Knock ‘em out the box
Micah Tillman writes that his version of Jim Wallis’ God’s Politics can be summed up in this maxim:
Take the power over others that you would have them take over you.
Which – of course – is a variation on a very old and very common maxim:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
I think the latter works quite well, but I’m not certain that the former – especially when understood in the context of Christianity – does at all.
A Christian approach to politics wouldn’t be an attempt to grab a slice of the pie for Jesus. If anything, I think Christians should approach politics with the an eye towards critique and not mere engagement. By which I mean Christians should use theological insights to create alternative understandings of concepts and ideas that animate our institutions, and in turn, use those alternative understandings to critique and challenge said institutions.
This is what Martin Luther King Jr. was doing when he wrote his Letter From Birmingham Jail. Dr. King used Christian theological insights to dispute a secular conception of “justice” rooted in the power of the state:
How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal .law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I- it” relationship for an “I-thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression ‘of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Dr. King used Christian theological insights to construct a conception of justice equal to that of the state’s, and used that conception to challenge and critique the state’s. Now, it’s important to recognize that critique can take any number of forms. Critique can be something as simple as giving a sermon, or something as powerful as leading a demonstration. Christians should not sit by and let the world turn, but neither should they adopt a secular approach to the world. Instead, believers ought to use the unique theological insights that Christianity brings in order to critique and change the world around them.
“Instead, believers ought to use the unique theological insights that Christianity brings in order to critique and change the world around them.”
I think Pat Robertson would wholeheartedly agree.
More to the point, though: while Christians have the same right as any other American to vote based on their morality, their conscience, or absolutely nothing, I don’t understand why this means they must act as morality superheroes in their political engagement (which is my reading of the “unique insights” bit). I have yet to see convincing evidence that Christians are any more adept at critiquing unjust power structures than those who do not identify themselves as such. Why then call upon Christians specifically, and appeal to their Christianity, when the goal is secular reform?
“How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.”
I hope you realize that if Dr. King was serious when he penned these words, he was casting himself as a benign reactionary, wishing only to ensure secular law complied with (his personal interpretation of) the Bible, or some other arbitrary religious touchstone.
If I’m really unclear in this comment, it’s because I honestly don’t know where I stand.
I don’t think that Christians must act as “morality superheroes.” Those – your Pat Robertson types – who insist that Christians somehow possess a superior morality are wrong. Decency certainly isn’t bound by religious conviction. But, I do think that Christian theology – and I use Christian because it’s what I’m most familiar with – has political implications. Christianity isn’t an “internal” religion, and in the Gospels, Jesus routinely exhorts the disciples to act.
Now you’re right, Christians – as a whole – have often accomodated and supported oppressive power structures, but I’m making an appeal to Christianity in particular, because for a large number of basically decent people, Christianity is what compels them to act. Unfortunately, people tend to subsume their Christian beliefs into the prejudices that they hold. I think that it’s the task of theologians and those who are interested in “saving” Christianity, to show that the kind of prejudice that too many Christians show is antithetical to the principles of the Gospels.
Yes the goal is secular reform, but people do have differing “conceptions of the good,” and they have vastly different motivations. Among the progressive community in the United States, there are those motivated by abstract ethical principles, personal experiences, religion and plain decency. I think any successful movement must appeal to what compels particular groups, and for Christians, that is Christianity.
As an aside, when I use the word critique, what I mean is that Christians should take a principle – let’s say the doctrine of the Trinity – and work through the real world implications of that doctrine, and use the result to, for example, examine and challenge accepted ideas regarding human relationships.
I realize I’m far more sympathetic towards Christianity than you are, so in some sense, we’re not going to agree, but I hope you can see where I’m coming from with this one.
Moral relativism gets a bad rap, but that is basically the perspective I’m invoking here. Christianity is; it is not “good,” because there exists no standard (except perhaps some quasi-utilitarian approximation) by which its goodness might be established. If you want to take Christianity and nudge it in the direction you consider good, then so be it. That is not something I could comment on or criticize. But I object to any assertions that A. there is something inherently, demonstrably, or consistently “good” about Christianity as a religion (not Christianity as the deeds of select individuals), and B. that there is something special about Christianity with respect to its relationship to the secular world. A progressive theology such as the one you seem to support hides within its core the necessary assumption that it doesn’t really matter what the actual religion is – god can be Christ or the invisible pink unicorn; the ritual can be communion or human sacrifice; the text can be the Bible or Mein Kampf – all that matters is that a decent-sounding maxim is advanced as the “Word of God,” and the secular world is made to conform to it. I fear that this sort of approach to social reform takes the worst part of religion (the literal holier-than-thou attitude) and applies it to the political sphere.
Whoa. Let’s not misrepresent here, I’m in no way advocating the take over by a religious perspective of the state. I don’t think that we should use the state to enshrine into law Christian principles, far from it.
What I’m saying is that Christians should challenge secular conceptions with Christian theology, and use the result to help find answers to problems that plague secular society, as opposed to simply adopting secular norms.
And just because similar principles can be derived from different beliefs doesn’t mean that the beliefs themselves are interchangable.
Oh, I meant that the religious attitude – not the actual dogma – would be carried over into the secular world. Sorry if this was unclear at first.
“What I’m saying is that Christians should challenge secular conceptions with Christian theology, and use the result to help find answers to problems that plague secular society.”
Sounds about right.
“And just because similar principles can be derived from different beliefs doesn’t mean that the beliefs themselves are interchangeable.”
Why? This is what I disagree with, especially given the high degree of flexibility involved in the derivation (i.e., similar principles can be derived from very dissimilar religious beliefs).
Ah, I see.
Well to be honest, I’m going to have to think about this a bit more, so I can actually come up with a not half-assed response. I think it’s important to point out though that my religious beliefs are shaky at best, and so this is half an intellectual exercise and half me actually trying to work out what I think about Christians and Christianity.
Thanks for the reference!
You I think you misinterpret the statement. I don’t want anybody taking any power over me. So I do my best not to take power over anyone.
PS The kind of power I do want other people taking over me is protecting me from people who are trying to be physically violent with me. So I have no problem protecting other people from physical violence (not that I have ever had to. Just speaking theoretically).
Maybe I’m talking too much. Sorry.