We call upon the state to shield us from vice or to set our vices free, because we do not have a culture devoted to the good, or dedicated to virtue, or capable of creating a civil society that is hospitable to any freedom more substantial than that of subjective will. This is simply what it is to be modern.Why do we have wars on drugs, poverty, terrorism, even a "war on want" in the UK? Maybe it's because we haven't the foggiest idea of how to beat those things without a government, and wars, in the end, are the only things governments have ever been able to win. Or maybe it's because we have no devotion to good or virtue in ourselves. Whatever it is, it's all too easy to assume the problem has little to do with us, and demand They do something about it.
This, I think, is where Christians go wrong. Of course there is a problem; conservatives and liberals agree on that. So some fight abortion and some fight poverty; but in the end they agree on where the problem lies, and too often we think it lies with the government. We would do well to adopt the mindset of J. R. R. Tolkien:
If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang', it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.We need not adopt Tolkien's premodern anarchism in order to take his point (but it might not be so bad if we did). But I fear that the Christian response to Tolkien's Theyocracy usually takes no stronger a form than a call to increase the moral character of They, whether by ending abortion or being more tolerant or whatever tomorrow's big push is. But Christians still collapse into writing government with a capital G, to use Tolkien's evocative phrase. Does the church have nothing better to say to the world?
From a letter to Christopher Tolkien, 29 November 1943.
I would suggest, if I were asked, that Christianity has a lot to say about government, but it says it by speaking to the individual. Of course Christianity is able to change cultures and social systems, but we cannot conceive of this without seeing it through the lens of Christianity's changing of individuals. Otherwise we have adopted the mindset that asks the government to answer each new problem that comes along, and too often They will answer it with a war (whether we convince them to end abortion or not). Orthodox thinker Fr. Stephen Freeman contrasts the Christian call to the individual with "the default position of America" which he says is "secular protestantism."
I say this is the default position and mean by it - that without effort and care - we all find ourselves thinking and acting out of a secular protestant mindset. Of course, I need to offer a definition for my terms. By secular protestantism (and I mean no insult to Protestants by the term) I mean a generalized belief in God - but a God who is removed from the world (hence the term secular). Secularism is not the belief that there is no God - but the belief that God belongs to a religious sphere and the rest of the world is neutral in some independent sense. I add the term “protestantism” to it, because, generally, our culture gives lip-service to protestant foundations, and because Protestant Churches generally understand themselves as relatively human organizations, the true Church being something in the mind of God. (I will grant exceptions to my definition and understanding).
With such a mindset, of course, whatever religious sense one has is generally a matter of effort, organization, control, marketing - in short - religious life is no different from every other aspect of life. It is separated and defined only by its purpose. Such religion is, of course, not Christianity at all, even though it may strive to do good secular work for Christ. True Christianity is a life lived in union with Christ and all that we do that has value is what we do in union with Him.
Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox can argue about what it means to be and do "in union with Him", but the point remains that, unless Christians conceive of their political task as one involving, in the words of N. T. Wright, "a God with muddy boots and dirty hands, busy at the center of the mess so that all may be cleaned up and sorted out", they will always be just another political party, albeit one that also does the religious thing. Likewise Christians must conceive of their political task as one involving a changed individual -- not changed in the sense of believing in Intelligent Design and opposing Planned Parenthood (not to pronounce on whether those things are good or bad), but changed by union with Christ -- before, and as the means of enacting, a changed government.
If I may co-opt the above quote from David Hart, the church's call to the individual (Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life) is the only way to a culture devoted to the good, dedicated to virtue, the only One capable of creating a civil society that is hospitable to any freedom more substantial than that of subjective will. An all-too-secular protestantism cannot answer the pull of Theyocracy unless it works out this truth in its individual and collective belief and practice.
Well, I had to get in my political rant for the month.
3 comments:
At one particualr winter conference for RUF, a minister teaching on Politics and Christianity suggested that the best way of changing the world is to be a good neighbor. I think you've echoed this. In my Cut the Chatter topic on Abortion here. I spent far too long arguing with other Christians about how Christians should support the issue. These Christians aren't cultivating relationships with the women that find themselves discussing the prospect of abortion, they're trying to make the decision for them.
Jesus convinced us that the story of Scripture changes the world, and his resurrection proved that it turned everything on its head. The world isn't changed by self-styled holy magistrates thundering righteousness into the U.S. Code, but by sinful Christians striving to be good neighbors.
The anti-abortionists on Auburn's campus argued that what they were doing has saved a couple of lives. For the shock it caused and the women steeled into their positions by the carelessness of the display, I hardly think they have turned the tables on the abortion issue. They're only gleaning small results. When Christians act as good neighbors and make that a priority, then we will be able to talk about harvests of righteousness again.
Cerberus,
I think that changing the world is not part of the Christian agenda - but is instead a red herring. That I may be transformed, yes. But transforming what is around me is either in God's hands, or the heart of those around me. Our citizenship is in heaven. This is not my home.
Fatherstephen
FatherStephen,
With respect, we most certainly were made for this earth in the sense that we were created to live in it. We are made for the redeemed earth that Revelation 21 depicts. Heaven, at least exclusively, is not our home.
I think Paul and James are useful here. In Ephesians 2, Paul says that the outworking of our faith is good works, and James says that our faith is proven by our works. You seem to be suggesting otherwise, unless you have some idea that good works are not useful for the benefit of those around you. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Post a Comment