 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/18/2007 10:00 AM (GMT -6) |   | A Reflection on “Christian” Politics
In every political conflict, the feuding parties uniformly assume that they are wiser and/or morally superior to their opponents. They have to. On what other basis could two political parties oppose each other?
For example, if you oppose the Republican or Democratic economic plan, it’s because you believe it is either unwise or unfair – and this, of course, presupposes that you have more insight and/or a greater sense of justice than those who espouse whatever plan you oppose. So it is for every conceivable political dispute you could imagine. Should we have a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq? Should stem cell research be legal? Should all abortion be outlawed? Should laws be passed that aim to reduce the human contribution to global warming (if there is indeed a significant human contribution to global warming)? And so on. Whatever position you assume on divisive questions such as these, you have to assume that those who oppose you are wrong either because they lack your superior insight or they lack your superior moral sensitivity.
This raises an interesting question: Does following Jesus make a person smarter or morally superior to others? Many people seem to think so, but a momentary glance at Church history and at the Church today is enough to demonstrate that the answer is “obviously not.” But even if it did, would it ever be part of our unique call as Christians to take public stands predicated on our assumed superior wisdom or moral sensitivity? That is to say, would it ever be part of our job as Christians to present our supposedly superior positions as the “Christian” position? In other words, Is there a uniquely “Christian” way of being smarter and morally superior?
It seems to me that the New Testament commands followers of Jesus to assume an opposite stance. We are to humbly place ourselves under others (Phil. 2:3-5; Eph 4.2) and to regard our own sins as much greater than other people’s sins (Mt. 7:1-5)? Of course, we may have opinions about certain political issues, and undoubtedly we think our opinion is right (why else would we hold it?). But in light of what has been said, it seems we should take great care to not claim there’s anything distinctly “Christian” about our assumed superiority. For all I know, you may in fact be wiser and more morally developed than all who disagree with you. Congratulations. But that doesn’t make your view “Christian.” It just makes you politically smart and moral.
So by all means go ahead and have your opinions about how to best fix the world. Be wise and moral, and vote accordingly. But please don’t ever label your views “Christian.”
Finally, never forget where the hope of the world lies. If anyone could fix the world with his or her superior wisdom and moral sensitivity, wouldn’t the world be fixed by now? As it is, nothing has broken the world more than people trying to fix it, doing whatever they must to defeat those they assumed had inferior insights and morality. Most of the slaughtering that’s been done throughout history has been done in the name of someone’s intellectual and moral superiority!
The hope of the world certainly doesn’t lie here. It rather lies in that small tribe of people who trust God enough to simply love others like Jesus loved them, obediently placing themselves under others while confessing that they are the worst of sinners (I Tim.1:15-16).
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/18/2007 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | I resonate with the first part of this. It's impossible to favor or oppose any political course of action without appealing to some sense of "importance" which makes the favored course of action the wiser or morally superior course to take.
But this is true of favoring or opposing any course of action, not just political engagement. Whether a husband and wife disagree over the purchase of a house, or whether business associates disagree over the right markenting strategy to puruse, or...yep...whether church-employed ministers debate the most effective means of implementing a vision of racial reconciliation, it's politics all the way through, right down to the basement. And that's my problem with figuring out Greg on this whole subject.
There are no human social structures which are not political. Human social relationality is irreducibly political, at least so far as this planet is concerned. The "group" has to decide where the "group" goes--whether the group is a country, a church, a family, or a jazz band. Politics is there.
Given that, I don't see how then we can say the Kingdom should permeate social structures and redeem them but then say there's never any Kingdom course of action that's also a political course of action. And that's what I hear Greg saying.
Economic strategies are debatable, sure. I can see how a Republical and a Democrate can debate the relevative superiority of their strategies given their commitment to the same fundamental vision and respect for democratic freedom (which presumably is the American vision those leaders equally covenant to puruse). It's like two staff members at WHC agreeing that WHC is about "breaking down walls" of racism but disagreeing over how the church budget embraces this. Do we spent this year's money on this or that project? What's MORE beautiful? What instantiates our vision more effectively? And on and on. That's a political problem. Both staff members are equally committed to the same vision, but they evaluate its importance in this or that possible instantiation DIFFERENTLY. Given their commitment to the value of "breaking down walls," I don't see how they can fail to engage the structures of WHC politically (by lobbying, speaking, explaining, debating, etc.) in order to promote that vision. It's what they're hired to do!
I'm getting sidetracked. What I really wanted to say was that SOME issues are NOT debatable. What about the abolition of slavery? What about human traffiking? What about the traffiking and sexual exploitation of minors in Thailand that Greg was so appauled at when he visited a few years back? What should the CHURCH do? What should Thai believers do politically (on the assumption that they have access to the political structures that define Thailand).
Should we limit our actions to building shelters for these girls? To physically going down into the neighborhoods at talking to their pimps? Should we attempt to physically rescue these girls from the grips of their owners, pull Ghandi stand-in's, what? I'm sure all these are good and even necessary responses.
What about politics? What about working in the political structures to outlaw such traffiking? Assuming Thai believers have access to political processes which have the potential of ending sex traffiking, how can there not a Kingdom, a "Christian," thing to do here? What about the friggin Emancipation Proclamation, a political document, a political move? What was that if not a political reflection of the Kingdom? And how is it something believers should not seek and work for as a Kingdom thing?
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 4/18/2007 10:34:22 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/18/2007 2:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Seems as if there's a contradiction here: Gregs says, "So by all means go ahead and have your opinions about how to best fix the world. Be wise and moral, and vote accordingly. But please don’t ever label your views “Christian” but then he says, " Finally, never forget where the hope of the world lies [which presumes a superior understanding over others']. If anyone could fix the world with his or her superior wisdom and moral sensitivity, wouldn’t the world be fixed by now? As it is, nothing has broken the world more than people trying to fix it, doing whatever they must to defeat those they assumed had inferior insights and morality. Most of the slaughtering that’s been done throughout history has been done in the name of someone’s intellectual and moral superiority!
The hope of the world certainly doesn’t lie here. It rather lies in that small tribe of people who trust God enough to simply love others like Jesus loved them, obediently placing themselves under others while confessing that they are the worst of sinners (I Tim.1:15-16).
It takes the very concept of a superior understanding to say that there are no superior understandings. I think Greg's purpose is to encourage the collective body called the "church" to not call all of its political beliefs," but as Tom pointed out there are areas that call for the body to collectively take action. I don't know that politics is too much a part of all these actions (clothing people, sheltering the homeless, ending sex traffiking and the like), but sooner or later we will have to resort to some authority (Scripture) over and above politics if politics is the argument against such actions. (I sure hope that when this happens the politics won't be, "No, we cannot interfere with sex traffikers." Rather, I'd like to think the politics would be deciding how best to interfere. That's politics I can live with.)
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/18/2007 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I like what you said about it all being politics. The stance I've seen most commonly amoung Christians is essentially a twist on Augustinianism. There are city of God ethics and city of man ethics. We strive to love our enemies and take the form of the servant until we find ourselves in circumstances where such 'holiness' is impractical. When something important is going on (such as life or death situations or situations with large scale consequences) we take the ethics of the New Testament to be so outlandish that the authors could not have meant them to apply. When Hitler is committing genocide, who's got time for "submit to all governing authorities" or "do not resist an evil man?"
IMO, where one chooses to mark the boundary between city of God and city of man is a matter of trust. We trust God in certain personal or interpersonal matters. But when one trusts God with state, national, or international matters, it is no longer called trust but idealistic or irresponsible. Sure, we pray that God would grant our leaders wisdom. But at the same time we refuse to give up our vote. Somehow, trust in God has become compatible with deciding for ourselves. "When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
Perhaps there is no boundary past which we should abandon the ethic of the Sermon and take up the ethic of Rousseau.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/19/2007 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: Assuming Thai believers have access to political processes which have the potential of ending sex traffiking, how can there not a Kingdom, a "Christian," thing to do here? What about the friggin Emancipation Proclamation, a political document, a political move? What was that if not a political reflection of the Kingdom? And how is it something believers should not seek and work for as a Kingdom thing?
Jeff: There were pre-christian gentiles that thought slavery was a violation of natural law in some sense. Lincoln, himself, held anti-slavery views without being a christian. So maybe Greg is right in the sense that some views are not exclusively christian views. But certainly a christian ought to advocate all right-relating.
But how that's ultimately implemented is another thing altogether. I think Lincoln's war was, without a doubt, a violation of just war theory (remember, the North had slaves legally throughout the war!) and a setback for America. Politics became more shamelessly dishonest, race relations were made worse in many ways, and economic conditions were worsened significantly for everyone except those who were fortunate to be in power during the time. So maybe Greg is just considering how badly moral crusades have historically played out in reality (witness, e.g., the social reality in Iraq in contrast to how it was "supposed to" go).
Indeed, this is where I think Christ's emphasis in the Sermon has much significance. The zealots (and malcontents in general) thought the way to restore freedom and dignity was through violence and retaliation. Christ and Paul both argue against that view. The idea seems to be that politics (and human nature itself) is bad enough as it is without pushing it into stressful, less-rational states, because humans are SWIFT to shed blood. Consequently, peace-makers yield in meekness when others will not. Sherman didn't believe in the rules of "civilized" warfare of his day, but he was right about one thing: War is HELL.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/20/2007 9:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Tommy doesn't like "Holy Crap." Just thought you should know. 
I agree with ya Tommy. I said before that everything is political when you have two or more people. My issue is this. Is there not a difference between "...appealing to some sense of "importance" which makes the favored course of action the wiser or morally superior course to take." and having an holier than thou attitude about it? Can't this be done? Greg seems to confuse the two reducing all of the former to the latter. Seems pretty reductionistic.
Lastly, where I might disagree with you slightly is when you say that some issues are not debateable. You want to say that there is some CHRISTIAN THING to do i.e. abolition of slavery. But it seems that if that was the case, then Paul had better start explaining himself. If there are "levels" of ethics in the Bible and if they are "open ended" sometimes i.e. how far should we press egalitarianism in terms of hierarchies (and another set of questions in conjunction with that would be, "Should what we think is reflected in scripture and in the Church [and in some cases the Church model itself is not an appropriate for policy making] automatically become the law of the land? And if so, how do you implement that?") then, on the one hand we cannot claim what is THE Christian thing to do. Even here, with regard to politics we should have what Modes oh-so-long-ago called "epistemic humility." On the other hand once we say, "have a consensus" on what should be the appropriate course to take, biblically and ecclesiastically speaking, then we have to factor in the "pertinent facts of the situation" such that the most appropriate course of action may not be as undebateable as you may seem to think i.e. it seems to me that though Paul's magnum opus as some scholars have referred to Gal 3:28 as for the book of Galations, may have ultimately undermined some of the social conventions of the day (it isn't inconceivable to think that Paul may have thought this might happen according to Richard Longnecker), Paul was careful not to do anything that would comprise the Gospel and his witness) thus he wasn't going about having a direct bearing in terms of undermining social mores.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 4/20/2007 9:07:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Pentz
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 59
| Posted 4/21/2007 8:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said-
We are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside...but one day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a begger. It comes to see that a system that produces beggars needs to be repaved. We are called to be the Good Samaritan, but after you lift so many people out of the ditch you start to ask, maybe the whole road to Jericho needs to be repaved.
Nate | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/21/2007 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | | If one has the authority to bring about positive change justly, then it is right. As James says, it is sin for one to know to do good and, yet, neglect to do it. But if a good for one can only be attained by treating someone else unjustly, it is wrong. That's where utilitarianism is just plain immoral. Because it doesn't regard justice properly. Which is why so many negative side effects attend unjust moral crusades.
Human society is a system. Consequently, positive social change can never be implemented successfully via force without understanding all the relations of the workings of a society. E.g., God allowed the Israelites the right to divorce because of the hardness of their heart. This implies to me that divorce, in that case, was a lesser evil than the evil that would have resulted had the couple been compelled by the government to stay together in animosity. I.e., some voluntary evils are lesser evils than a forced alternative and should be tolerated for that reason.
It takes wisdom to know when force is appropriate. The fact that wrongs exist in society is not a sufficient ground for the State to violate justice. Indeed, there is even a kind of relativity to how and when force can be applied from one society to another based upon the moral condition of each society. That lesser of evils thing actually varies with the moral condition of society when the consent of the governed is inherent in their political system. Similarly, straining at gnats and swallowing camels results in greater evils even when the "gnat" is a true evil.
As I understand it, not only do we not have the right as individuals to avenge ourselves even if it might affect deterrence in some cases, but God never delegated to the State, even, the right to be unjust to one person or group to affect a positive result for another person or group. And justice includes the subjection to the rule of law on the part of the government, especially in a system like ours where officials swear solemn oaths to uphold the law--and where the chief executive swears this oath on a bible.
I think Greg's instincts are really keen. I just don't think he has thought it all through to articulate it as clearly as he might. The way he words things, it just doesn't make totally logical sense. It doesn't explain the exceptional cases that Tom is talking about. Where good can be affected justly, the State ought to do it. And Christianity is all for doing GOOD to all men. But injustices (including violations of the rule of law) are not good.
Violations of the rule of law are a form of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. They are the moral equivalent of individual retaliation. A true good can be attained by either. But only at the expense of a greater evil.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/21/2007 12:01:10 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/21/2007 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Just some brief thoughts...random...
Notice how everything is relational in a type of bi-polar relational unity. Individuals in community. They are DISTINCT but inseparably related. NOT an either-or. Individuals and community are related by the function of interdependence that grounds and unites them both. [In my mind, "interdependence" itself (Spirit?) is a bi-polar relational unity between "independence" and "dependence" (Father/Son?)] To talk about an individual WITHOUT a community is nonsense. As is talking about a community without individuals. In my mind, the Community is often the "higher level" and the Individual is the "lower level". Even though individuals can form new communities, the individuals themselves came from a previous context of community. There is mutual influence from the interaction of individuals-in-communities that can be expressed in all kinds of ways. One principle EXPRESSED in myriad different ways.
Talk about UNITY-IN-DIVERSITY.
Human society is relational because...well, everything is relational.
Just some random thoughts.
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be One, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be One as we are One— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete Unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/22/2007 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | I agree that we should do something. But installing ourselves as the self-proclaimed rulers of evildoers is only one way (and a very non-Christlike way at that).
Those people who are being exploited can do whatever they want. They can walk away if possible, submit, pray, fight back, put it to a vote, start a revolution... But certain activities are consistent with being a follower of Jesus and some are not. Victimized people are not stripped of their status as moral beings; they can still do right or wrong, still follow or reject Jesus. There are Christlike ways to act and non-Christlike ways to act. If an exploited person chooses to reject Jesus' take up your cross attitude, I won't stop them and I won't try to pass a law to force them to stop. They can pass a law to send their oppressors to prison or violently liberate themselves. I don't approve of this or the actions of the oppressors, but I am not going to act as lord over either side.
I don't think it is black and white. I believe there is a third way. It's not a choice between fighting back and doing nothing. Jesus did not fight back against the Romans or force social reform upon the Jews. He submitted, suffered, and died. He was victorious.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/22/2007 5:05:15 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/22/2007 5:09 PM (GMT -6) | | | Let me explain why I have a hard time making sense of:
if true compassion demands repaving the road, why does the All-Compassionate allow some roads to remain unpaved?
By the view that we are to imitate God precisely in every particular, I should not put my hand to any road that God leaves unpaved. When Christ says do good unto all men, that assumes there are goods that are actually attainable that God has not yet affected. So the question is, if God has not affected that good, why should we? We are told that He rains on the just and the unjust. But interestingly enough, I can't do that. So we are not to imitate God in the particulars.
God is constrained in ways we are not, and vice versa. But God does and we should do all that we can, given the constraints wherein we act. This is the only sense in which we can meaningfully imitate God. If God tells me to do good unto men that He isn't doing Himself, then God is not asking me to imitate Him in the particulars--but rather to act with the same quality of benevolence that He acts with when He can and does act providentially.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/22/2007 5:16:10 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/22/2007 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | | I guess it depends on what we mean by goods. Are there goods that Christians have failed to affect? If so, does God unconditionally affect them when we fail to do so? This seems to not be true to me. So since you say the imitation is not "necesarily" in the particulars, I'm simply arguing that that particular argument is not sufficient to establish your point. It is not to say that the point can not be argued in other ways. I just think it seems most plausible that there are goods that God desires me to affect that He, Himself, does not affect either for some reason. So it just doesn't seem to work deductively. More information is needed to flesh it out.
Similarly, it's not enough to say Christ served, submitted, and died. He also let a woman pour expensive ointment on him that could have been given to the poor. He also allowed a woman to wash his feet with her tears and hands. Does this contradict the fact that his washing of his disciple's feet was to demonstrate his service? Not at all--anymore than it is wrong for us to eat at a restaurant simply because someone will be serving us. These things are not protrayed as absolute either/or's in the gospels. It seems to be about attitude and willingness, as you said. Seemingly, he had never washed their feet until that evening. It was a teaching opportunity.
These acts seem to be about the willingness to suffer and serve when there is an opportunity to affect a good rather than about suffering, serving, and dying independent of any good it can affect. Hence, there is a time to allow someone to serve him, and there is a time to wash others' feet. He even said that there was need of one (in the case of the two women) to do the serving as opposed to the opportunity for one to partake of the "better part." Very practical stuff.
You're a math teacher. Presumably, part of your job description is to address disruptive behavior in the class room lest the submissive are deprived of their learning opportunity. Such "addressing" of misbehavior can be non-consensual. In that sense, it is an exercise of authority. Because it involves an appeal to negative consequences to affect corrective action. If there were truly no negative consequences (including suspension from school, etc.), there could be no order at all.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/22/2007 8:56:48 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/23/2007 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | | I truly understand why you come down the way you do. The main difference between me and many on this forum is that I take the word that Alan Rhoda uses to a hyper-epistemological degree. He talks about "compossible" perfections of God. This, to me, means that perfections can be known in God to the extent that it is "possible" for us to conceive of them coherently.
There are some who would say that annihilationism is inconsistent with perfect benevolence. There are some who would say perfect benevolence is consistent with eternal torment. I never tried to make texts say what I thought was necessary to solve the problem of evil or generate a desirable theodicy. I just try to see what it seems like they were saying in their time to their audiences to the best of my ability.
Approaching it this way, it seems to me that much of the emphasis about service, suffering, and death (especially that of the Messiah) has to do with the irony of it given what they thought would be the case as the "kingdom drew near." It was the opposite of their expectations. Because they didn't understand that suffering had to precede glory (the whole 2 comings thing). This to me is the most plausible way to make sense of it.
Taking it this way, Christ is not contradicting even the "jot" of the law, as he says in Luke (granted there may be a bit of hyperbole there), so much as he is explaining aspects of it they were oblivious to. But I totally agree with you that the general gist of his teachings seem to argue strongly against the plausibility of an effectual christianizing or positive influencing of the state.
Like Tom says, politics is at work at every level of authority in society. Virtually no one in power wants to give up the leverage power provides them. It's just human nature. Hence, the Sermon tells us how to affect the greatest good given that deplorable state of affairs. This way, our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees who had turned the true intent of the Law on its head.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/23/2007 6:01:40 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:48 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|