HOW NOT TO MAKE JUSTICE INTO A PROGRAM AT YOUR LOCAL CHURCH#4
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
RESISTING THE URGE TO MAKE JUSTICE ABOUT POLITICS
From politics to a politic.
I offer one last post on this whole subject … here goes.
If we are to avoid making justice into another program at our church we must resist the urge to make justice first about national politics, and then second about our own local politic. For inevitably we get caught up in national politics believing that finally now we are doing something. This then becomes an easy program to establish in our churches. Especially if a national television or radio show personality gets involved. Inevitably, the work of local justice becomes an after-thought. Because political activism is always easier than living as a presense with the poor.
I contend we necessarily should reverse that order of priority: put our local politic first and national politics second. (By "politic" I am referring to the way the word is used in the common phrase "body politic" meaning the ethos, the embodied way of living together inhabited by a collective entity). Others will surely argue that they can do both at the same time. I ask in response, can we engage the world with language about justice without a way of life that makes sense of the language we speak? I assert that there can be no "justice" detached from a social embodiment whereby it makes sense to those we preach. In the Great Giveaway, I argued that "our justice becomes just another disingenuous argument without a living visible representation of what justice looks like among a people of God" p. 154. In another place I argue that "without a Bodily presense in the world, there is little true engagment with the world except via individualist arguments … until we have a church that lives justice, it's just Jim Wallis arguing against Jerry Falwell." I think Jim Wallis would probably agree with most of what I have just said (at least I hope so).
This requires that we see God as working in a people not just in individuals. This requires a shift from the seeing the church as a recruiting station to get people saved as individuals and then prepare them to go out and be individual agents working to relieve suffering in the world (or to vote for the right policy). This requires that politics becomes more than a monolithic concept the church must participate in to seeing that a local church itself can embody a politic.
One does not have to read long in the pastoral epistles to see the ethos of justice that had developed among the earliest communities of Christ. Notice the justice that takes place around the Eucharist Table (1 Cor 11:22). Notice the way the widows and orphans are treated (James 1:27 etc.). Notice how the poor are treated (Gal 2:10; James 2). Notice how these discernments are not easy (Gal 6:1-10). Notice how they all shared responsibility for one another (2 Cor 8:13-15). This then spread justice into the world. My contention is that if we want to talk to the injustices in the US medical system, we begin first to undermine that system of immense predatory capitalist power by showing the world how to practice medical care to one another in our churches. From here we march in immense social authority in Christ to bring down the strongholds of the unjust powers that grip our nation's (US) medical system. That's just one example.
Foucault and Zizek
Foucault is well-known for seeing power as a homogeneous totality (the Totalizing System) incorporating all resistance within it. Zizek on the other hand, sees power as always disturbed by an excess which it can never quite control. For Foucault the Symbolic order is total, for Zizek the symbolic order is a field always in mediation between the subject and the political. Therefore, the Real is always in danger of irrupting (Badiou's term). Zizek advocates a politics therefore which does not resist the politics in power thereby becoming subsumed by the politics of power legitimating it and reinforcing that which is in power already. Instead, Zizek says "play the symbolllic order game to the hilt, revealing its own lack, bringing it down by the power of its own excess."
I know, for those of you not versed in this rhetoric it's heady. My apologies. But would you try to let it stretch you?
Put in other words. Foucault would take a look the Vietnam War protesters as playing into the hands of the governmental powers who sought to keep the war going for their own purposes. Richard Nixon etc., could say "see, I told you so! Here in the US we have freedom to be able to protest. They don't have that in North Vietnam." The protests became subsumed by the powers and actually legitimated the ongoing injustice. I think Zizek would prefer (I'm conjecturing here) the Jane Fonda move - "oh you say I am free, OK I'll go to Hanoi and speak what I really think." An even more effective strategy I believe is for hundreds of evangelical churches to gather together and resist allowing any young men/women to participate in the war altogether (and ask the Vietnamese Christians to join in). In other words, dare the powers to wage war against the religious freedom it claims to be fighting for. Imagine if 1,000's of evangelical churches in the 60's had refused any of its members the moral authority to fight in an unjust war? How soon would that have ended the war. This gets to my point, until we embody the justice we are talking about locally in our communities, our justice in the wider context gets subsumed by the dominant forces, even injustice itself.
I hope to discuss at the evolving church conference some more examples of how I see that local justice always leads us to be a better participation in national politics.
IN SUMMARY
I don't anticipate presenting all these 4 posts at the evolving church conference. What I hope for is a brief presentation on the hottest of these topics and then generating discussion of how we're all doing these things. Should be a great time. Looking forward to it!
Final question - CAN MEGA CHURCHES DO THE WORK OF CHRIST'S JUSTICE?
I think the kind of churches that will have the hardest time with a MORE ORGANIC, LOCAL and EMBODIED JUSTICE are the mega churches. Because if justice is relational, mutual and sharing of all things, this is just plain harder the bigger you get. I would argue that the mega churches with the most resourses often do the poorest job of social justice per capita. Don't get me wrong they are doing plenty of mercy projects. SOME VERY HIGH PROFILE … but is it justice? Or is it a large relief and mercy program, which again is important, but from post #1, I suggest it is not justice. Then again, I know at least 2 larger churches (2500+) that are doing awesome work for Christ's justice.
Posted by David Fitch | 3:53 PM
COMMENTS:
If a megachurch can't do justice as effecively, then I don't see how a nation can be a national politic...whatever issues are embedded with ethoses and pluralism. In other words, bodies have limits and measures. "America" is monstrously large. Its not a body politic, whatever questions of "ethos" may arise.
Speaking, however, of ethos: "An even more effective strategy I believe is for hundreds of evangelical churches to gather together and resist allowing any young men/women to participate in the war altogether (and ask the Vietnamese Christians to join in). In other words, dare the powers to wage war against the religious freedom it claims to be fighting for. Imagine if 1,000's of evangelical churches in the 60's had refused any of its members the moral authority to fight in an unjust war? How soon would that have ended the war."
THANK YOU!!! Freakin'...jeez. About time somebody stepped up and said it. Sheesh. Better yet...what if we did that NOW??!!! How "Christian" would that guy in the Neo-Classical House (the White House) look then? Hhhmmm...
6:39 PM
something strange happens when these churches put 'purpose-driven' behind everything. is there such a thing as 'purpose-driven' justice? or what about 'contagioius justice'?
David you're right. Justice only happens in the life of a community. Perhaps a community that understands justice as beginning in their very midst, in the way they gather. Only then can you move into the world point towards God's justice.
12:33 AM
David,
Jason's response, above, is exactly the response that I fear comes from the emerging church's focus on social justice...
I'm afraid that focusing on justice may be one of the things that Paul warned Timothy against..."a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive laguage, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of truth..."
Just as the New Testament writers did not question the institution of slavery, I don't think we are called to take dogmatic stands on these issues (once we put forward the idea of an "unjust war" we must deal with the corollary of a "just war"), but to love and be gracious to those who disagree with us. To forgive the very hand that harms us (and those close to us!)
You really do take the risk of fomenting discontent within the church and generating a mindless following that does not understand the nuances of what you are saying about injustice in the world. Remember, the church are as simple as sheep and will follow with their own misguided motives.
I believe that you are going down the same road that some of the disciples and Jews did, who mistakenly thought that Jesus came to throw off Roman domination.
It's the tip of the iceberg, David...
Peace, Kim
12:40 PM
Kim, you architect you...I'm no Zealot. I just like Revelations. This isn't a conversation about Just War Theory, I thought. I didn't think that needed to be disputed about this particular war anyway.
And missing the nuances? Seriously, I would like to hear more about what you mean there. I think you are referring particuarly to the nuance of "those close to us", no? If that's what you meant, I'll say I didn't miss it; but I'll admit readily that I suck at it. And just because we "forgive the very hand that harms us" (uummm...disagrees with me, actually harms everyone else in the world not from the U.S...OK, "everyone else in the world" might be a bit extreme...), doesn't mean we shouldn't set our light out on TOP of the table and let it shine, no?
And I'm not sure what to make of your apparent refernce to my mindlessness. I'm somewhat miffed...as that's something I'm learning to be (miffed), rather than non-existent (I've heard a lot of "tell me how you FEEL" lately, lol). But then I also think it's kinda funny though, because if anything I think WAY too much. I also think, though, that I have to ask you what the heck you meant before I can be "gracious to those who disagree with us" and "forgive the very hand that harms us." So...what did you mean by that?
And BTW - congrats on making it to 30. I haven't made it there in my lifetime yet!
4:57 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
4:58 PM
Once again, very helpful. Embodiment has got to be our main concern. The message of the N.T. is aimed at this very point. Richard Hays says, "It should not be forgotten that the community whose unity Paul passionately seeks is not the human community as a whole, nor is it a pluralistic community within the polis. Rather, it is always the particular community of the church. To be sure, Paul hopes for the ultimate triumph of God's grace over all human unbelief and disobedience (Rom 11:32; Phil 2:9-11). Consequently, he hopes for the final reconciliation of all humanity to God. Until that eschatological consummation, however, Paul speaks only to the community of faith. He articulates no basis for a general ethic applicable to those outside the church."
Actually living out justice in the body is a much harder proposition for most people, I think. I really like your point, David, how seeing justice as rights ultimately allows us to keep real justice/righteousness at arms length.
I'm constantly amazed & blessed by how you express these concepts. Thanks.
5:00 PM
David, I hope you don't mind us carrying on a conversation in your blog.
Jason, I am hopelessly flawed. I did not mean to offend you and I apologize if I did.
My reference to your post only had to do with your obvious disdain for the current American government adminstration. I fear many times the conversation devolves into partisan politics. That's my point. I'm not here to defend or attack politicians.
What I'm trying to say is that if we Believers embroil ourselves in any of the social justice causes we are being distracted from the real spiritual battle that's going on.
I simply am not convinced that Christ's model was one of championing social causes. He seems very clear to me to distinguish earthly/worldly/fleshly issues from spiritual ones and to more highly value the spiritual over the earthly.
I'm not sure that I understand David's nuances myself (if there are any). So, please don't be offended by my use of that word. On one hand, David wants to be careful not to let social justice become another church program. On the other, he suggests that churches might act together in civil disobedience.
Finally, we must take care not to exhibit the very characteristics that we condemn in taking up social justice issues. For instance, is it oxymoronic to "take up the fight against war"? If we are belligerent, defensive, sarcastic, bombastic, dogmatic, etc. can we really take up the cause of "peace" without being hypocrits?
Peace, Kim
6:48 AM
Kim,
We're straight. We're on the same page as far as partisan politics goes. And the nuances thing...oh well. So, really...upon hearing your take, I see I have nothing to "forgive" you for. So weeee...Also, "hopelessly flawed"...me too, without Jesus, at least.
I would like to note a thing or two. For one, Jesus was totally rude and obnoxious toward Herod - even belligerent and sarcstic ("what king would not go to war and not count the cost?" was partially a historical comment), and to a degree toward the Pharisees as well.
And it sounds to me like one possible nuance at play here is that Mr. Fitch has a bit of a different metaphysical take on body/flesh and spirit/intellect in comparison to you...and that his different take on metaphysics influences his idea of a "body politic", which influences his Christian idea of justice....???
Peace and grooviness,
Jason
9:34 AM
To unpack Jason's metaphysics statement there (without speaking for him):
Kim, your admitted interpretation of the Gospels is a hierarchy of spiritual over earthly. (And props for being upfront with your interpretation. It goes a long way in meaningful dialogue.) Meaning we need the ability to distinguish between the two and prioritize accordingly. Perhaps it sometimes means we should disregard the one lest it contaminate (or become divisive) in pursuit of the other.
While many share that interpretation, many do not, and I would wager Dave is one of those who does not, which accounts for some of your disagreement when it comes to how the church should live out a politic of justice.
Personally, I would question if dividing "earthly" from "spiritual" really reflects the Biblical witness. I think that is an assumption from modern culture (with its huge value on tolerance and privatizing spirituality) that we bring to the text. The secularist who denies any spiritual element in humans and the spiritualist who distinguishes spiritual and non-spiritual components in humans are functioning along the same lines: the belief that the spiritual element in life can be identified, isolated, and in the extreme, denied.
If instead we see everything--human, non-human, "secular", "spiritual"--as creation intended for communion with God, those dichotomies disappear. (Eastern Orthodox thinkers are really helpful here.) We don't have to see salvation, redemption, justice, local politics, national politics, etc. as activities on a prioritized scale, often competing or clashing with each other. Instead they become cohesive (even indivisible) elements of the life of churches bearing witness to realized and eschatological communion with God.
There's a lot of unpacking in that last part, I know, but wanted to offer up a different way to see things.
Dave, love the Zizek in there. Wonder what he would say to the missional churches functioning within the American Christian power structures dominated by the mega-church?
9:15 AM
Jon,
Thanks for your help. Have you ever had one of those experiences where someone presents you with information that makes you wonder whether everything you know is wrong? I've not had my paradigm challenged in such a way for a long time. It makes me wonder where I've been. Certainly, I've been away from academia for a while and my church experience is somewhat insulated.
As I look back, I was fairly broad minded as a child and young adult. My mind (and heart) narrowed as I progressed through my 30's to mid 40's. From then on to now being 50 I find myself broadening again in mind and heart.
I feel like I've just gotten used to, comfortable with, my understanding of Scripture and my place in the cosmos. I admit that it is challenging for me to re-orient my thinking/heart.
I'm wondering if the paradigm you present is commonly held by those in the emergent church? I see my own views as expressed in previous posts as fairly commonplace (certainly among those of my generation). I say the views are "commonplace," but the practice of Christianity always seems to be at odds with the intellectual mindset. I can see that David is feeling his way through how the philosophy translates to pursuit.
I hope that you wouldn't mind if we could somehow continue this dialogue offline of David's blog!
Also, I'm interested to know how you might respond to some of the posts I've made at my blog Preparation 4 Eternity. It is very directed at men/husbands who are challenged in their marriages as I was/am. What would the emerging church response be to my counsel there?
Thanks, Blessings and All the Best!
Kim
12:23 PM
Kim,
Wow. Thanks for your response. And sure, I'll head over to your blog here before long and we can find an avenue to continue this line of thinking off of Dave's blog.
7:15 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home