My younger son has been reading my blog. He says I am wasting my time on the issues before the church. In his view, we are facing jihad from at least part of Islam, resurgent Marxism in South America, HIV-AIDS disaster in Africa generally, genocide in Sudan, and worrying about of all things, what one bishop does in bed in New Hampshire! I think there is actually a point here.
I am however going to suggest that the issue is a bit more than sex in New Hampshire. In fact where the General Convention to say it made an error and request that the bishop stand down (it wont) the right wing would not suddenly be reconciled. In fact, they would still be as aggrieved as they are now, still calling for “realignment.”
The real issue, under many layers, is theocracy. The reason the same people are active in the disagreements in the United Methodist Church, where they are following the same strategy with greater success, and Presbyterian Church USA is precisely because of the sort of issues that interest Stephan. How we believe, how we pray, influences how we act.
So, the same people who have effectively co-opted the Southern Baptist Convention, which gives them a major edge in the political realm, want to co-opt the churches from which most Presidential candidates appear. They seek theocracy by ballot.
What General Convention did three years ago was hand these people a club. They ran with it, and I must admit effectively. I can recall being told by a cleric that the arguments over New Hampshire would be over by Christmas! He was wrong, and I said so then. Three years later, the fighting goes on.
In my perfect world, the church would be focused on social justice. That is NOT the perfect world of the American political conservative. Maintaining the focus on homosexual issues gives them a wedge issue that diverts the church from doing things that may annoy them. We might, for instance have something to say about justice in the Middle East.
That is a particular hot button among the political conservatives who have bought into the dispensationalist heresy. Anything less than 100% support of the most right wing of Israel disturbs their hope that the temple will be rebuilt and the end of the age caused by the State of Israel.
So, I suppose that my answer is, to my son’s disgust perhaps, not either / or but both / and. I will continue to work to support the Church of Sudan, and continue to argue for a social justice oriented church that is theologically open. I shall also continue to be grateful for sons (and a daughter-in-law!) who challenge my ideas, instead of arguing about hockey scores
Profile Information
- JimB
- I am an Anglo-catholic Episcoplain layman, a lay contemplative, a musician, and a completely doting grandfather. New slogan for the election cycle: Vote for Cthulhu -- don't settle for the lesser evil!
7 comments:
Are you suggesting outside influnce from other churchs for political resons? Or do you percive theocratic movements whithin the church?
Did you catch that mogidishu fell to an Islamic Militia.
Love you,
People can make an idol out of a holy text, and use it to justify Tyrany. Sadly these fanatics come in all flavors Christians Muslims Jew or vanilla.
Stephan,
There is an organization, IRD which is outside the churches it attacks. We, the United Methodists, and the Presbyterians are targets.
Yup. I never said there were no jihadists!
Presumably also caramel!
It is my view, that the likes of Fred Phelps do exactly that. I hurry to add that I do not mean most conservative Anglicans.
FWIW
jimB
Jim;
All this theocracy talk has been very big the last few weeks as ECUSA heads into GC, but, really, it is starting to make me testy. As careful as I know you are about tarring conservatives with the same brush, I find this line of argument annoying. I have as much problem with the Constantinian tendences of many American conservatives as you are, but the connection of some kind of theocratic conspiracy to opposition among Anglican conservatives is, at best, tenuous. Yes, yes, I know about the IRD connection, but, really, there is a rather tenuous line to make connections to a fundimentalist bogeyman that many liberals have. It is the exact equivilent of the alleged gay conspiracy to infiltrate the church and state which many conservatives allege. And I don't have patience for either conspiracy theory.
What I wish is that both sides start dropping these conspiracy theories and, actually, engage with the real theological issues for a change. Those are neither easy nor glamourous. They centre upon how we read the Bible, how we apply what we find there, what constitutes a legitimate reading etc, what is a Christian ethic of sexuality? If we actually engaged with that, maybe we actually start getting somewhere.
As for the Church and social justice, I beg to differ here, not so much on the importance of social justice, but on how we get there. That is, the church should be focused on God and how He wants us to bring the kingdom into this world. Clearly, social justice is one of those ways, but it is only one. An exclusive focus on social justice misses that point. The church is not on the earth even primarily for social justice; social justice is the outcome of the church's mission of witnessing to God's saving grace. What I'm suggesting isn't quibbling, but to suggest that social justice is only a part of the church's mission. We also have to try to figure out what is holy.
To close, a quote by Abraham Joshua Heschel, a Jewish writer, which I think cuts close to what I'm trying to say here. "To the philosopher, the idea of the good is hte most exalted idea. But to the Bible the idea of the good is penultimate; it cannot exist without the holy. The good is the base, the holy is its summit". Social justice looks to the common good, but we have to look at what it means to be holy. I reject the distinction, but I can't help but point to the fact that some liberals think that we can keep the two separate.
Just some thoughts.
Peace,
Phil
Phil,
I woder if the difference between our two countries is not a relevant fact here? I think for instance, that it is hard for someone who is not intimately involoved in our politics to understand how deep the link between evangelical Christianity and conservative politics is here.
I know that +NT Wright whom we both admire, has observed that the level of congruance was one thing that surprised him about America. He is of course a liberal on politics, and not on theology. By contrast, I can tell you of church events where I was identified as the only person who ever voted for conservatives in government! Sue-z and I were the "token Republican voters" at one conference. ;-)
The percentage of Americans who link their votes directly to their religous views is higher than any other Western republic. There are people who exploit that. Consider that everyone knew that there was no way the proposed constitutional amendment to define marrige as heterosexual had no chance of passage. The simple fact is that the issue was used by adminestration strategists to, they hope, enliven their "base."
I was not writing in an international context. Within America, consider that Senator McCarthy perceived himself as leading a Christian campaing against the communists. Many of his supporters, including Archbishop Fulton Sheen who was a major political player, agreed.
Americans, I think, have to be very wary of our theocratic tendancy. This country was colonized largely by religious communities seeking theocracy. I live, here in the midwest, only a few miles from a city founded by a schismatic group of Germans leaving the Lutheran church to be holier and run a theocratic city. They called it Zion :-).
I did not, I think, I certainly did not intend to smear the theocratic folks. I do think that many, and yes IRD is a good example, really do not care about the Episcopal church or the Anglican communion. They also do not care, and probably have no idea where Lagos is. What they do care about is American, parochial politics. As one of our Speakers of the House famously if not grammatically said, "all politics is local."
FWIW
jimB
Jim;
You have a point about the differences between our countries, of course. Canada is moderately immune from the kind of religious right issues that plague American religious politics, both in political and ecclesiastical realms. That doesn't mean we don't have imitators up here, but they are politically more marginalized.
Indeed, the debate up here is whether faith groups should participate in politics. I remember a slightly hysterical story by one of our national newspapers before the last election about religious groups packing nomination meetings for the Conservative party to elect sympathetic MPs. I read it with some irritation, but I also knew what was coming when I got into school because there was a teacher there who really enjoyed stirring the pot (he was mentor of mine and a superb teacher, just a but of a s--t-disturber) and I knew he'd start in as soon as I got in the office. So, when I got in and he started in with a "Look here at what these religious cooks are doing in the Maritime", I swung back with "Are you saying that Christians have no right to participate in the political process?" Shut him down completely.
Yet, I still have to note that many conservatives still in ECUSA are not theocratic. The particular theological strand, I think you've called them Windsor conservatives, that I tend to be influenced by aren't (+ N.T. Wright, the Anglican Communion Institute)If there is hope for settlement, it will be with these conservatives, not the theocratically inclined, who I would argue are actually a minority in ECUSA and AC of Canada. We both have enough fundamentalist refugees to make our denomination allergic to the kind of conservative evangelical culture that you are critiquing here. That doesn't mean that there aren't some in ECUSA nad AC of Canada who are inclined that way, but I wonder how serious the threat is within the denomination. You, of course, know more of the inner workings of ECUSA than I do.
Peace,
Phil
Post a Comment