Lennart : At least how I read Paul, I Cor 10 : 33, and 11 : 18-19 for starters, consciousness of the realm of politics can be useful and good. This isn't necessarily so, but it can be. " I am told that when you meet as a congregation you fall into sharply divided groups ; and I believe that there is some truth in it --for dissensions are necessary if only to show which of your members are sound." To be sure, Paul goes on to say that this should never go so far that believers cannot take communion together. It should be, as it were, friendly dissension. Then there is II Cor 13 : 1, all about establishing facts by evidence. Then there is an entire pericope in Ephesians, in chapter 5, which advises believers not to act like simpletons, not to allow themselves to be deceived by simple arguments, etc,. Much of this, or most of it, can be taken in the sense of personal life, but the principles apply, as well, to the world of the political. In other words, so it seems from here, Christians ought to educate themselves to politics, to the logic of debate, to the ins and outs of political disputation, and all the rest. This would necessarily include the substance of issues. Clearly some already do this. The point being : This should be general in the Church, not just something for a Christian minority in the Church. And about this I am most leery. Too often in politics Christian witness is strictly personal and basically uninformed. Not that this is "bad," it is anything but bad, but it also has real limitations. From the perspective of others all you end up with is their word against the word of their opponents. When people are educated to the issues and to politics at large this changes. Then the weight of discipleship multiplies itself, is amplified, and can be most persuasive. That is, it is a fine thing to quote Bible verses in debate, but others may not recognize the authority Christians give to the Bible, or may insist that their interpretation is at least as good even if it is the opposite. But if you can show where a Bible verse opens doors to solid evidence, and Paul insisted this is a necessary thing to do, then the evidence witnesses for the Bible and for what Christians are saying. Hence an appeal to tradition serves no purpose unless it is first shown that it is relevant in the here and now. Usually, at least in my experience, a lot of Evangelicals get it exactly backward. If this was boxing it would be like leading with a weak Left jab and allowing the opponent to deck you with his strong Right to the jaw. Anyway, it also is a war out there in politics land. To win a war you need allies : With whom sincere co-operation is possible. How do Christians do that ? To me this is the greatest of all Christian weaknesses. And it is completely unnecessary since the Bible is filled with passages that allow Christians to make very different judgements than what is sadly typical, viz, "our way or the highway." That approach, in politics, can only have one outcome : Alienating everyone else. Years ago, in Seattle, I was part of a Christian-led group that opposed the homosexual movement. It must be said that this was a "children's crusade." Few people in it were politically sophisticated. Ultimately it lost at the ballot box. But motivation was high, I was one of a small army that went door-to-door and I took part in a TV debate. We gave it everything we could. One thing was done very right. If you opposed homosexuals you were welcome in the movement. There were no religious tests. And we did mobilize a number of non-Christians in the fight. What a contrast to OCA, here in Oregon, which was far better organized and funded, but which, while the religious test was loose enough to permit Mormons to take part, was strictly for Christians only, and very divisive. You can draw your own conclusions. Billy ------------------------------------------------------------------- message dated 10/8/2011 9:42:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Billy, What is the true mission of the Church ? THAT question is vital. But I'd like to break it into parts, with one part being : In the realm of political action, what is the true mission ? Evangelicals, as a group, have been defined by what they are against, not what they are for (to a large degree their own fault). That's a problem. Secondly, starting with Constantine the Church have tried to be in the place of "power and influence" and we see that in America today still. Essentially the same philosophy. Many would say that the "place of power" is the Christian thing to do (the "Christian Nation" philosophy) although in many ways that is an attitude antithetical to the mission of the church which is to serve the community, not lord over it. That's not, IMHO, a reason to avoid the ballot box but screaming at people is not really going to change their way of thinking or the way they live. Those kind of changes requires teaching within sound and real relationships (we can call that "discipleship"). The problem is that when we scream at people they don't want to have any kind of relationship with us (for good reasons, I might add). Thus, any kind of politics that turns off the very same people that you want to build real relationships with isn't helpful to the mission of the church. Our politics, be it left or right, has defined us too much. Too much talk and too little "real" Christianity out there. We know it and the people we're screaming at knows it so who do we think we're kidding? I've known for a long time that Christians needs to re-think their political engagement which is one of the reasons I am looking at Radical Centrism. Here's a quote from a book reviewer: "...citing Stephen Fowl and Darrell Guder, the underlying suspicion for Fitch is that evangelicals have failed “to lead a life worthy of the calling to which they have been called” (Eph 4:1), and to order their “common life” together toward a pattern of life that yields “the disposition” of Christ in the world (Phil 1:27). In this sense, borrowing from Zizek’s illustration of the diet coke phenomenon – the most consumed drink in the world that neither quenches thirst nor tastes very good – Fitch argues that evangelicalism has become an “empty” politic – “driven by antagonisms and contradictions as opposed to something real to which we aspire.”[iv] Fitch proposes that the three main beliefs have characterized evangelicals over time: 1) “the Inerrant Bible” and how it “shapes us for arrogance,” 2) “the Decision for Christ” (a conversionist understanding of salvation centered around substitutionary atonement) and “how it shapes us for duplicity” 3) and “the Christian Nation” and “how it shapes us for dispassion” (the subtitles really tell the whole story). The words that are capitalized function ideologically – again referencing Zizek – as “master-signifiers.” In other words, these ideas are “objects to which people pledge their allegiance,”[v] and Fitch argues that each one eventually produces an “irruption of the Real” for the people who adhere to them, revealing “the contradictions at the core of our [evangelical] politics.”[vi] end quote More could be said. I am thinking this through myself so I might not be the best one to communicate this. There has to be room for both the left and the right within "the Church" and we need to be unified, not what we are against, and we should pledge our allegiance to Jesus, and his way of life/attitude, rather then rally around 'master signifiers' that doesn't mean anything but makes us feel really good. // Lennart Billy ================================================= 10/7/2011 [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: Hi Billy, This book would be interesting to read, no doubt. However, it's seems it's mostly about "left vs. right" and who is the most "biblical". Interesting, to be sure but hardly as helpful David Fitch's recent book "The End of Evangelicalism?" _http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/1606086847/ref=aw_d_cr_books_ (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/1606086847/ref=aw_d_cr_books) Fitch uses 'the work of noted Slovenian philosopher and critic Slavoj Zizek to critique three essential evangelical ideals: "the inerrant Bible," "the decision for Christ" and "the Christian nation."' (to quote a reviewer). Fitch critics both the "left vs. Right" approach to "Christian politics" and the use of "master signifiers" within each camp to illustrate the inherent "emptiness" of both". Neither left nor right is particularly helpful if the goal is to understand politics from a truly "Christian" perspective. First, the context should not be "who's the most Biblical" but rather what is the true mission of the Church and how that understanding is expressed in and through the Church (I.e. those that join God in his mission to the world). Both the left and the right misses the mark. I think Fitch nails it perfectly using Zizek's theories analyzing the problem. Of course, Zizek is less helpful in providing answers but Fitch understanding and explanation of "missional church" provides a blueprint for true "Christian" political and cultural engagement. I am not sure how you feel about his answers but for me, personally, coming from more of a "right" perspective his has been very helpful in understanding how I, and I venture to say, (too) many others have gone wrong. A Google search for book title "The End of Evangelicalism?", Fitch and review should bring up enough links to more information. // Lennart Sent from my iPhone using the pinkie on my left hand On Oct 7, 2011, at 13:04, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Christian Post _How Would Jesus Vote? New Book Looks at Evangelical Faith and Politics_ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/how-would-jesus-vote-new-book-looks-at-evan gelical-faith-and-politics-57573/) Fri, Oct. 07, 2011 Posted: 01:00 PM EDT ____________________________________ Two evangelical Christians, one a Republican and the other a Democrat, roll out their ideas on how the Bible applies to culture and politics in a new book, titled Left, Right & Christ. Can a Democrat be a Christian? Should the government care for the sick? Do legalized abortions increase the number of abortions? These are just some of the issues Lisa Sharon Harper and D.C. Innes undertake in this new book from Russell Media. Harper, director of Mobilizing at Sojourners, and Innes, associate professor of Politics at The King's College, offer mostly different responses, but do agree that these are the type of conversations Christians should be having if they already are not. Their conversation, stemming from different world views, opens a field for Christians to discuss political issues and their relevance to Scripture openly. Left, Right & Christ also gives a good idea of how one Christian denomination can contain people with vastly differing views on the world and politics. To compare those views, and to present them to the public in their full range is important, according to Harper and Innes. Often times, a book like Left, Right & Christ, which involves two authors presenting their respective arguments, gives readers the opportunity to consider the arguments on both sides, Harper told The Christian Post. Harper's and Innes' differing views often stem from different ways of interpreting Scripture. "I hope my argument [in the book] is compelling," Innes told CP. "Obviously more biblically faithful [than Harper's]. Lisa tries to be biblically faithful. I think her hermeneutic is off. But we have a conversation that will help people take the Bible more seriously; take its application more seriously, and not be afraid to talk to one another about the fundamental political issues. Explore why are they different." "[Innes] approached Scripture very theoretically," Harper told CP separately. He looks at the Scripture, interprets it, and then applies it, she added. But Harper often does the opposite, she said. She takes questions from life to Scripture. If she then manages to find a story in the Bible that corresponds to the issue in question, she will draw conclusions from the text. But the authors seem to agree on at least one issue – that it is important, especially in public life, not only to profess your religion, but to put their faith into practice. "I think how [religion] is being used in politics is really the question," Harper said. "It's not enough for candidates or legislators to profess faith. What really matters is the policies that they propose and push." Most importantly, she added, it is important that the policies they push are actually about the values that their religion supports. "Professing faith is very easy to do, and that's really using religion; that's using religion for other means and to gain political points," Harper said. "We're in very confused times, and very polarized times. So it would be easy for evangelicals to put down their Bibles, and pick up ideologies; their party's politics. But I think that's lazy, and I also think that's not faithful." She added that Left, Right & Christ was written in order to give evangelicals an opportunity to wrestle with important contemporary questions together with the authors. "We may not know how Jesus would vote, but Harper and Innes help us solidify what we actually believe and where we are in terms of our faith and politics," the book's press release adds. Both authors gave a short lecture in New York on Thursday, followed by a book signing and a panel discussion featuring prominent Christian speakers Jim Wallis, CEO of Sojourners, and Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Both Wallis and Land were happy to chime in on the conversation since they are also both evangelicals, yet have differing political views. Land supports small government and little regulation. Wallis was a spiritual adviser to President Barack Obama. His work focuses on social justice. They join the idea enclosed in the title, with the Left (Wallis) and the Right (Land) trying to find common ground on the issue of Bible and politics. Or to at least clearly state their arguments. Luiza Oleszczuk Christian Post Contributor -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
