|
|||||
|
|||||
| The Questions to Consider | ||
|
||
| Comments - Larry Fisk | ||
| Philip Yancey chooses plays on words for the titles of Chapters 17 and 18 of his book on Grace. These two essentially political chapters consider “Mixed Aromas”; or the manner in which Christians could dispense the perfume of grace to heal and uplift political life. Yet so often in practice we leave instead the stench of the “noxious fumes of Ungrace”. Along the lines of our previous discussions of moralistic and legalistic behaviour Yancey describes how the Christian evangelical right has been too quick to condemn those who think and act differently in the world of politics. Instead of “grace dispensers” those loyal to the Christian message as understood by many evangelicals become “moral exterminators” obsessed with the obligation to publicly judge and condemn “sinners” as they recognize them. This may include “pro-lifers”, gay rights supporters, or “liberal democrats”. Chapter 18 reverses the biblical injunction we introduced last session: “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves”. “Serpent wisdom”, as a chapter title, refers to Christian action that looks more like the enfeebled wisdom of doves and innocence become the ignorance of serpents. Christian political actors too often lack the grace of patience and capacity to listen, to take the pains of developing complex policy which is “the lesser of evils”, or to recognize that all political decisions are inevitably limited in their usefulness, applicability and ethics. So much of politics at its best is the difficult work performed in a humble spirit for the welfare of those who suffer most. It is also constructed in a manner which provides “checks and balances” in relation to one-sided control and the “all too powerful”. The central questions considered in this session were therefore: “How should the Christian message be communicated in the political realm? And “In what ways are we “dispensers” of grace? At the commencement of our discussion we recognized that Canadian politics has a different history than American. As a country which in comparison avoided somewhat more in the way of war, revolution, imperialism (both political and economic) than the United States, we began our discussion by reminding ourselves of those distinctions. Canada as a country has a different political and religious culture—an acceptance of left-right politics along with centralizing tendencies, minority parties and positions, and thus more effectiveness and applicability of the “social gospel” than a strident “separation of church and state”. As Canadians we have had our issues—whether the place of sex education in the schools, or the outspokenness of a local Bishop, like Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary who attempts to speak for his membership on matters like gambling, “gay marriages” and school board policies. Canada, in short, has instances of Ungrace and animosity over issues similar to those in the USA. There are enough cases of out of place public condemnation by Church spokespersons (both partisan right-wing conservative and extreme left-wing small “l” liberal) that one can still make some useful comparison with United States grace and Ungrace in political life and culture. However, the political cultures, political and religious histories, constitutional principles, plus governmental structures and procedures are widely different containers of these political and religious controversies in the neighbouring countries. In the video section of Session 9 Yancey begins by asking what form of communication, “completely apart from politics” is generally more acceptable and palatable: “Those who yell and call names and wave placards, or those who approach with humility and grace?” Yancey declares the centrality of a message of love which, he argues, must not be drowned out by “our noisy involvement in power struggles”. The group participants were unanimous in recognizing the important place of struggle, the presence of political practices and policies which displease us, and the significance of passion to energize our political disagreement and action. Award-winning author Ann Spangler was featured in the video as a striking illustration of one partisan who crossed the line to enhance the presence of grace in contemporary American life. She and her anti-abortion cohorts took coffee and donuts to pro-life demonstrators caught in the cold and wet of brutally inclement weather. Her statement is worth repeating here: “Grace looks at every individual with respect and with love and with the realization that they have the ability to know God, that there is something marvellous about the fact that they’re a human being with the ability to make choices and think”. If, as some of us argued, grace allowed Christians to take over the whole Roman Empire perhaps Yancey’s claim that the USA is in dire need of Christian influences in its schools, governmental assemblies and courts of law, stands to reason. The parable of the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 was thoughtfully dissected by group participants. Some wished to emphasize the distinctions Jesus seemed to be making between those persons who represent the wheat and those representing the weeds. Such an emphasis too quickly opens us up to characterizing “the weeds” or applying harsh images of the eventual fire of destruction of what is described as waste or noxious. In other words we try to say “so and so” or “that kind of person” is a weed, and another (hopefully me) is a strand of wheat. Others took issue with the emphasis on the destruction of the weeds as a parallel to “hell” and “hell-fire”. It was generally conceded that the underlying message of this parable was “don’t worry yourself about whom or what constitutes the wheat or the weed. That is God’s prerogative. Relax. Accept the grace that allows you to become wholesome wheat and growing even in the context of the weeds of political or social flaws, limitations, injustices. It is, in many ways, an admonition to free ourselves from judgement and get on with the grace-full opportunity to live creatively and constructively in the political realm, finite though its possibilities remain. Others pointed out that the weeds can also represent the “dark” side of us all and that there is learning and appreciation that needs to go on there as well. The beauty of thistles (certainly not the immediate point of Jesus’ parable) may be that they do offer their own character, they do shield the wheat, they do have an inevitable presence and they may contribute to a broader purpose in our lives. Similarly, one can argue that one person’s weed, is another person’s flower or source of food. Whatever we wish to take from these interesting but somewhat tangential explorations around the parable of the weeds, the story does most importantly encourage us not to take up a crusade against any person or idea. It may be the case, after all, that even extremists are useful in stimulating social change for the better. Perhaps our group discussion might have benefited from some biblical exegesis by reverent scholars. The weed mentioned turns out most likely to be darnel—a poisonous bearded plant which grew to the same height as wheat and was regarded by Rabbis at the time “as a perverted kind of wheat”. The Interpreters Bible and The Abingdon Bible Commentary both tend to point to the importance of patience in dealing with two plants that are hard to distinguish one from the other until both have “eared out”. The parable may well have been added to by the early Churches as they faced the social and political evils within which they were immersed. It has also been argued that Jesus was actually speaking about his own problem with Judas. In both cases, patience or leaving things in God’s hands seems to be the answer. To act too early, condemn, purge, or excommunicate is to place the Church and Christians in a deplorable position, judgemental and authoritarian in nature. In the political realm the same is doubly true. The “evils” of “this world” (the limitations of political life) are somewhat hard to distinguish from just actions. We may not be able to distinguish between heresy and truth. Heresy oftentimes gives birth to larger truths or is the very frontier of truth itself. If we take the parable at the personal level we would not want to consider ourselves tares or weeds. Would we want to be “purged”? But it would be spiritual pride to claim that there were no weeds whatsoever in our individual and corporate lives. Biblical scholar George A. Buttrick comments that the common phrase: “There but for the Grace of God go I” could more accurately take the form of: “There I ought to go, for my despising of the grace of God”. He continues: “Surely, ‘all have sinned’. We should be ruthless with the evil in ourselves, but cautious in our dealings with evil in others—since our eyes and understanding are both short; and we should be grateful to God’s patience that he does not ‘liquidate’ us.” In concluding group discussion we applied principle understandings like the above to the contemporary political world. We pondered the question: “If a government leader holds positions that you believe to be unbiblical or immoral what do you feel is the most appropriate (biblical?, moral?, Christian?) way to speak to and about that leader? To what extent are Christians responsible for determining whether a leader is truly a follower of Christian ideals? Group members commented on this question by observing, for example, differences between politicians who might pay off the Alberta debt on the backs of the poor, the sick, the elderly, disadvantaged children, the handicapped and immigrants; and those who were sensitive to avoiding such a policy and approach. Such an issue calls attention to the importance of voicing these matters, clarifying possibilities and ideas, dialogue and then the willingness to take action. It was agreed that in looking at political candidates we looked not at Christian or religious credentials but sound character. Similarly, it should be noted that group members were almost unanimous in finding discomfort with the Yancey Participant’s Guide when it consistently used the phrase “biblical positions”. Many politicians would immediately be turned off by such language, yet the reality inherent in scriptures could be talked about without employing such off-putting language for many. In a question asking what we felt was the best way to oppose policies we found abhorrent group participants listed various actions. Positive political outcomes can be realized by voting against unwelcome policies, writing letters to politicians, making regular contact, being aware and informed of the political process. We may also draw hope from the fact that even influencing or causing amendments to policies behind the scene can be lastingly constructive. Finally, we asked whether it was possible for Christians to uphold moral values in a secular society while at the same time conveying a spirit of grace. Comments from the group answered in the affirmative. We emphasized the importance of genuine dialogue, one on one, and the valuable place of uncertainty which works against false confidence or arrogance. Such a stance includes, and perhaps exudes, integrity and openness, a genuine respect for the other, a non-confrontational approach where whatever else happens we listen and feel heard ourselves. In the end we are all human, we are all “children of God”, finite and incomplete, from the most impoverished to the wealthiest, from the courageous followers of non-violent action to the terrorist. Even the latter deserves our attention and listening ear. Reinhold Niebuhr, perhaps the most dedicated and brilliant of all Christian political theologians is perhaps one to whom we might turn for clarity, hope and wisdom on all these political matters. Do see some of the many links to his work as outlined in our Session 8 notes. At the time of his retirement in 1960 Niebuhr revised his opinions on two major 20th century intellectual forces: as reported in Time magazine at the time. SECULARISM: Niebuhr regrets some of his earlier polemics against it. [He] now feels that Christianity "must make common ground with the different kinds of secular humanism to protect the dignity of the person against the perils of dehumanization in an increasingly technical age.'' And Christians must be humbly aware that in many cases, out-and-out secularists are morally better than they are. LOGICAL POSITIVISM: Niebuhr now defends the modern philosophical school which concentrates on language and meaning, rather than on attempting to build systems of thought. In its original form, this school denied meaning to any statement that was not either logical, self-evident, or scientifically verifiable. But analytical philosophy, thinks Niebuhr, has matured, and he now feels that it "has freed us from engaging in rational but spiritually irrelevant 'proofs' [of God's existence], freed us to 'bear witness' to the truth of our faith by the way that our lives reveal the faith, hope and love which is the crown of our commitment to Christ as our Lord.' Robert McAfee Brown writing in the “Christian Century” under the title “Reinhold Niebuhr: His Theology in the 1980s” concluded as follows: “As a person Niebuhr was incessantly embroiled in politics -- on the local, state, national and international levels. But he simultaneously lived the life of theologian, ethicist and church person, demonstrating that politics uninformed by the judgments of faith, and faith aloof from the human struggle, are twin seductions to which we must not succumb. He certainly never did”. “The connection is equally manifest in his writings. When he offers a book-length ‘vindication of democracy and a critique of its traditional defense,’ he does so by employing the biblical imagery of ‘the children of light and the children of darkness.’ When he reflects on the meaning of the Kingdom of God, in The Nature and Destiny of Man, he does so in the light of the human struggle for justice. When he describes the immersion of Christians within the political process, he does so in terms of the ‘push’ of duty and the ‘pull’ of grace, noting that while a sense of civic responsibility can thrust us into the process, we need the resources of divine empowerment to draw us beyond what we might otherwise not dare to attempt or be able to achieve.” For more on McAfee Brown’s helpful discussion of Niebuhr. POSTSCRIPTS: Many of Philip Yancey’s writings in “Christianity Today”, most of them political in nature, have been collected and are available at: LINK Bishop Henry’s controversial assertions on “same-sex marriage” and homosexuality are the focus of a CTV News story. LINK More of the Calgary Bishop’s controversial articles, so regularly political in nature, and including “Time to Push Back” on ‘same sex marriage’, can be found at: LINK Ann Spangler’s work is available through: LINK |
||
 |
Oct 2006
