The history and ideology of Christendom, which has parallels in other religious traditions, has led to the utterly false assumption that the only options in the relationship between faith and politics are between the kind of religion that tries to dominate others, or the virtual expulsion of religion from public life and its reduction to a ‘private’ sphere.”
Neither of these approaches, often advanced by religionists and secularists respectively, is either credible or desirable, argues Ekklesia.
In Faith and Politics After Christendom, Jonathan Bartley says that if it wants to follow the subversive way of Jesus (who rejected violence, broke religious taboos, by-passed political authority, and was ultimately killed by the powers-that-be) the church should stop trying to grasp political privilege for itself.
Instead, it should recognise itself to be a creative minority, operating from the margins, with an imaginative agenda for change which it should seek to ‘get on the agenda’ by example, by witness and by cooperation with others – as in the global anti-poverty movement.
Although here in America we might quibble about resigning ourselves to a "minority" position, however creative, its well worth considering the virtue of behaving as if one were a minority voice. After all, the humility that the Creator Himself demonstrated when he walked the earth is to be our standard. Regardless of whether we are a minority or majority, we are to not to use the tools typically employed by the majorities in the world.
2 comments:
The church acting as and accepting itself as a minority - interesting concept. I can only assume that from a UK perspective, recognizing oneself as a “creative minority” means seeking to subversively effect change from a place of apparent political powerlessness. This could not be more inaccurate here in the States, especially considering the power of the civil rights movement in the 60's. That brings up a troubling point (as far as the premise of the book goes) - the civil rights movement was a political movement that sought to change not only laws, but also a culture. Can you say culture war? So would that fall under the category of “religion that seeks to dominate others”?
When I read the bible, I see a clear thread of God requiring His people to be involved in politics. Moses went toe to toe with the most powerful man in Egypt. David, the man after God’s own heart, was a king who fought many wars God’s name. Daniel, Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego were government officials in Babylon. Esther was set as queen in order to avert the extermination of the Jews. After Haman’s plot was thwarted, Mordecai was given his position.
I may be missing something here, but I cannot help but disagree with the idea that Christians who are involved in politics are seeking to grasp political privilege for themselves. I am not saying that there are not those who have agendas. It just seems to me that since we live in a country whose government is the people; we as Christians would be remiss to abdicate that privilege by not being politically active. If a Christian man believes before God that abortion is murder and he seeks (through the political process) to change the law, is that somehow seeking political privilege? Or getting back to the civil rights movement, was there a better, more subversive method that Martin Luther King Jr could have employed to win civil rights for the millions of disenfranchised African Americans in this country?
Don’t get me wrong, I completely concur with what Ekklesia is saying about Jesus approach. I believe it should be the preferred method of changing the world. I just don’t think it is the only one. As Christians we often fall into the trap that Paul talks about in 1 Cor 12: the foot says to the hand “Because you are not a foot, you are not of the body”. I believe we need Christians who are (sanely) politically active as much as we need those follow the subversive methodology of example and cooperation. It is truly unfortunate that because of a few tactless loudmouths we have unnecessarily made the two mutually exclusive.
I'm glad you found this thought provoking.
I'm curious why you think "creative minority" is equated with "political powerlessness"?
It seems to me that the civil rights movement is a great example of the type of political engagement Ekklesia calls for. So for example the website says..."the book suggests that where it has previously defended the social order, the church now has a brand new opportunity to exercise its prophetic role, challenging injustice, shaking institutions and undermining some of the central values and norms on which society is built."
Isn't this just what Martin Luther King Jr. did?
He didn't work "through" the political system in place to effect political change.
I completely agree that we need to engage both from within the political system and through less traditional means. Unlike anyone living in the times the Bible was written, we live in a representative democracy where involvement is both a privilege and a responsibility.
But is it possible that the scales in America are tipped way toward traditional engagement. After all, even today, all but 60 or so members of Congress are Christians. I'm sure they all are working for what's best for America. But it's worth asking whether this is the same as what's best for mankind.
I'd love to sit down and talk with you further about this.
Post a Comment