POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

[Dan Z]

So do you define speaking "prophetically to power" simply as speaking publicly? If so, well then of course, I think we should speak truth publicly.

I think that's part of it mike - being willing to take a public stand against an injustice. I think am pushing back a bit to the idea, from a number of posters, that the Christian's prophetic voice should be mainly limited to individual intervention:

That is where I am ... we should confront individuals and call them to be followers. Much like Paul challenged King Agrippa say. He challenged him personally..

I can't imagine Stephen preaching to an assembly of the early church and accusing Herod Agrippa of being proud, immoral, and unjust, even though all those labels fit, but I can certainly see him confronting Herod directly and challenging him to repent personally.

I am coming to believe more and more that the Christian's only task is a one-on-one task an our best hope at changing "the system" is to call individuals to repentance and make disciples of them.

We know of heroes such as Corrie ten Boom and many others who made it their mission to oppose evil governments by helping one soul at a time.

Now, I will start with a hearty AMEN to the idea that, as representatives of God's Kingdom, our first calling is to touch the lives of those we have direct contact with - ultimately inviting them to join us in following King Jesus. For the most part, that's where I have lived by Christian life - and will continue to do so.

But limiting the prophetic voice to individual interactions ignores two important things - social power and the biblical witness.

[Dan Z]

SOCIAL POWER - We humans are not just individual actors.

We are highly social creatures, created by God not to live lives as hermits, but to live in community and fellowship with others. And whether or not we like to admit it, our understanding of morality, our worldview, our actions are all highly influenced by the social context in which we find ourselves. From family to church to peers to schools to organizations to ethnicity to political party to nationality, there are incredibly strong forces at work within each of our lives that shape our thinking, the way we see the world, and our life choices. "No man is an island."

At its best, this social component of our makeup can be a beautiful thing. In the context of family and church, we grow, are nurtured, gain insights and context for understanding life, learn to be accountable and responsible, find companionship, receive love and care in time of difficulty, and, most importantly, gather around a common cause - the imitation of Jesus.

But, as you know, there is a dark side to our social nature as well. We have all known people who have utterly lost their way under the influence of misguided leaders and errant social contexts. Mob mentality can lead people to do things they never would as individuals. Terrorist ideology, totalitarianism, cults, hyper-nationalism, tribalism, genocide, slavery, racism, all are made possible through the the power of the social context - usually under the direction of entrenched and powerful leaders. Sin is not only individual, but it can be systemic as well - and worse yet, in the social context, sin is legitimized and normalized if it is socially sanctioned.

Limiting the Christian prophetic voice to the individual and "face-to-face" interactions (as opposed to speaking to power and addressing sin at the system/societal level) ignores this key social facet of human nature, fails to address sin that has become normalized, and does not recognize the entrapping power of the social context in an individual's life. Whereas speaking prophetically to those in power calls out sin and evil at the larger social/systemic level. It bears public witness to a better way in the society of Jesus. And it sends a message of hope to those victimized by an unjust social context (including those beyond our individual reach) that things could be different - that not all are exploiters and unjust.

Furthermore, I believe there is a Biblical case to be made (in both the OT and NT) for speaking prophetically as Christ's ambassadors not only to individuals, but to those who hold power, to groups of people, and to unjust systems.

More to come...

[Dan Z]

I can get behind speaking to those in power in the way which you mentioned if it is a call for them to join the Kingdom of God and become followers of Jesus.

Me too. Excellent post overall by the way!

If it becomes us using political power (voting, political demonstrations, etc) to attempt to coerce them to create a more "godly state" with "better" policies then I think we are misguided and will do damage to God's kingdom.

Absolutely...we're together here.

Therefore, in a real way, it doesn't make any sense to lecture the kingdoms of this world on the death penalty or abortion or war...because violence is the only means of their power.

But Joshua, isn't one of the functions of the light of the gospel to illuminate the darkness where it exists? If for no other reason than to show it up for what it is? Shouldn't we who are "in the light" expose systemic sin or injustice or exploitation or abuse - pointing to a better way in Jesus?

Therefore, in my view, we speak amiss if we seek to inform the state regarding what its policies should or should not be. The whole structure represents structural violence. We should speak against structural violence by rejecting the whole system.

Your dualism is more robust than mine...and that's saying something.

Your response does beg some important questions however:

• What should be the impact of our presence as salt & light in the world? In other words, is the only good that we are to accomplish on earth evangelistic?
  
  If so, why does Jesus really care if we cloth the naked, feed the hungry, care for the least of these, love our neighbor? Just to draw them into the kingdom?
  
  Beyond evangelism, is there any intrinsic value in doing good, in speaking up for the powerless, in standing up systemic evil like greed, slavery, sexual abuse, abortion, genocide, terrorism, etc.?
  
  Are all governments really the same in their depravity? Could they be encouraged to do a better, more just, jobas they carry out their God-ordained responsibility?
  
  Is there a leavening effect we can have on society that might advance the cause of Christ and keep evil somewhat in check?
  
  Does our failure to address systemic injustice do a disservice to its victims?
  
  Could it be that Christ's work on this earth extends through us beyond the boundaries of His Kingdom? Might "the increase of his Kingdom and of peace know no end"? And might this happen incrementally?

I'm honestly wrestling with this stuff these days...without all the answers of course, but having become a bit uncomfortable with some of the conclusions of the "clean dualism" that I have embraced for many years.

This is existential stuff here, and goes right to the question of the meaning of life in some ways.

[Josh]

For instance: To oppose abortion, can we tell America that there is no such thing as an unwanted child, and we promise, as the church, to find a good home for every child? That would require sacrifice and getting out of our comfort zone. Or if we don't know if that's possible, could each church advertise a realistic number of children it can raise? A conference might have a web site with a list of churches and the number of formerly unwanted children it is now raising, and the number it can still raise.

This is a common accusation that Christians don't want to help pregnant mothers, and it's patently false. There is a waiting list for families who want to adopt children. No mother who doesn't want to keep her child will face any difficulty placing it up for adoption at birth, and in many states, can do so anonymously at some place like a fire station.

Many churches (every one I have been a part of) have families in them who would like to adopt children, and are even willing to adopt other than newborns. And this is across a wide range of denominations - Catholic, Vineyard, conservative Mennonite, progressive Mennonite, are just a few I can think of.

Please, no restrictions on the race of the children, that would not be a good witness.

I'm not sure why you threw this in there, other than as a dig at Middle America's supposedly inherent racism. In my conservative Mennonite church, not exactly a bastion of liberal-progressive values, one family fostered over 50 kids and adopted 3 of them - all of a different race than the parents.

However, it may be reasonable for some families to say they are better equipped to adopt children of an ethnic background closer to their own. Considering people of all races are Christians in America, I don't see anything unreasonable about people of different ethnic groups offering to adopt children of their own ethnic background where they will be better equipped to help raise them and give them a stronger sense of identity. Do you really have a problem with a black family saying their first preference is to foster or adopt black kids?

We would have to think about what it takes to raise severely handicapped children - but that's exactly what the original parents would have to do, too, and they may not have a supportive church environment.

The early church was famous for rescuing infants left to die by parents who did not want them. We aren't.

We should be, because we do great work in this area. But it doesn't fit the pro-abortion agenda of describing Christians as "being pro-fetus but not caring about children once they're born", so this doesn't get talked about.

If we want to protest public schools, can we provide an alternative - even on a small scale - for the neighborhoods who most need a good school?

Yes. Did you see my recent post on conservative Mennonite schools? One of them is in one of the bottom performing (third worst) school districts in the entire state. Tuition is $30/month for an entire family if they can't afford the whole $230/mo.

We cannot be a prophetic voice by retreating into our own safe world and griping about the outside.

I agree, but it's unfair to level accusations that evangelical and conservative minded Christian groups aren't already doing this.

If someone walks into an average evangelical or conservative minded church, and has needs, they're going to get them met. They might be expected to seriously alter their lifestyle, but their basic needs will be met, and altering their lifestyle might be exactly what they need. I think this particular part of the church functions very well in America.

The biggest challenge I've faced in western Christianity is that needs are already being met so well that there's just not that much left for us to do - at least in areas that have a lot of Christians in them. The neediest areas seem to be ones that have taken steps to drive Christians, their culture, and their churches out of them.

[Josh]

Your response does beg some important questions however:

• What should be the impact of our presence as salt & light in the world?
  
  In other words, is the only good that we are to accomplish on earth evangelistic?
  
  If so, why does Jesus really care if we cloth the naked, feed the hungry, care for the least of these, love our neighbor? Just to draw them into the kingdom?
  
  Beyond evangelism, is there any intrinsic value in doing good, in speaking up for the powerless, in standing up systemic evil like greed, slavery, sexual abuse, abortion, genocide, terrorism, etc.?
  
  Are all governments really the same in their depravity?
  
  Is there a leavening effect we can have on society that might advance the cause of Christ and keep evil somewhat in check?

I think the best way to help clothe the naked, feed the hungry, care for the least of these, is to both do those things but also aggressively preach the gospel and call men to repent and be converted. I believe all these ills are caused by sin, and if we just let man keep on living in his sin, we're going to keep having all these problems.

If people don't turn their lives over to Jesus and serve the prince of peace, they will keep engaging in greed, slavery, sexual abuse, abortion, and genocide. Government has a limited role in that it can use the sword to sometimes take out the people doing these things, but ultimately Jesus came because our own governments weren't enough. Jesus came to offer us a third way that's better than trying to perfect a government system that weilds force "just right".

Does our failure to address systemic injustice to a disservice to its victims?

No more than my failure to take up arms does disservice to the weak who need a powerful, armed person to defend and protect them.

[Bootstrap]

For instance: To oppose abortion, can we tell America that there is no such thing as an unwanted child, and we promise, as the church, to find a good home for every child? That would require sacrifice and getting out of our comfort zone. Or if we don't know if that's possible, could each church advertise a realistic number of children it can raise? A conference might have a web site with a list of churches and the number of formerly unwanted children it is now raising, and the number it can still raise.

This is a common accusation that Christians don't want to help pregnant mothers, and it's patently false. There is a waiting list for families who want to adopt children. No mother who doesn't want to keep her child will face any difficulty placing it up for adoption at birth, and in many states, can do so anonymously at some place like a fire station.

Many churches (every one I have been a part of) have families in them who would like to adopt children, and are even willing to adopt other than newborns. And this is across a wide range of denominations - Catholic, Vineyard, conservative Mennonite, progressive Mennonite, are just a few I can think of.

It's not meant as an accusation. If we want to be a prophetic witness, I'd love to see a website that says there's no such thing as an unwanted child, pointing to all the people who want to care for these children. Seriously. Let's be prophetic about this and make a little noise.

Maybe we could have picnics for all these deeply wanted children and their families, with press releases.

Please, no restrictions on the race of the children, that would not be a good witness.

I'm not sure why you threw this in there, other than as a dig at Middle America's supposedly inherent racism. In my conservative Mennonite church, not exactly a bastion of liberal-progressive values, one family fostered over 50 kids and adopted 3 of them - all of a different race than the parents.

People I know who work at adoption agencies say it is much harder to get non-white children adopted. I think it's important to say that we, as the church, are beyond that. It's part of our prophetic witness.

[Josh]

It's not meant as an accusation. If we want to be a prophetic witness, I'd love to see a website that says there's no such thing as an unwanted child, pointing to all the people who want to care for these children. Seriously. Let's be prophetic about this and make a little noise.

There are lots of websites saying lots of things. Perhaps it would be better to contact a local pregnancy crisis support centre in your region and ask them what they are already doing and if they need any help with more adoption referrals. (Maybe they do, but they sure didn't when I was involved with such things in San Diego or Ohio.)

But if you want a website, here's one I found with a simple Google search. [urlhttp://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/20 ... nd-parents[/url]

Maybe we could have picnics for all these deeply wanted children and their families, with press releases.

Hmm. I was very grateful for the picnics that were put on for foster & adoptive families, especially when families going through an open adoption could have some of the birth relatives of their adoptive children come and visit. We had to be a bit circumspect about press releases though: foster/adoption often has a need for privacy for safety's sake. This isn't something that people doing it can broadcast far and wide.

People I know who work at adoption agencies say it is much harder to get non-white children adopted. I think it's important to say that we, as the church, are beyond that. It's part of our prophetic witness.

"People I knew" who work at adoption agencies say families who explictly look for a non-matching adoption have a track record of being less-than-ideal placement homes and are generally not adequately prepared for what they are getting themselves into. And people I know who've paid a lot of money to adopt a child often adopt one from another country and race than their own. I don't think white adoptive parents are inherently racist.

When I was training to become a foster parent, part of our training covered basic cultural understanding of dealing with cross-ethnic foster or adoptive placements. The county's preference (which was one of the most progressive in the nation) was to get a match if at all possible, but that wasn't always possible. They encouraged families not to adopt a "saviour" complex or think they can somehow "fix" broken family structures in other ethnic groups, which became obvious once we saw a slide of children in need of placement vs the overall ethnic makeup of our county. They encouraged families to be open to cross ethnic placements but also not to be under any pressure to do so. My own home was a home where I had no preferences for sex or ethnic background, and all of my placements were of a race other than my own, but I feel I was adquately prepared.

The best way to get non-white children adopted is to find ways to encourage more non-white parents to be foster and adoptive parents. I'd be glad to be a "prophetic witnesss" to encourage that, rather than trying to paint white people as inherently racist whilst simulatenously lifting then up as the saviours of non-white unwanted children.

[Bootstrap]

There are lots of websites saying lots of things. Perhaps it would be better to contact a local pregnancy crisis support centre in your region and ask them what they are already doing and if they need any help with more adoption referrals. (Maybe they do, but they sure didn't when I was involved with such things in San Diego or Ohio.)

But if you want a website, here's one I found with a simple Google search.

You see what I mean?

There was no way for me to avoid seeing evangelicals weighing in on all kinds of things that have nothing to do with our prophetic voice. But the whole idea that all children are wanted, and we want to be there for both the mother and the child ... that's a little harder to find.

The prophetic voice is a little in-your-face. Can we be a little more in-your-face about saying we want to raise these children? Christians are extremely in-your-face on various other political opinions.

[joshuabgood]

Your dualism is more robust than mine...and that's saying something.

Your response does beg some important questions however:

What should be the impact of our presence as salt & light in the world? In other words, is the only good that we are to accomplish on earth evangelistic?

If so, why does Jesus really care if we cloth the naked, feed the hungry, care for the least of these, love our neighbor? Just to draw them into the kingdom?

Beyond evangelism, is there any intrinsic value in doing good, in speaking up for the powerless, in standing up systemic evil like greed, slavery, sexual abuse, abortion, genocide, terrorism, etc.?

Are all governments really the same in their depravity? Could they be encouraged to do a better, more just, jobas they carry out their God-ordained responsibility?

Is there a leavening effect we can have on society that might advance the cause of Christ and keep evil somewhat in check?

Does our failure to address systemic injustice do a disservice to its victims?

Could it be that Christ's work on this earth extends through us beyond the boundaries of His Kingdom? Might "the increase of his Kingdom and of peace know no end"? And might this happen incrementally?
I'm honestly wrestling with this stuff these days...without all the answers of course, but having become a bit uncomfortable with some of the conclusions of the "clean dualism" that I have embraced for many years.

Dan -- let me try to illuminate my position a bit futher. (Thanks for your thoughts)

When I say building the kingdom of God I am not talking about a "pie in the sky when we die." The Kingdom of God is on earth and now, I would argue. Therefore, yes building the kingdom means inviting people to immigrate to our kingdom as well as working humanitarian efforts to improve our society and neighbors lots as you describe. That is just as real a part of building the kingdom of God as is the "invitation to immigrate." So no disagreement there. Personally, I don't really even care for the word evangelism in the way I "think" you are using it.

As for all the governments being the same in their depravity. Here is what I would say to that. It might be like asking if the Green River Killer was better than Ted Bundy because he only killed 20-30 instead of 50-100. And should we lecture Ted on how to become less harmful and more like the Green River Killer. Please forgive the macabre response but the point hopefully is made. A murderer is a murderer if they kill only one person. The kingdoms of this world use violence to build their kingdoms of this world. The foundation is wrong no matter if they violate 6 million like Hitler, or 50 million like Stalin (and the USA post abortion). In a similar way, the fact that the state embraces structural violence, to oppress people using coercion, is not part of any redemptive work of God's kingdom. It should be rejected in its entirety in my view. It is the foundation and means of the Kingdoms of this world that I reject completely, that being, an ethic of violence and oppression. The reign of God is not in the kingdoms of this world. Sure, God can use them just like he used the Romans, or Hitler, or earthquakes or ISIS or the USA, somehow in his infinite power, however, those kingdoms are not redeemable and do not serve to positively advance God's kingdom. One might argue, as I am, they have no legitimate role in the reign of God. That is probably where I part ways with you. I see them as evil, and based on violence. And I think you may see them more as helping to usher in peace and equity. I see the reign of God and the Kingdom being nonviolent and based in a law of love and gospel of peace. But then I also find the Penal Substitutionary atonement fairly wanting as well. I would be pretty sympathetic to G Aulus and J Denny Weaver's views.

Lastly as a historical or empirical question, I would challenge you to answer what kingdom of this world (read state) is doing a "righteous" job of wielding violence in a way to establish equity and peace? When was the USA, or any other country such a state? I would argue the evidence is pretty convincing, never. There are always peoples groups who are marginalized and on the wrong side of the guns. That kingdom can't exist without violence.

I would suggest the entire state is based on systemic injustice. This certainly was true of the Roman government Paul wrote about and it is true of the USA today. And I believe any government you can propose as a historical example. So yes we should speak publicly against it...maybe instead urging people to believe Jesus is President which means a very real way that Trump/Obama is not our president. So we should rightly reject the whole structure of violence.

As for speaking...yes we should do it in social groups. Or more specifically as a citizens of another kingdom. However, it should be said to people who actually hear. Not to "systems" that have no volitional power.

I think what I am critiquing is the notion that we should lecture the kingdoms of this world (which we reject) on how to develop fair and equitable policies. They can't and won't do it. Their whole foundation is wrong. We waste our breath and energy. Once again I think the historical data is pretty clear on this as well as hopefully my philosophical argument.

Thanks for your thoughts...I don't intend to seem like I have all the answers...I also am thinking out loud here to clarify my own thoughts.

[Jazman]

Your response does beg some important questions however:

• What should be the impact of our presence as salt & light in the world?
  
  In other words, is the only good that we are to accomplish on earth evangelistic?
  
  If so, why does Jesus really care if we cloth the naked, feed the hungry, care for the least of these, love our neighbor? Just to draw them into the kingdom?
  
  Beyond evangelism, is there any intrinsic value in doing good, in speaking up for the powerless, in standing up systemic evil like greed, slavery, sexual abuse, abortion, genocide, terrorism, etc.?
  
  Are all governments really the same in their depravity?
  
  Is there a leavening effect we can have on society that might advance the cause of Christ and keep evil somewhat in check?

I believe all these ills are caused by sin, and if we just let man keep on living in his sin, we're going to keep having all these problems.

If people don't turn their lives over to Jesus and serve the prince of peace, they will keep engaging in greed, slavery, sexual abuse, abortion, and genocide.

This point-of-view (Josh's) has merits, but it does not cover all situations. Many of the world's naked, hungry, least of these, etc are not in that situation because of their sin, but because of the exploitative, greedy, cruel sins of the powerful and rich (who seem to have a knack for setting up and maintaining systems that continue to prop them up at the expense of the naked/hungry/least-of-these...