For conversation...

God's Politics: A Better Option
Why can't personal ethics and social justice - together - become a real political choice?
by Jim Wallis

-----------------------------

Why can’t we talk about religion and politics? These are the two topics you are not supposed to discuss in polite company. Don’t break up the dinner party by bringing up either of these subjects! That’s the conventional wisdom. Why? Perhaps it’s because these topics are too important and too potentially divisive, or because they raise issues of core values and ultimate concerns that make us uncomfortable.

All over the country I feel the hunger for a fuller, deeper, and richer conversation about religion in public life, about faith and politics. It’s a discussion that we don’t always hear in America today. Sometimes the most strident and narrow voices are the loudest, and more progressive, prophetic, and healing religion often gets missed. But the good news is about how all that is changing.

Abraham Lincoln had it right. Our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God’s blessing and endorsement for all our national policies and practices - saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather, as Lincoln put it, we should worry earnestly whether we are on God’s side.

Those are the two ways that religion has been brought into public life in American history. The first way - God on our side - leads inevitably to triumphalism, self-righteousness, bad theology, and, often, dangerous foreign policy. The second way - asking if we are on God’s side - leads to much healthier things, namely penitence and even repentance, humility, reflection, and accountability. We need much more of all those, because they are often the missing values of politics.

Martin Luther King Jr. did it best. With his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other, King persuaded, not just pronounced. He reminded us all of God’s purposes for justice, for peace, and for the "beloved community" where those who have been left out and left behind get a front-row seat. And he brought religion into public life in a way that was always welcoming, inclusive, and inviting to all who cared about moral, spiritual, or religious values. Nobody felt left out of the conversation.

The values of politics are my primary concern. Of course, God is not partisan. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. When either party tries to politicize God or co-opt religious communities to further political agendas, it makes a terrible mistake. The best contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable nor loyally partisan. Both parties, and the nation, must let the prophetic voice of religion be heard. Faith must be free to challenge both the Right and the Left from a consistent moral ground.

"God’s politics" are therefore never partisan nor ideological. But God’s politics challenge everything about our politics. God’s politics remind us of the people our politics always neglect - the poor, the vulnerable, the left behind. God’s politics challenge narrow national, ethnic, economic, or cultural self-interest, reminding us of a much wider world and the creative human diversity of all those made in the image of the creator. God’s politics remind us of the creation itself, a rich environment in which we are to be good stewards, not mere users, consumers, and exploiters. And God’s politics plead with us to resolve, as much as possible, the inevitable conflicts among us without the terrible destruction of war. God’s politics always remind us of the ancient prophetic prescription to "choose life, so that you and your children may live," and challenge all the selective moralities that would choose one set of lives and issues over another. This challenges both the Right and the Left, offering a new vision for faith and politics in America and a new conversation of personal faith and political hope.

People concerned about social change and hungry for spiritual values can actually combine those two quests. Too often politics and spirituality have been separated, polarized, and even put into competition with one another. We have been buffeted by private spiritualities that have no connection to public life and a secular politics showing disdain for religion or even spiritual concerns. That leaves spirituality without social consequences and a politics with no soul. Political discourse that is disconnected from moral values quickly degenerates. How might we change our public life with the values that many of us hold most dear? How can we connect a genuinely "prophetic" spirituality to the urgent need for social justice? This is the connection the world is waiting for.

Prophecy is not future telling, but articulating moral truth. The prophets diagnose the present and point the way to a just solution. The "prophetic tradition," in all of the world’s great religions, is just what we need to open up our contemporary political options, which are, honestly, grossly failing to solve our most pressing social problems. The competing ideological options, from which we are forced to choose, are perhaps at their lowest ebb in compelling the involvement of ordinary citizens in public life. It is not that people just don’t care, but that they feel un-represented and unable to vote for anything that expresses their best values. That is a serious political crisis, and we need better options.

What would it mean to evaluate the leading current political options by the values of the prophets? Most importantly, what would happen if we asserted that values are the most important subject for the future of politics? What if we proposed a "prophetic politics"?

After the 2002 mid-term elections, I attended a private dinner for Harvard Fellows in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Our speaker was a Republican political strategist who had just won all the major senatorial and gubernatorial election campaigns in which he was involved. Needless to say, he was full of his success and eager to tell us about it. This very smart political operative said that Republicans won middle-class and even working-class people on the "social" issues, those moral and cultural issues that Democrats don’t seem to understand or appreciate. He even suggested that passion on the social issues can cause people to vote against their economic self-interest. Since the rich are already with us, he said, we win elections.

I raised my hand and asked the following question. "What would you do if you faced a candidate that took a traditional moral stance on the social and cultural issues? They would not be mean-spirited and, for example, blame gay people for the breakdown of the family, nor would they criminalize the choices of desperate women backed into difficult and dangerous corners. But the candidate would be decidedly pro-family, pro-life (meaning they really want to lower the abortion rate), strong on personal responsibility and moral values, and outspoken against the moral pollution throughout popular culture that makes raising children in America a countercultural activity. And what if that candidate was also an economic populist, pro-poor in social policy, tough on corporate corruption and power, clear in supporting middle-class and working families in health care and education, an environmentalist, and committed to a foreign policy that emphasized international law and multilateral cooperation over pre-emptive and unilateral war? What would you do?" I asked. The Republican strategist paused for a long time, and then said, "We would panic!"

Virtually every time I’m out speaking on "prophetic politics" during any election season, somebody asks the question, "How can I vote for what I’ve just heard?" Some very interesting polling in the last few years shows how increasingly important voters’ perceptions of "values" are to their electoral behavior. And most voters feel they can’t really vote for their values. In the polling, the values question now goes beyond traditional family and sexual matters to also include matters such as "caring for the poor." The problem is that politics is still run by ideological polarities that leave many people feeling left out.

THERE ARE NOW three major political options in our public life. The first political option in America today is conservative on everything - from cultural, moral, and family concerns to economic, environmental, and foreign policy issues. Differences emerge between aggressive nationalists and cautious isolationists, between corporate apologists and principled fiscal conservatives, but this is the political option clearly on the ascendancy in America, with most of the dominant ideas in the public square coming from the political Right.

The second political option in contemporary America is liberal on everything - both family/sexual/cultural questions and economic, environmental, and foreign policy matters. There are certainly differences among the liberals (from pragmatic centrists to green leftists), but the intellectual and ideological roots come from the Left side of the cultural and political spectrum - and today most from the liberal/left find themselves on the defensive.

The third option in American politics is libertarian - meaning liberal on cultural/moral issues and conservative on fiscal/economic and foreign policy. The "just leave me alone and don’t spend my money option" is growing quickly in American life.

I believe there is a "fourth option" for American politics, which follows from the prophetic religious tradition we have described. It is "traditional" or "conservative" on issues of family values, sexual integrity and personal responsibility, while being very "progressive," "populist," or even "radical" on issues like poverty and racial justice. It affirms good stewardship of the earth and its resources, supports gender equality, and is more internationally minded than nationalist - looking first to peacemaking and conflict resolution when it come to foreign policy questions. The people it appeals to (many religious, but others not) are very strong on issues such as marriage, raising kids, and individual ethics, but without being "right-wing," reactionary, mean-spirited, or scapegoating against any group of people, including gays and lesbians. They can be pro-life, pro-family and pro-feminist, all at the same time. They think issues of "moral character" are very important, both in a politician’s personal life and in his or her policy choices. Yet they are decidedly pro-poor, pro-racial reconciliation, critical of purely military solutions, and defenders of the environment.

At the heart of the fourth option is the integral link between personal ethics and social justice. And it appeals to people who refuse to make the false choice between the two.

Who are these people? Many are religious: Catholics, black and Latino Christians, evangelicals who don’t identify with the Religious Right, and members of all our denominational churches who want to put their faith into practice. They are Jews and Muslims who are guided by an active faith and not just a personal background. They are people who do not consider themselves "religious," but rather "spiritual," and would be drawn to a fourth option in politics. And they are people - religious, spiritual, or not - who consider themselves shaped by a strong sense of moral values and long for a political commitment that reflects those values.

AS I TRAVEL the country, I find many people who share this perspective. Still, it is not yet a viable political option. It should be. As one who has called for a new "moral politics" that transcends the old categories of both the secular Left and the Religious Right, I believe it is time to assert a clear "fourth" political option. In a recent conversation, columnist E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post said there was a huge constituency of "non-right wing Christians" and other morally concerned people in the country who need to get organized. Like E.J., they are moderate to conservative on personal moral questions while very progressive on social justice.

Recent polling shows that the more religious voters are, the more likely they are to vote for conservatives. Given how negatively much of the political Left seems to regard religion and spirituality, this is not surprising. But what if a new political option regarded personal ethics as important as social justice and saw faith as a positive force in society - for progressive social change. I think the fourth option could be a real winning vision and believe that many are very hungry for it. While the political elites and many special interest groups resist the "personal ethics/social justice" combination (perhaps because it threatens many special interests), countless ordinary people would welcome it.

What we need is nothing less than "prophetic politics." We must find a new moral and political language that transcends old divisions and seeks the common good. Prophetic politics finds its center in fundamental "moral issues" such as children, diversity, family, community, citizenship, and ethics (others could be added such as nonviolence, tolerance, fairness, etc.) and tries to construct national directions to which many people across the political spectrum could agree. It would speak directly to the proverb "Without a vision, the people perish," and would offer genuine political vision that rises out of biblical passages from prophetic texts. Our own ancient prophetic religious traditions could offer a way forward beyond our polarized and paralyzed national politics and be the foundation for a fourth political option to provide the new ideas politics always needs.

Simply put, the two traditional options in America (Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative) have failed to capture the imagination, commitment, and trust of a majority of people in this country. Neither has found ways to solve our deepest and most entrenched social problems. Record prosperity hasn’t cured child poverty. Family breakdown is occurring across all class and racial lines. Public education remains a disaster for millions of families. Millions more still don’t have health insurance, or can’t find affordable housing. The environment suffers from unresolved debates, while our popular culture becomes more and more polluted by debased and violent "entertainment." In local communities, people are more and more isolated, busy, and disconnected. Our foreign policy has become an aggressive assertion of military superiority in a defensive and reactive mode, seeking to protect us against growing and invisible threats, instead of addressing the root causes of those threats. The political Right and Left continue at war with each other, but the truth is that these false ideological choices themselves have run their course and become dysfunctional.

Prophetic politics would not be an endless argument between personal and social responsibility, but a weaving of the two together in search of the common good. The current options are deadlocked. Prophetic politics wouldn’t assign all the answers to the government, the market, or the churches and charities; but rather patiently and creatively forge new civic partnerships where everyone does their share and everybody does what they do best. Prophetic politics wouldn’t debate whether our strategies should be cultural, political, or economic; but show how they must be all three, led by a moral compass.

Perhaps most important, prophetic politics won’t be led just by elected officials, lawyers, and their financial backers. Look for community organizers, social entrepreneurs, nonprofit organizations, faith-based communities, and parents to help show the way forward. Pay particular attention to a whole generation of young people forged in community service. They may be cynical about politics but are vitally concerned with public life. The politics we need now will arise more from building social and spiritual movements than merely lobbying at party conventions. And ultimately it will influence the party conventions, as successful movements always do.

THE PROPHETIC role that churches are undertaking is illustrative of the larger public vocation that may now be required. That role may become more clear in the wake of the election. Without a vision, Democrats had nothing to offer the American people as an alternative to the vision of the Bush administration.

With the Republicans offering war overseas and corporate dominance at home, and the Democrats failing to offer any real alternatives, who will raise a prophetic voice for social and economic justice and for peace? Never has there been a clearer role for the churches and religious community. We can push both parties toward moral consistency and their best-stated values, over the unprincipled pragmatism and negative campaigning that both sides too often engaged in during the recent election.

The courage many church leaders showed in opposing the war in Iraq is an early sign of that prophetic role. So is the growing unity across the spectrum of the churches on the issue of poverty. The truth is that there are more churches committed to justice and peace than churches that belong to the Religious Right. It’s time the voice of those congregations be heard and their activism be mobilized to become the conscience of American politics in a time of crisis.

We’ve seen other moments in recent history when the churches emerged as the leading voice of political conscience and opposition. Certainly there were key times in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, in El Salvador during the 1980s, in the people power revolution that ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, and in the opposition to communist rule in Poland when the churches became the critical public voice for both political challenge and change.

Even in democracies, churches have responded to that same prophetic vocation. In New Zealand during the 1990s, when conservative forces ripped that society’s long-standing social safety net to pieces, it was the churches - in partnership with the indigenous Maori people - who led marches, ignited public protest, and helped restore key programs in health care, housing, and social services. During the Thatcher years in Britain, it was again church leadership that reminded the nation of its responsibilities to impoverished urban communities, to the ethics of the common good over private gain, to social justice, and to peace. And, of course, in the United States, black churches provided the moral foundation and social infrastructure for the powerful civil rights movement that changed our society.

In a bitterly divided nation, we face historic challenges. But the political "tie" that the nation is caught in might be a moment of opportunity. It shows that the old options and debates have created a deadlock. This very crisis could open the way for some new and creative thinking and organizing. And that could be very good news indeed. Our political leaders must learn the wisdom that the way to reach common ground is to move to higher ground. And we citizens should start by showing the way.

PERHAPS THE most mistaken media perception of our time is that religious influence in political life only equates to the politics of the Religious Right. The biggest story that the mainstream media has yet to discover is how much that reality is changing. My prediction is that moderate and progressive religious voices will shape politics in the coming decades far more significantly than will the Religious Right.

History teaches us that the most effective social movements are also spiritual ones - movements that change people’s thinking and attitudes by an appeal to moral and religious values. Those movements change the cultural and political climate, which then makes policy changes more possible, palatable, and, yes, democratic. Perhaps the best example of doing it right, as we have said, is the American civil rights movement, which was led by ministers who appealed directly to biblical faith. I believe that will be the more-likely pattern for future movements that combine faith and politics, replacing the more politically conformist model of the Religious Right.

To move away from the bifurcating politics of liberal and conservative, Left and Right, would be an enormously positive change and would open up a new "politics of solutions." Right now, Washington responds to a problem or crisis in two ways. First, politicians try to make us afraid of the problem, and, second, they look for somebody to blame for it. Then they watch to see whose political spin succeeded, either in the next poll or the next election. But they seldom get around to actually solving the problem. The media make everything worse by assuming that every political issue has only two sides instead of multiple angles to view and solve the problem. Addicted to conflict as their methodology, the media always seem to want to pitch a fight between polarized views instead of convening a public discussion to find serious answers.

The answer is to put values at the center of political discourse and, in every public debate, ask what kind of country and people we really want to be. We would find new agreements across old political boundaries and new common ground among people who agree on values and are ready to challenge the special interests on all sides who are obstructing the solutions most Americans would support. Ideologies have failed us; values can unite us, especially around our most common democratic visions.

Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners. This article is excerpted from the forthcoming book God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It: A New Vision for Faith and Politics in America (Harper SanFrancisco)

------------------


Thoughts?




PS:
New book from Jim Wallis:
God's Politics:
Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=special.display&item=050111_godspolitics

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/14/2005 12:50:34 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Selah) : 1/14/2005 1:10:40 PM (GMT-6)

In case you missed it, Wallis was also on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart last week. Check out the 7-minute clip: 

<http://go.sojo.net/ct/21AoA-s1iR_9/Godspolitics>

Just wanted to respond to this. Remember, this is a response on “Pro-Justice” proponents and not a response against Pro American Conservatives (I have my beefs with them too by the way, which is similar to the “Pro-Justice” proponents). Basically Wallis is saying, “The Kingdom and Kingdom values stand outside of political affiliations (“Of course God is not partisan.“). It needs to do this because, “Faith must be free to challenge both the Right and the Left from a consistent moral ground.”

Wallis goes on to say, “God’s politics" are therefore never partisan nor ideological. But God’s politics challenge everything about our politics.“ Yet, it will be very interesting to see just how political or partisan that Wallis is being.

Here’s the thing about Wallis and Sider who are both cut from the same Christian political cloth.

1. Both believe that Christian communities should model obedience to biblical standards of justice even if this means protesting systemic evils from “outside” of governmental institutions. Our primary call is to live under the citizenship of God’s holy rule, i.e.

“They think issues of "moral character" are very important, both in a politician’s personal life and in his or her policy choices.”

And

“At the heart of the fourth option is the integral link between personal ethics and social justice. And it appeals to people who refuse to make the false choice between the two.”

2. Sider, more so than Wallis, believes one can work within the system. That is, though Wallis and Sider are related in spirit, both are often different in their strategies and tactics. Both are evangelical; both call for personal conversion in Christ and obedience; both have been influenced by the civil-rights reformers’ opposition to racism and by the traditional and reflective liberals’ opposition to economic inequality; both appreciate Third-World liberation theologies.

3. Wallis and Sider believe that biblical justice calls for radical criticism of existing political systems. Christians and not merely humanists are at fault for messing up the United States and other countries. This can be seen in statements such as: “God’s politics challenge narrow national, ethnic, economic, or cultural self-interest, reminding us of a much wider world and the creative human diversity of all those made in the image of the creator.” Christians are concerned about their own selfish selves and do not consider the needs of the poor and the oppressed.

4. Of course, Wallis speaks of the “prophetic tradition.” The prophetic tradition concerns justice. As justice was more important than the political survival of the kings of Israel and Judah, the standards of justice stand against all the unjust “powers” or unjust patterns of the world.

Again, the tactics and approach between Wallis and Sider are largely different when it comes to dealing with the “powers.” Wallis stresses the practice of justice and charity in Christian communities rather then engage in the political structures. The reason for this is because Christians like non-Christians can be easily SEDUCED by wealth and power. Therefore, they need to guard against being diverted from their primary responsibility of witnessing to the coming of the Kingdom through communities that practice faithful obedience (sounding a lot like Yoder here). For Wallis, then, Christians should START with a “hermeneutic of suspicion” of governments that exercise and implement public policy, control, the use of force and direct the larger economy (sounding a lot like a certain Greg Boyd that I know  ) I’d like to note here that while Wallis is not totally opposed to ALL civic action within the system, he does STRESS THE NEED for Christians to avoid being co-opted by it (in the world but not of it). However, first and foremost, Christians should act outside of the system to change people’s consciousness toward injustice IN the system. This could even include civil disobedience.

Sider on the other hand? He adopts a more “use-the-system” approach. While he may not be opposed to civil disobedience, one can use the means available WITHIN the system to change particular laws and policies. Sider, like Wallis, believes in communities of charity and when seeking to change U.S. foreign policy on say, world hunger, that is to end it, he appeals to using the biblical model of community as a standard for a just world. Seeking to “promote nonviolent movements working to change unjust repressive governments.”

Now, here is where we can start being critical of Sider and Wallis. It is not that Sider is OVERLY confident about the ability of Christians to change the world, (something that Theonomists and some on the Christian Wrong [Right] have messianic complexes over, so they are all the same in this regard)? Rather, the problem lies with their confidence that the practice of justice and equality and peace WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS can PROVIDE A MODEL for change in the larger world!

And this is where the whole spiel of Wallis’ article comes into play. Wallis is equally convinced of the need for the Christian community to develop models of the Kingdom, but he is less confident that traditional political means should constitute part of that model, hence his spiel on the four models. From this, Wallis then says that because we have accommodated to the world by the use of these options (the spirit of the age) that this has produced a fragmented life (three options). Before we ever go into organizing political action, we first need to concentrate on building the body.

Now, here is where we can REALLY start being critical of Wallis and Sider. While Wallis is fond of the church letting it’s light shine or protesting against unbiblical practices of the “powers” he calls for the Christian community to keep from being too closely identified with economic and political institutions that are what? Controlled by unjust motives and forces, as noted above. Though Sider calls for Christians to engage in the political realm, he wants to say, “Hey, let’s not be casual and uncritically accommodate the powers.” According to Wallis, Sider is more willing to “live on the edge.” Because of the differences in their approaches, Sider is probably the more confident of the two that Christians can discern healthy and correct policy alternatives. That is to ultimately say, that he believes the Christian model can make a difference or effect the INSIDE of the political system which exists BEYOND the bounds of the Christian community.

Do you start seeing Yoder politics here? Whatever differences Wallis and Sider have at a tactical level, both share in Yoder’s political perspective that is shaped BY THE THEME of “Christ against the powers.” Guess what? From this perspective, political responsibility is FUNDAMENTALLY AMBIGUOUS.

You see? On the one hand (and I have said this before), when Christians identify the “powers” with existing political institutions then themes of “protest against” and “liberation from” those very powers implies CRITICALLY DISTANCING FROM the offices of government. If, on the other hand, one’s works from the theme that Christ is Lord over EVERYTHING, INCLUDING political authorities, then this would mean (or better DEMAND) working for the transformation, reform and renewal of those powers.

So, what is the main concern here? It is the question of whether or not government has been called by God to serve as ministers of justice. For Sider? The response is more positive. For Wallis, on the other hand, it is more negative. For Wallis? The powers can hardly expect to do justice because they tend to be the EMBODIMENT of injustice. Christ judges the powers. He does not call them into his service according to Jimbo. And that is a part of the fourth option of Wallis. So, two main lines of thought appear in the writings of Sider and Wallis--denouncing the powers and calling those powers to obedience. So, as Barry Manilow would say, “Where do we go from here?” Well, before responding to that, lets look at one more area: The themes of Liberation Theology.

While Wallis and Sider do not endorse all that is associated with Liberation Theology, there is still the tension of protest and engagement and triumph over and transformation of the powers. Liberation theology says that the biblical message is INESCAPEABLY political. Christians WILL shape and BE shaped by their societies and political institutions. This means that the gospel of liberation is not abstractly spiritual, but rather historical, earthy and concrete. Therefore, we should be involved in liberating the poor and oppressed from economic and political institutions that uphold oppression. So, the question we can ask Wallis and Sider is, “Does the goal of liberation imply REFORMATION of the powers or OVERCOMING them?”

You see, if we go by the idea that existing governments are evil why? Because they do not heed the norms of justice binding on them? Then it would seem that the liberation of the poor and the oppressed would REQUIRE working FOR THE REFORM of those governments into ministers of justice. If they are evil because they ARE POLITICAL powers (because they are governments) then it would seem appropriate to dismantle them altogether. In that case, reform would be impossible. So, the formula would look something like this:

A. Governments evil (perpetuate injustice) because they don’t heed reform, then there is the need for reforming.

B. Governments evil (perpetuate injustice) because they are political (that is, they are governments), then reform is impossible and there is the need for abolishing them as trying to transform them into something they cannot be would be a waste of time.

The problem with Liberation approaches is that they don’t follow both paths consistently. On the one hand there is the “hard reality of power” which is incompatible with “walking in love and community.” At the same time, liberationists believe that engagement with power politics is necessary for the liberation of the poor. OPPS! Big inconsistency. Some liberationist treat the powers as both under and against God. As both a means to justice and simultaneously perpetrators of injustice. On the one hand Christian are to “follow the way of the Cross.” On the other hand, Christians can use “uncross like” power to help overcome political and economic oppression.

Now guys like Sider and Wallis may suggest that Jesus denounced only “perverted kingship” and that good (unperverted) politics is possible. Therefore, the use of force may be welcomed in overcoming oppressive structures to liberate the poor. However, the hope of the future (after the revolution) looks like very much like A NONCOERCED COMMUNITY. In other words, after all is said and done and we have been freed from oppressive militaristic, capitalistic and racist systems, this will mean the organization of human communities that will no longer display hierarchies of power or the use of force from the top down. If liberationists are utopian in outlook, they are such by the acceptable use of force as a means to that end.

Now, Apple Sider is most hesitant about using force. Christians should not take up military operations but are called to nonviolent measures. And while Christians should not take up arms in revolutionary violence to liberate the poor or bring in the Kingdom, Christians can address the government to enforce change of injustices in society. But what this means is that this stops way short of calling for REVOLUTION or VIOLENT CHANGE to the structures.

Wallis goes further than this and moves further away from even doing this (enacting change to liberate people into communities of love). Change will come via the cross and not the bomb (i.e. what would Jesus Bomb?). Yet the funny thing is, is that Wallis identifies himself more with one kind of government than another! More with a Sandinista Nicaragua than with a Somoza Nicaragua. In other words, not every political system is equally bad.

And here is the thing my politically left leaning Christians. By what standard to Sider, Wallis, and liberationists reach these judgments? Is justice simply for the Christians seeking to establish new communities in Christ? Or does it apply to governments and political communities in the world? Is justice a principle by which God calls for the reform of governments so that they can be good servants or is it a principle t be used only in condemning governments which of necessity ALWAYS stand against God?

And here’s the dealo. The ambiguity about power, justice and liberation REALLY boils down to ambiguity about the legitimacy of the and identity of the state and its use of force in the historical context of God’s CREATING, JUDGING AND REDEEMING purposes. When Sider appeals for government to pursue policies of greater justice, he seems to take for granted the legitimacy of government as a minister of justice. On the other hand? If they want to protest against the powers and call on Christians to develop a model of non-coercive communities, the use of force would be a problem. If states and governments are built on hierarchies of power and the use of force, then how can one appeal to those political institutions to promote TRUE JUSTICE?

Take Sider for example. He refers to the “norms of the Kingdom” as a model or goal of Christian action. This is an UNDIFFERIENTIATED appeal that does not require him to distinguish the peculiar institutional responsibilities that human being bear as God’s creatures. Meaning, Sider does not make the case for why government in particular should be called on to perform or not perform any task. Hence, he can both criticize the powers as well as appeal to them without clarifying the proper nature and task of government in a differentiated political community.

Even though he wants to “submit every political thought and to biblical revelation rather than ideological bias (as Wallis says in the article above) he does not distinguish the political order sufficiently from other institutions in God’s creation to PERMIT CLEAR APPLICATION of biblical revelation to politics. Yeah, right. When Christ’s lordship is applied to every area of life, there is confusion because he does not follow through on a principled argument for distinguishing the different areas under Christ. Another way of stating this is, what principled reason is there that government should do something particularly and uniquely AS GOVERNMENT that families and should not do? For example, why should laws against abortion be enforced by the state but not laws against religious heresy? How do the STANDARDS OF JESUS DAWING KINGDOM hold for political action specifically? Sure, he may say that certain policies should be implemented by governments to help overcome poverty, hunger or the arms race? Without a Christian view of political order he cannot demonstrate why those policies are more fitting then those proposed by other Christians. He may say that those policies are more ideologically based and less biblical (the Religious Right and the other options?) But that, however, would be the SAME CHARGE LEVELED AT HIM.

But there is too much ambiguity inherent in the Christ-against-the-powers approach. The church should be distinguished as a non-violent community modeling the Kingdom on the one hand standing against ANTI-COMMUNITY, yet simultaneously the church should call on the government to legislate and even enforce what the church first develops as a model. The church would be a undifferentiated model for EVERY form human community including the state. The problem is, is that this does not allow us to come to grips with the different normative purposes of the wide range of institutions in our society. For example, Sider will argue that Christians should NOT ask the state to make it illegal to violate biblical ethical norms except where such violations harm the rights of others, he is expressing a principle that most would agree with. But one has to ask why this is a biblical and just principle FOR government. Why limit public law to protecting people from the harm of others? If it is because the church is a non-violent assembly of love IN CONTRAST TO THE STATE which uses coercion to punish evil then it would, then it would appear the church cannot serve as a model for the state. And that’s the thing. Sider believes the state SHOULD enforce certain laws to protect people from the harm of others. In that case, the modeling concept loses much of its appeal and the power of biblical mandates diminishes as the church mediates them to society.

Take the fight against poverty. Biblical opposition to extremes of wealth and poverty applies BEYOND THE CHURCH according to Sider. To the extent that any society that follows these, “greater wholeness will result.” If that is the case, why not do as the Theonomists do and implement all Old Testament biblical laws? But just as Sider resists the reconstructionist desire to enforce all kinds of criminal punishments against immorality, the theonomists resist Siders desire to use the jubilee laws as a model for restoring greater economic equality to modern society. So, the appeal to the Bible is both arbitrary and idiosyncratic if they do not go hand in hand with a clear articulation of the principled task of government. Christians agree that God wants them to do justice, but they are not agreed upon which deeds of government they should oppose or support. Others appeal to the Bible and come away with different political agendas. What is missing in almost EVERY “Christian political construct” are principles that can distinguish the task of government and the role of citizenship from the responsibilities of other institutions and communities.

So the tension is there. Wallis heightens the sense of opposition between the church and the powers while Sider tends to mediate emphasizing the church as a model for the larger society. Disengagement/ Engagement. Protest/Appeal. Without a public philosophy the prophetic tradition will continue to manifest an arbitrariness that may repel as many Christians as it attracts.

Post Edited (themuzicman) : 4/7/2005 8:16:23 AM (GMT-5)