Let me admit from the very beginning that I am a rank amateur when it comes to politics, political science, and even political theology. Hence, I am genuinely interested in people's comments and opinions as to the content of this post.
As the US presidential election draws ever nearer, the media, popular discussion, websites and blogs (including this one, obviously!) become ever more saturated with coverage of the candidates, of opinions, of campaigning, etc., etc. (Incidentally, check out the polling map I've added on the sidebar!) As some of my comments over at my friend Erik's blog will reveal, I continue to ruminate on the role of politics from a theological viewpoint...not that there is just one way of thinking on this.
Succinctly, no one is campaigning on a "we're fine, let's keep everything the same" platform. Surely such an attitude would prevent one from getting out of the starting blocks in a would-be political career. We've got problems: as individuals, as communities, as ethnic groups, as states, as a nation, as societies, as a race. Some of these delineations are highlighted to a greater or lesser extent in the campaigns, presumably proportionally to how proposed solutions contribute to electability (or not). In very stereotypical and stark terms, the Democrats and the Republicans offer two different broad solutions: the Democrats claim that the government can best make things better; the Republicans claim that individuals/groups/businesses can.
Enter theology: God says he can...uniquely, and far better than any merely human endeavor.
As infinitely wiser and more knowledgeable and more powerful than humanity, God alone is the source of true Hope for our world...not merely in the age to come, but in the here-and-now. The Bible makes the audacious claim that the root of our problems lies ultimately in our rebellion against God: as individuals, as communities, etc., and that God is presently at work wooing back all of us rebels into relationship with him. As that relationship grows and deepens, God performs the incomprehensible: he transforms his people into the likeness of his only Son, Jesus. This transformation is in thought and deed, so that we might have the mind of Christ and enact and embody the Good News (Gospel) of God's holistic plan of salvation in our society today.
Holding as I do to a Gospel embodied in the Church, my default assumption would then be that the vehicle for "God making things better" in the here-and-now is the Church. Now, regardless of how you view "the Church", there are problems...huge problems. I'm aware. (Remember, I'm an Anglican!) But my immediate question is not so much in relation to those problems. Rather, I'm interested in how this Church--specifically its manifestation in the USA (or in "Western" society)--is meant to interact with the political process.
I have Christian friends who are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats; others who are staunch Republicans; others who consistently vote for third-party candidates. Still others seem to have eschewed the political process altogether. And here sit I, trying to reason through the Church's rightful role (if there be only one): do we seek to enact the Gospel primarily within and through the political system, or without it? Are we so daunted by the enormity of the problems we face, and so dismayed at the disunity in the Church, that we see only government as holding promise for addressing the issues? Do we see the Gospel as primarily for the individual, and less for the other strata of human society?
Much more to be said, but perhaps it's best to let others in on the conversation before proceeding. A couple of disclaimers I would make at the outset of any ensuing discussion: I am not an anarchist, nor am I in favor of whatever people might posit which would draw us closer to a theocracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I believe the church is the place for making things better not the government. Let the government enforce the laws, build the roads the basic things and have the church step back up and reach out to the people. It has been my belief in the past and will continue to be that if the "churc" meaning the people or believers gave financially, time and talent wise as they should, we could close down the government's social service industry and serve all people not matter faith or creed.
Hey Pat,
Good questions. Here's what I would throw out to some of the types you described in your post.
It seems nothing short of a gnostic heresy to assume the Church has no place in the public square. Those that choose to uphold any ecclesiology that sees the Church as the only legitimate vehicle for good on Earth has undermined the very dignity of Creation and the fact that governments themselves are instituted by God: making politics not simply some secular enterprise, but a necessary participation in the Created Order.
All that being said, politics needs the Church in order to be fully the enterprise for good it is designed to be. This does not mean that the Church should govern states, but it needs to be a voice for justice in the hall of governance throughout the world. Especially in order to ensure that societies function in such a way as to make the free acceptance of the gospel possible among the average citizen. The Church's political desires are first and foremost the freedom of individuals, especially as regards the marketplace of ideas.
The Church should always be active in safeguarding such freedoms.
Pat,
Excellent start and a worthy topic to consider given the current situation in the States. Election years are always good times to bring our Church political theory into the foreground for a little while and do some necessary updating or spring cleaning!
Broadly my view is one of a Christendom model of Church-politics. I am heavily influenced by Augustine and his "City of God", especially his two Cities model where the pope (head of Church) and emperor (head of State) are both intertwined in pastoral concern (see City of God book V for pastoral role of emperor).
To be fair, this view is seen as increasingly out of date and has been replaced even in "conservative" Roman Catholic circles with a more democratic or freedom model (see J. C. Murray or RJN of First Things for examples) where freedom is key. I think this is a okay reading of the Vatican II document on religious freedom but not anything like Leo XIII (what a pope!) in his encyclials on social justice (RV - 1891 for instance, although the date may be wrong).
The best recent defense of this view of Christendom comes from Jean Cardinal Danielou in "Prayer as a Political Problem"; in my book the best political theological account of Christianity and the world. He calls for the "Church of the Poor" as Christendom in the traditional sense where he considers the poor as the normal human being. "To cleave to Christianity [calls] for a strength of character of which the majority of men are not capable." Thus the society itself must be Christian in form and practice if "the poor" are to be able to be Christian.
This is basically the "Grand Inquistor" argument run backwards: Dostoevsky's faith is too hard for the normal person to achieve, thus a real grand inqiuistor is more Christian in allowing the society to help the normal person become Christian. Concerning Constantine, Danielou says: "The man in the street could now be a Christian. Far from distorting Christianity, this change allowed it to become more truly itself, a people."
Thus his startling, but correct statement, "There can be no mass Christianity outside Christendom." His observation of the modern democratic and secular State is "A world has come into being in which everything serves to turn men away from their spiritual calling."
"For us, who consider that man's relationship to God is an essential part of human nature, and for whoom there can be no civilization unless adoration finds a place in it, this problem [modern State secularization] is a vital one." "[The' Problem of prayer for everybody...This is what we are up against and in the end it is the only problem that really matters."
I could go on quoting from the small [140 pages] but marvelous and crucial work from a great theologian and priest, but suffice to say that his vision is the traditional view of Church and politics and also one which has lost in the political reality of the world. In the 1950s-70s one could retreat to Franco's Spain for this kind of vision but today there is no country to my knowledge that takes these views seriously.
This means, at least to me, that all current talk of Church and politics is missing the major point and ignoring the fundamental reality of the world: the soul. Both parties in the American system are too focused on the material realities (rhetoric on both sides is materialistic; from "universal health care" on the left to "free market capitalism" on the right). As Henri De Lubac reminded us a couple of decades ago, until we remember and remind ourselves what the soul is and take it seriously, nothing serious will be done about life here. Danielou's Christendom model seems to take the soul (and prayer) as serious as needed but his is a dying breed. Which raises the incarnational question of whether a truth that is not in the world is a truth at all. A difficult question.
Good comments, all! Thank you!
Erik - great points. Personally, I'm not trying to argue that the Church has no place in the "public square" per se, depending on how you define the latter term. I admit that I am puzzled by the huge (although perhaps declining) numbers of Christians who seek to enact what I might term Gospel change by investing their time, money, efforts, etc. into endorsing and electing a political candidate. I know that we agree that such involvement in the public square may be part of the Church's role, but not near all of it.
More importantly, you (as well as chaplain14) raise the important issue of governance. I'm genuinely interested in hearing more from you (and others) on what rightly falls within the perview of this concept. Perhaps governance has overrun its bounds into that more rightly termed "ministry" because addressing such concerns (or at least giving lip service to them) contributes greatly to electability. Hmmm.
Adam - whew! Again, I'm having to read your comments a few times. Thanks for the reading tips--I'll add at least the Cardinal Danielou one to my list. I guess to follow on from my point above, if I were to grant that the acknowledgement (and, presumably, the engagement) of the soul was essential to effective governance, I'm forced back to my original question--how can I see such an endeavor as rightly or effectively carried out by a blatantly "secular" government, rather than the Church? But I guess this only throws support behind a Christendom model, as you proposed.
So, you've set a marvellous ideal. How does it affect the here-and-now? Do we work toward the disintegration of the separation of Church and State?
Thanks, all, again! Good, thought-provoking stuff.
P
Post a Comment