Categories: uncategorized
Date: 28 January 2009 19:36:18
Today I intended going to hear Hilary Armstong and others talking about the involvement of Christians in politics. As it was I ended up at a book launch hearing The Reverend Dr Nicholas Sagovsky, (the Canon Theologian at Westminster Abbey) and The Rt Revd Dr Tom Wright (the Lord Bishop of Durham) at a book review, discussing the involvement of Christians in politics.
The bishop was promoting Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision and The Cannon was promoting Christian Tradition and the Practice of Justice. Have to say that whilst I was encouraged by most aspects of the discussion and agreed with majority of what was being said there were several things that gave me a wry smile.
1. They way that the discussion involved two prominent pillars of the establishment defending the establishment but also challenging people to get involved in activity which often seeks to challenge the establishment.
2. The way that the conversation sought to promote Christian engagement but did not address the fact that the very institutions they are talking about are now viewed cynically by the public. I agreed with what they were saying about the institutions (law, judiciary, etc) being vital and important and that those working within them are generally hardworking people doing there job, but .... there is also an element of distrust and cynicism in the wider society towards them. If we want people to re-engage we need to recognise and address that.
3. They were involved in "conversation", "dialogue" and a range of other words that invoke a late/post-modern approach. Yet, Sagovsky, particularly, was rooted in seeing politics in a firmly modernist way.
In the question time at the end I kind of took up the thread of both speakers and asked a question about whether if we took the meaning of the cross and the symbolism of the eucharist together was that going to enable us to do a form of politics which bridged the gap between those engaging in formal established politics and those involved in NVDA. Sagovsky sort of got the question, although he admitted he didn't fully. His response was enlightening. He talked of the need to work within the law, and only in extreme circumstances move outside of it - citing Bonhoffer as an example of when it was acceptable. Thus, he demonstrated wonderfully why the division exists. The modernists just don't get that NVDA, seeing it primarily in terms of radicals breaking the law. He also said he talked of his view that the eucharist shouldn't be used as a dramatic act in order to make a point.
Tom Wright didn't actually respond to what I said, but did refer to the way students hit it right on the button. Thus, he suggested he got where I was coming from. Whilst I may be wrong, I'll now unpack it a little to explain my view on the whole matter.
We live in a democracy where there are just rulers who, biblically, we are called to support. Thus we should engage with our democracy. We are also called as Christians to hold our leaders accountable again an argument why we should get involved in formal democracy. Yet, we live in a fallen world where rulers are fallible and make mistakes. Because of how the law is framed, how institutions work and how power relations operate in our fallen world sometimes it may be necessary to engage in creative acts of non-violent direct action. That is acts which subvert or go against the norms and values of the dominant organisations in order to change the course of events, influence change.
In thinking about why and how to respond politically, either through formal or informal engagement, we must always focus on the cross and the meaning that holds for us. Thus, we should ask ourselves the following questions: (Apologies if this veers into plagurism, it contains a lifetime of ideas and I have no idea where I got what in my own thinking and action).
1) Is this act intended to benefit the wider world that God has created?
2) Is it a loving act, on our part. That is in taking part in that action are we expressing love towards God and towards other people, in a way which expresses it towards the largest number possible.
3) Are we treating those who may oppose our actions or persecute us in a way which shows respect to them and their personhood even if they are disrespecting us?
4) Are we doing this act because we want to point towards the coming of the kingdom, putting the Lords Prayer in to practice (your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven)?
If the answers to these questions is yes then our actions will hold the meaning of the cross
As the meaning of the cross is held in the eucharist then the eucharist becomes a symbolic, political act.
This may be a public act which is intended to act as a dramatic symbol to a post-modern audience. That type of audience seeks to engage with the significance of what they have witnessed. For those engaging in the act, for whom it has true meaning, it will be an opportunity to share the meaning of Jesus death and how that relates to the contemporary situation.
However, it may also be a deeply symbolic act with a political significance to the participants in the way Sagovsky also saw as acceptable, carried out in a more traditional way without any dramatic intention beyond that automatically contained in the act.
I may be talking complete b*****ks but what I've just outlined is why I have sought to enage both with formal and informal politics as an activist (in the past) aswell as an arm chair observer (now). As ever my argument is that it is all about mission, aswell as trying to live out our faith with integrity.
*Edited to correct, because Cal did the proof reading I hadn't managed to. NVDA = Non Violent Direct Action*