyat's POAC
It's f-locked, so I'm going to quote it in its entirety.
You hear a lot about the evils of religion when mixed up with politics. The dangers of theology as applied to government are constantly proclaimed, often with good reason. Many of my friends fear the influence of Christianity upon the U.S. political scene, some going so far as to predict a coming theocracy. Especially feared are those who preach the imminent return of Christ and the End of Times.
Yet, history seems to indicate that the thriving liberal socialist/democratic systems in Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, which are so admired by many people I know who live elsewhere, were built (almost solely built!) by openly theocratic politicians who wanted to regulate public morality. The engineers of the Canadian social system, for example, were Methodist and Baptist ministers. Like American theocrats, they firmly believed that Christ was returning soon, and the end of the world would not be far behind.
Why did the preacher politicos produce Socialist Democracy in the Commonwealth, and conservative capitalism in the United States?
Quite simply, the leaders of the Social Gospel movements believed that Christ would not return until mankind had cured itself of social ills. They were ardent pacifists and reformers, fearful of the evils of capitalism and unchecked corporations. They took the Bible's injunctions to help the less fortunate very seriously, and they desired that every citizen should be obliged to help his or her fellows through taxation and social programs. They didn't do this simply because it was good - they were doing it to, as William Booth put it, "make Heaven on Earth." As he wrote "...in providing for the relief of temporal misery I reckon that I am only making it easy where it is now difficult, and possible where it is now all but impossible, for men and women to find their way to the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
IN short, they were using Social Gospel to win converts. They were not socially liberal people, but they were compassionate. They did not believe (for example) that a woman had the right to an abortion, or that homosexuality should be accepted. They DID believe, strongly, that it was evil to jail a pregnant teen or a gay man, feeling that these people required help rather than punishment.
Meanwhile, church leaders across the U.S. were preaching a different flavour of Apocalypse. Christ was coming soon to cure all our ills, and if you don't want to get sent to Hell come the Judgement Day, you'd better make yourself right with God. The effort was individual, rather than communal. Social Gospel existed in the U.S. - Roosevelt's New Deal was an example of it. But, as Wikipedia drily states: "After 1940, the movement withered..."
You hear a lot about the evils of religion when mixed up with politics. The dangers of theology as applied to government are constantly proclaimed, often with good reason. Many of my friends fear the influence of Christianity upon the U.S. political scene, some going so far as to predict a coming theocracy. Especially feared are those who preach the imminent return of Christ and the End of Times.
Yet, history seems to indicate that the thriving liberal socialist/democratic systems in Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, which are so admired by many people I know who live elsewhere, were built (almost solely built!) by openly theocratic politicians who wanted to regulate public morality. The engineers of the Canadian social system, for example, were Methodist and Baptist ministers. Like American theocrats, they firmly believed that Christ was returning soon, and the end of the world would not be far behind.
Why did the preacher politicos produce Socialist Democracy in the Commonwealth, and conservative capitalism in the United States?
Quite simply, the leaders of the Social Gospel movements believed that Christ would not return until mankind had cured itself of social ills. They were ardent pacifists and reformers, fearful of the evils of capitalism and unchecked corporations. They took the Bible's injunctions to help the less fortunate very seriously, and they desired that every citizen should be obliged to help his or her fellows through taxation and social programs. They didn't do this simply because it was good - they were doing it to, as William Booth put it, "make Heaven on Earth." As he wrote "...in providing for the relief of temporal misery I reckon that I am only making it easy where it is now difficult, and possible where it is now all but impossible, for men and women to find their way to the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
IN short, they were using Social Gospel to win converts. They were not socially liberal people, but they were compassionate. They did not believe (for example) that a woman had the right to an abortion, or that homosexuality should be accepted. They DID believe, strongly, that it was evil to jail a pregnant teen or a gay man, feeling that these people required help rather than punishment.
Meanwhile, church leaders across the U.S. were preaching a different flavour of Apocalypse. Christ was coming soon to cure all our ills, and if you don't want to get sent to Hell come the Judgement Day, you'd better make yourself right with God. The effort was individual, rather than communal. Social Gospel existed in the U.S. - Roosevelt's New Deal was an example of it. But, as Wikipedia drily states: "After 1940, the movement withered..."
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Great post. Thanks
no subject