Author Tim Suttle responded to my review of his book, An Evangelical Social Gospel?, by engaging in the one major critique I addressed in his book. In my review I expressed concern over Suttle’s broad use of the word “individualism” and suggested that perhaps he needed to address atomistic individualism instead. Apparently Suttle agreed my advice is worthy of consideration, and he crafted a response engaging my thoughts.
One thing Suttle and I completely agree on is the moral capacity and worth of the individual. Suttle admits this was neglected in the book, though my guess is that no honest reader would assume Suttle believes otherwise. Any Christian who engages issues of justice in a book obviously attributes moral worth to every individual.
The pushback comes, however, from the voluntaristic element inherent in what I quoted from Norman Horn’s review of Opitz. Suttle writes, “I don’t think our inclination is a factor in terms of what it means to be an individual/person. Our inclination toward being a hermit or social creature is secondary to the fact that we are born vulnerable and dependent creatures.” Further, he writes, “Our essential connected-ness is in our nature… But our involvement in humanity is not voluntaristic.”
There are two concepts here that are at play: “humanity” and “community.” It’s quite possible brevity prevented clarity in my critique. Let’s try it this way: because God created us for community, rejecting it is to deny ourselves participation in the fullness of the human experience. Yet what makes that human experience meaningful depends on the extent to which individuals are free to make commitments to the communities they find valuable. Jesus’ call to follow him implies openness and the possibility of rejection. The hermit is free to be left alone, damned as he might be. But there is no real community by forcing hermits to “belong.”
I find it rewarding that Suttle feels he can find common ground with many types of people from all over the political spectrum. I’ve been hard pressed to find a single social justice advocate who will even entertain the thought that libertarianism and social justice are possible bedfellows. Yet Suttle seems open: “Libertarianism and social justice are not fundamentally opposed to one another.” I hope this conversation can continue!
As a pastor, Suttle asks some really good reflective questions, and in doing so makes some subtle praises for our site, libertarianchristians.com. The outstanding pragmatic question is this one: “Does our society possess the kind of virtues necessary to make self-governing under a more libertarian view work? Is our society too selfish for that?” The short answer is, “No, our society does not. Yes, it is too selfish.” But here’s the follow-up: “If this is indeed the reality, what does this say about the makeup of social justice in our society today?”
Is it truly social and is it truly just when the nature of society itself is governed from the top down by a concentrated set of powers? I’m fairly certain that God is pleased when poor people are merely fed, but my strong hunch is that the command to love the poor has a broader goals: the harmonic relationships of those living in community. It is tremendously difficult to choose to love and serve those who have nothing. It isn’t something we ought to outsource to a single entity forcing us to do it anyway. “Your hearts are far from me” comes to mind as a relevant verse from the Old Testament.
But what lies behind this question is a basic fear, one that I’m likewise a bit nervous to admit. We’re not dealing with software that runs like it’s been programmed. We’re not dealing with sheep who simply follow the one in front of it. We’re dealing with people who have ends with means different from each other which causes conflict. For most people—especially those who raise an eyebrow at the market—it takes a major amount of faith to just “let the market do it’s work.” (Thomas Sowell says he doesn’t have faith in the market, he has evidence. But that’s another article!) The market is full of sinful human beings, some who won’t blink at harming others to achieve those ends. It’s natural to be nervous, but the mechanisms libertarians favor are not “anything goes,” but a method to channel our energy to “get what we want at others’ expense” by requiring us to serve one another. The oft-chided “invisible hand” isn’t just some voodoo result of any and every market, but a shorthand way of saying, “Look at the progress that happens when people are required to trade rather than plunder!”
Suttle includes liberty, justice, and equality as some of the virtues of the Kingdom of God that are compatible with libertarianism. His concern, it seems, are the other virtues that seem to “run counter to the libertarian stream”: mutuality, self-sacrifice, self-emptying, vulnerability, enemy love, refusal of violence, peace, economic justice, social justice.
Perhaps the brand(s) of libertarianism Suttle has been exposed to have been too bold in purpose so as to obscure the breadth of the philosophy of liberty. An applied philosophy of liberty is not one which directly espouses the virtues of self-sacrifice, self-emptying, vulnerability, or enemy love; but neither would it exclude their existence. The presence of liberty is alone insufficient to provide these qualities in individuals. But we would be mistaken to believe that a philosophy of liberty runs counter to them. Those who can truly be sacrificial, self-emptying, and enemy-loving have found true freedom in the will to be more than those who simply refrain from aggression (the bare minimum of liberty).
The refusal of violence (oustide of self-defense) is a common theme for libertarians, with peace being the benchmark of a libertarian social framework. I’m confused that Suttle would include these as candidates of counter-libertarian virtues. If by “peace” we mean the shalom of God, then liberty is the starting point by which people can begin to grasp real social peace. To have inherently divisive social conflict through the political mechanism is no way to begin to establish a true peace in society.
That leaves us with mutuality, economic justice, and social justice. I’ll have to ask Suttle to explain what he means by mutuality and economic justice. As for social justice, I’ll respond simply: without liberty, social justice is but a shadow of genuine social harmony, for it cloaks itself in the language of outcomes without care for the morality of the means. How can justice be considered “social” when conformity is mandatory?
The questions Suttle raises are important for libertarian Christians to consider. Suttle himself seems open enough to making friends with libertarians, especially those who claim the name of Christ. I hope a dialogue will continue between us as we seek mutual understanding of our beliefs and goals.
Tags:
activism,
book review,
Kingdom of God,
libertarianism,
libertarians,
liberty,
social gospel,
statism,
Tim Suttle
While there have always been schisms in the Christian faith, the current theological/political divide between the Christian Left and the Christian Right is a culmination of the past 100+ years of theological and social developments regarding the nature of the gospel and its implications for our lives. The Right emphasizes the personal, individual nature of the gospel and its effects. The Left emphasizes the social and communal aspects of the gospel. Not surprisingly, their respective views of the gospel fits with their views on the nature of sin. For the Right, sin is when individuals act out of step with God’s desires. For the Left, sin can be created by social institutions beyond the control of any one individual.
Tim Suttle, pastor at Redemption Church in Olathe, Kansas, has made a concerted effort to bring into view both emphases of the gospel. In his book, An Evangelical Social Gospel?, Suttle recounts his own personal journey from a Christian faith emphasizing the effect Jesus has on our personal lives to the embrace of a faith that embraces both the “personal gospel” and the “social gospel.”
Suttle maintains that the individual aspect of the gospel isn’t to be cast aside, but to be held as merely one aspect of the gospel. Suttle suggests that our Western culture has become individualized to a point where even the message of the gospel has adapted so well that this individual aspect has become the whole message. He writes, “Evangelicals have been formed in this narrative of individualism so it should be no surprise that the gospel we tell in America should have an individualistic bent. But, the story of individualism is not synonymous with the story of Christianity. When the story of individualism and the story of God are conflated, the gospel ceases to be good news to everyone” (pg 13). In contrast, Suttle declares that the Bible “tells about a God who has always been concerned about all of life” (pg 15).
Suttle draws heavily from Social Gospel preacher Walter Rauschenbusch, an early 20th century Progressive who learned early in his ministry that the gospel isn’t just about individuals going to heaven when they die, or having a better life for themselves here on this earth. After experiencing the suffering and misery of Hell’s Kitchen, a poverty-stricken area of Manhattan, Rauschenbusch discovered that the message of personal conversion lacked power. Not the power to save individually, but the power to bring people together and toward God. It wasn’t good enough that rich Christians oppressed the poor. Such a gospel didn’t satisfy, and Rauschenbusch believed it didn’t do justice to the gospel of Jesus. To Rauschenbusch, the whole gospel incorporated more than just individuals. It incorporated society.
I was expecting Suttle to lead the reader gradually so as to shift the importance of the individual gospel message to the social gospel message. Refreshingly, Suttle is clear about where he stands: “I believe that if our concept of the gospel doesn’t include both of these messages, then it is something less than the true gospel found in Scripture, and thus lacks the power to transform the world” (pg 26). He starts in the Garden of Eden and points out four directions in which our humanity was fractured by what many theologians call “the Fall”:
- The human relationship with God—they hid from God
- The human self-relationship—they saw they were naked and ashamed
- Humans’ relationship to each other—blame-shifting occurred instantly
- Humans’ relationship to the created order—increased pain in childbirth and a cursed ground
If our gospel doesn’t restore all four types of fractures, it is only partial good news.
In just over 100 pages, Suttle’s book explores the nature of the image of God, the dangers of what he calls “individualism,” the nature of sin, and the solution of corporate salvation. Critical to the book is his hardcore commitment to the subtitle of the book: “finding God’s story in the midst of extremes.” He does a superb job.
As a Christian trained in theology and sort of an armchair philosopher, I had a few moments of frustration throughout the book. One was a statement about individualism vs. collectivism: “What makes us human is our participation in humanity” (pg. 35). What followed were a few paragraphs that felt a bit jarring. Suttle makes the case that “the social relationship temporally and logically precedes any awareness of our own existence. In other words, if I was (sic) the only thing in existence, it would not be possible for me to even discern my own existence” (pg 35). To put a finer point on it, he says, “Human ontology—our very being—is predicated upon community. Community comes first” (pg 36). The essence of his point is that to be fully human we must participate as humans in community. Though I agree with his conclusion, I would argue that individualism gets a bad rap due to its confusing nature. Most of us think of individualism as a self-centered way of viewing the world. Norman Horn says it best in his article highlighting the beliefs of Edmund Opitz:
The concept of individualism is often lost in the modern church. One frequently hears in religious circles that “individualism has no place in the life of the church,” but this constitutes a misunderstanding of the word itself. At its core, individualism means the individual is responsible for his own actions, in particular before God, and thus individual liberty is necessary for living out the dictates of conscience. Opitz would agree that one cannot be in Christ (Galatians 3:28) without the body of Christ—the church—but many Christians take this much too far and find themselves promoting collectivism rather than community. Individualism is not social atomism: “We have no inclination to be hermits; we are social creatures, and we achieve our full humanity only in association, in mutuality, and in community.” Voluntary action is the very essence of community, and thus the collectivist is actually acting against the spirit of community he seeks to promote.
Suttle’s understanding of individualism is really criticizing an atomistic view of humanity. Atomistic individualism is antagonistic to life and contrary to the spirit of the Kingdom of God. It would be inappropriate, however, to throw out individualism by arguing that individuals do not or cannot exist apart from community. A Christian individualist is not one averse to community, nor is he self-absorbed. A Christian individualist emphasizes the moral worth the individual, something I’m absolutely certain Suttle affirms. It’s about recognizing that each individual is God’s image in the world, representing unique aspects of the Creator-god in their respective communities.
Another interesting point is that Suttle spends a lot of time talking about the social elements of the gospel message, yet spends little time talking about particular manifestations of society itself. As a libertarian, one quote from Rauschenbusch that stood out to me was, “When [Jesus] took God by the hand and called him ‘our Father,’ he democratized the conception of God. He disconnected the idea from the coercive and predatory State, and transferred it to the realm of family life, the chief social embodiment of solidarity and love” (pg 41, quoting Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel, pg 175, emphasis mine). Suttle cites examples of social sin and its horrible outcomes, and he is convincing in his argument that sin can be social and not just personal. Though it was probably beyond the scope of his book, Suttle does not talk about the nature of the State and its predation on the poor—something most libertarians (even non-Christian ones) would consider to be a “social sin.” Suttle would find some decent company in the midst of libertarian Christians with the following:
Our vocation as human beings is to organize our common life together in such a way that we image God to all creation and bear witness to the in-breaking kingdom of God, so that when all of creation looks at us and sees the way we live together—not just as individuals—it will see past us to the greater reality that is the reign and rule of God. (pg 44)
To Suttle, the good news of the Kingdom of God is beyond our individual destinies and more about embracing God’s reign on earth. He demonstrates in various New Testament passages (Mark 1:14, Luke 8:1, Luke 9:1-12, Acts 3:19-21, Ephesians 1:9-10, Colossians 1:19-20, 2 Peter 3:10-13, and Romans 8:19-23) that God’s saving action is not a destruction of the cosmos but a renewing of it. In a statement clearly drawn from the language and theology of N.T. Wright (a favorite theologian of mine), he succinctly describes the gospel:
The good news is that the future of God has come rushing into the present through Jesus Christ. Heaven has invaded earth in the person of Jesus Christ, who prayed, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (pg 84)
He ends the book on a refreshingly (and perhaps ironic) pastoral note. By describing the Kingdom of God as a rival narrative, he asks, “What story are you living in?” If our world’s narrative is highly consumeristic, we will tend to view ourselves as mere containers, which implies that we keep God’s blessings for ourselves. Instead, we ought to view ourselves as funnels through which God is the source of all our life, our gifts, talents, resources, abilities, passions, and income. Instead of leveraging these to keep our containers full, a fully human experience lets these flow freely through our lives into the lives of others. The original promise to Abraham comes to mind: “you will be blessed to be a blessing throughout the world.”
Suttle’s book has a few shortcomings, and I have a few gripes about his beliefs about society. Suttle is probably more sympathetic to the Progressive movement than I would be. He probably rejects libertarianism. Nonetheless, he has made a significant contribution to the Great Conversation about life and faith through his work.
Interested in learning more? Check out the book at Amazon.com.
Tags:
abraham lincoln,
Christian Left,
Christian Right,
Kingdom of God,
N.T. Wright,
poverty,
progressive era,
Rauschenbusch,
social gospel,
social sin,
Tim Suttle
Progressive Christians deride libertarian individualism as contrary to the value system of the Kingdom of God. In their minds, to start with society, rather than the individual, is a morally superior way of looking at the world, especially if Christians should be seeking justice and peace. “Community first,” or “People before profits,” are common phrases use to promote this ethic. Progressives believe that since individuals live and operate within society, the common good limits individual freedom.
Impressively positive ideas such as “social responsibility,” “fairness,” “the public good,” and “equality” that nobody would ever oppose are used to attract people to give up their rights for the Progressive agendas. Slippery definitions of “common good” or “human rights” (their favorite phrase) justify usurping power from individuals to help “the most vulnerable among us”—the elderly, poor, unhealthy, or immigrant. Since Jesus sacrificed his life for the good of the world, we are to do the same. A society built on this principle of love for one’s neighbor is the only way to create a just society. And, so the argument goes, sacrifice is the best, or only, way to abide by this principle.
This is a savvy way to win the hearts and minds of Christians (and non-Christians) who desire justice. The invitation to “think beyond ourselves” is attractive to those who preach self-sacrifice as the ultimate way to love for one’s neighbor. In a politicized society where democracy is among the highest ideals, people feel warm and fuzzy about collective solutions to the world’s problems. Acting together is better than acting alone, and statements like the following are common:
“We need to fight terrorism.”
“We need comprehensive immigration reform.”
“We need to have a social safety net.”
“We need to stop people from doing drugs.”
“We need to provide health care for everyone.”
Phrases like these abound each day, if not coming from our friends or coworkers, then on the news. Everyone wants to live in a better world. Everyone has an opinion (or three). Everyone wants solutions. Yet Progressives relish a grandiose politically-defined collective called “we,” where power and authority reside at the top. Attaching the sentiments of democracy doesn’t negate the inherent pyramid structure of their arrangement. Even the most purely moral society cannot be arranged this way because those at the top will lack the sufficient knowledge necessary to successfully meet society’s needs. It can only produce an imitation because people become arbitrarily grouped and defined by the supposed “experts” influencing those in power. Individual rights are subsumed under the banner of social justice.
“We” is a loaded word with multiple meanings that can be used to satisfy both cooperative and coercive efforts. It can be delineated in various ways. “We” could be the people of a county, a state, a nation, or a continent. “We” could be the people of a racial segment of society. “We” could be the people of the Gulf States, or the East Coast, or the West Coast. Less geographically, “we” can be a little league, a country club, or a church. Americans are accustomed to thinking about “we” in terms of national identity, in part because since early childhood government schools have conditioned us to think in terms of national boundaries. But the scope of 300 million people make the term “we” a precious entity when the hands of power are concentrated at the top.
But is there a better way to achieve a just society than to define the word “we” by geopolitical identities? Is there a more ethical way for individuals to associate that not only respects their unique differences, but also allows for unity within the diversity of voices? Is there a peaceful way to come together for a common effort toward social justice? And if we find better ways to define “we,” can these groups be based on love and cooperation rather than on power and coercion in order to improve society effectively?
To answer this question, the Christian must think about how he regards his neighbor. Does he believe her to be a free and unique individual created to reflect one of the many diverse qualities of God’s image here on earth? If so, he must then respect her diverse and unique gifts and talents as complements to the rest of society, and permit her to associate with whomever she pleases. He cannot regard her as merely a single unit made to fit into the larger entity called “society” so that “society” can succeed? For him to scheme grandiose social arrangements by starting with “society” violates her by robbing her of respect and individuality.
The early church movement described in Acts 2 has been falsely labeled “Christian socialism.” What is ignored is the obvious point that the success of this new movement was due to the voluntary nature of the collective the early believers were placing themselves within. The Spirit of God guided them, to be sure, but there was nothing coercive about the movement. Everyone’s needs were met not because those involved had to but because everyone involved wanted to. In this way, doing justice is about more than good outcomes, it is about the ways in which those outcomes are brought about.
It is not a Christian duty to ensure that our subjective preferences are imposed upon those around us who may and do have very different preferences. It is our Christian duty to love our neighbor and fight injustice. To seek a just society means we must advocate for a free society where individuals are embraced as unique and worthy of being handed the power to their own lives. We must oppose a planned social order and seeking a free one because we know that groups that emerge spontaneously through free association are likelier to provide a social benefit because people are free to participate. Their benefit to the individual and to society depends largely on the extent to which these groups are joined voluntarily. Forcing people to belong to and identify with the collective effort of seeking social justice will create a society that is neither social nor just.
Tags:
charity,
collectivism,
ethics,
social gospel,
social justice,
society
I couldn’t be more excited about the conversation going on at the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog. The BHL blog is an ongoing conversation between libertarians who share many of the same social concerns with those on the Progressive Left. So far the conversation has been lively and engaging.
I’m excited because my own spiritual and ideological journey has taken me down a path that has led to a very interesting dichotomy. Eight years ago I was being drawn toward and have affirmed some progressive theology. But when it came to the social policies advocated by many social justice Christians, there seemed to be a disconnect. I soon realized that in order to assess ways to achieve socially just outcomes, the key is to develop an economic way of thinking.
I discovered that the Austrian school was not only engaging in its style and presentation, they carried with them the necessary skills to assess the social concerns I had. Austrian economists (and libertarian economists in general) have the verbal acuity to explain the makeup of our social DNA.
Art Carden is one of the most penetrating writers in the Austrian school. Art makes easy that which is often difficult to wrap one’s brain around, with fewer words and elegant prose. This week he wrote a piece called “Libertarian Compassionomics?” in his Forbes.com column which was picked up and responded to my Matt Zwolinski at BHL. I heartily recommend reading Art’s piece, then Matt’s, then Art’s response, and join the conversation.
Conversations are journeys. They lead us to truth, not because truth is the destination, but because it is found in the ongoing process that takes place among those who are passionately committed to the truth and to the conversation.
Sometimes the point of the journey isn’t merely the destination.
Tags:
Austrian Economics,
economics,
progressives,
social gospel,
society
When progressives emphasize social justice by using collectivist phrases like “common good” and “caring for our neighbor,” the typical reaction of libertarians is to focus on their wrongheaded policies and methodology. But libertarians who call themselves followers of Jesus can greatly benefit by understanding an important aspect of the gospel. If the good news of Jesus Christ is sufficient for personal transformation, it is sufficient for social transformation as well. But progressives fail to produce workable and ethical social reform, whereas libertarians offer ideas that are not only compatible with social justice efforts, they offer an ethical social framework within which to produce it. Read More→
Tags:
christian libertarian,
economics,
ethics,
libertarianism,
progressives,
social gospel,
social justice,
theology
Progressive Christians deride libertarian individualism as contrary to the value system of the Kingdom of God. In their minds, to start with society, rather than the individual, is a morally superior way of looking at the world, especially if Christians should be seeking justice and peace. “Community first,” or “People before profits,” are common phrases use to promote this ethic. Progressives believe that since individuals live and operate within society, the common good limits individual freedom. 
Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the 