Theology <-> Politics

I need not discredit philosophy by laborious criticism of its arguments.  It will suffice if I show that as a matter of history it fails to prove its pretension to be "objectively" convincing.  In fact, philosophy does so fail.  It does not banish differences; it founds schools and sects just as feeling does.  I believe, in fact, that the logical reason of man operates in this field of divinity exactly as it has always operated in love, or in patriotism, or in politics, or in an other of the wider affairs of life, which our passions or our mystical intuitions fix our beliefs beforehand.  It finds arguments for our conviction, for indeed it has to find them.  It amplifies and defines our faith, and dignifies it and lends it words and plausibility.  It hardly ever engenders it; it cannot now secure it.

-William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience

I'd just as soon argue that theology, too often, does much of the same.  So back to my age old question: Does our theology inform our politics, or does it merely serve to, as James puts it, find arguments for our convictions?

-Tim

Bonhoeffer in a Time of Global Crisis

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a theologian and pastor who was hung for his involvement in an assassination attempt against Hitler during World War II.  Here, Ric Hudgens looks through Bonhoeffer's eyes and offers a method by which to engage today's global crisis. Please take the time to click on the link and read the rest of the article.

Ric Hudgens/What did Bonhoeffer See?:

What might have led someone as insightful, brave, and devout as Dietrich Bonhoeffer to turn towards the Sermon on the Mount and the practice of communal discipleship as the appropriate initiative for engaged Christians in a time of global crisis.  What did Bonhoeffer see in Jesus’ sermon for such a time as that?  What might we still see for such a time as ours?

Bonhoeffer saw in the Sermon on the Mount the resources for responding to the German crisis in at least three ways.  First, he saw that the Sermon contained the resources for resistance to National Socialism, German patriotism, and the war.  Resistance would be practiced not just in subversive anti-government actions, but also in the formation of a church that could not be seduced by the false promises of blood and soil.  Crucial to the practice of cultural resistance was the formation of a Christian people, a confessing church, trained in and practicing the Sermon on the Mount without compromise.

Second, Bonhoeffer saw that the Sermon and the founding of a “new type of monasticism” would lay the foundations for a new social order after the war was over.  It did not matter whether Germany won this war or not (and it was clear through Bonhoeffer’s efforts that he hoped for Germany’s defeat); what mattered was establishing centers for renewal where a new type of recovery could begin and a new type of society be established.  These were in reality communities of and for the future, not communities trying to preserve or recreate an idyllic past.

Finally, Bonhoeffer saw that the Sermon on the Mount was the key resource for the restoration and renewal of the church and the church’s capacity to recover her voice as God’s people.  The Barmen Declaration had unmasked the false religion of the established church for the idolatry that it was.  A renewed church where Christians were catechized in the Sermon on the Mount would not look like the mainline churches that had been so susceptible to the appeal of National Socialism.   It would be a church founded upon and shaped by Christ alone.

More...

When the World Ends

What is the point of the Church?

It can be the institutionalized body that keeps the gospel message alive through passing it along families and bringing in new converts.  It can be more of a social club whose purpose is to provide a space for those with common interests to gather and do things together.  It can be something of a support group for disparate and similar people to support one another in the name of a binding doctrine.  It can be a place for those with common hopes to work towards an end (eschatology style, meaning the end of time and not something more temporal like lets build a shelter together) goal.  It can be a mix of all these things or a few of them or maybe you think none of the suggestions I have put forth are correct.

But grant me, if you will, my last definition and disagree with me on it at the end if you still want to.  When I think of this primarily eschatological argument, I am immediately drawn to think of the sorts of Anglo-Evangelical ideas that believe in the literal translation of Revelations, the rapture that will come when all have heard the message of Christ, the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, etc.  We need not get into all of the theological and political ramifications that those particular beliefs have produced.  Instead, if we focus on eschatology in a different way, it is possible to understand and see a hope for end things that is not explicitly about end things at all.  Rather, the end things are more of a way to focus our attention acutely on what is actually happening before us right now.

To offer up a metaphor, lets say that I was someone who believed the end goal of my life was to have children to carry on my good name, and any person worth a damn should do the same (I am in the stage of my life where children ages 5-18 annoy me to death so this is just a metaphor).  That does not mean that the steps I take in the time between now and my demise are merely about this end goal.  The person I fall in love with, I should be in love with (hopefully) from start to end, and with a love that is for love's sake and not just so that I can die knowing there are other human beings that have my unusually large palms.  This is why I would argue against reductionists who see human action as primarily a matter of biology, neurology, etc.

Ok, I hope you're still with me.

All this is to say that my biggest concern with Occupy Wall Street has been that it will lead no where.  What will come of this?  What if it all fizzles away and the rich CEOs are only spurred on to fight harder for the status quo?  What is the end goal suppose to look like? 

If you ask me, I see in the eschatology of Occupy Wall Street the same sort of eschatology that the Church does know, and if not, should know.  An end where the meek inherit the earth, the ones who hunger for justice are satisfied, and those who mourn are comforted.

There are theories of culture, and movements, and organizing that can be used to show why these seemingly shepherdess sheep who are hanging out together in parks and street corners are building the ground swelling for true change.  I hope that is true.  But I also see an eschatological hope in play here.  This is a not a moment merely for an end that is hoped for, where success and failure are defined by consequences.  It is a moment because of an end that is believed in.  And that doesn't make it any less valuable.

-Tim

Occupy Wall Street and the Church

This week in Chicago, masses of people gathered for Occupy Wall Street marches, the largest such action that has occurred here so far.  With what has already been happening in New York, and with the movement growing across the country (if not in bodies, at least in minds), it would seem we have a reached a point where the protests can no longer be written of as an inconsequential hippie party.

As I have tried to wrap my head around all of this for the past few weeks, admittedly with equal parts skepticism and hope, I have begun to view these current events from a different perspective.  At the forefront of my turning was Ezra Klein's blog post on wearethe99percent.tumblr.com, which unfortunately has been taken down for some reason.  If you have seen it and find it, let me know.  But more recently, I read an amazing piece by Matt Stoller, entitled, "#OccupyWallStreet is a Church of Dissent, and Not a Protest."

What these people are doing is building, for lack of a better word, a church of dissent. It’s not a march, though marches are spinning off of the campground. It’s not even a protest, really. It is a group of people, gathered together, to create a public space seeking meaning in their culture. They are asserting, together, to each other and to themselves, “we matter”.

You can tell this is a somewhat different animal than other politicized gatherings. No one knows what to expect. There are no explicit demands. It’s not very large. And yet, celebrities are heading to Zuccotti Park. Wall Street traders are sneering and angry. The people there are getting press, but aren’t dominated by it. People are there just to be there, because it feels meaningful. The camp is clean and well-organized, and it feels relevant and topical rather than a therapy space for frustrated radicals. Just a block away is the New York Fed, a large, scary, and imposing building with heavy iron doors, video cameras, and a police presence that scream “go away”.

For as much criticism as I have read (this is nothing but AdBusters' efforts to create meaningless chaos, these young people didn't vote and the Tea Party took the House creating a bigger mess, what the hell is the point of this, etc.), the analogy that Stoller is arguing for makes all of that something of a moot point.  As a Christian, such criticism is the exact kind of stuff that I have lobbed personally at the Church, and somehow it (the Church) still makes sense.  Could we be looking at something of a religious movement?

More on the religious nature of Occupy Wall Street tomorrow.

-Tim

How Do We Change?

David McRaney/You Are Not So Smart:

Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper...

As social media and advertising progresses, confirmation bias and the backfire effect will become more and more difficult to overcome. You will have more opportunities to pick and choose the kind of information which gets into your head along with the kinds of outlets you trust to give you that information. In addition, advertisers will continue to adapt, not only generating ads based on what they know about you, but creating advertising strategies on the fly based on what has and has not worked on you so far. The media of the future may be delivered based not only on your preferences, but on how you vote, where you grew up, your mood, the time of day or year – every element of you which can be quantified. In a world where everything comes to you on demand, your beliefs may never be challenged.

A fascinating post and website that I highly recommend checking out.

My question would then be: how do we overcome our biases, open ourselves up to new possibilities, and change?  I used to be someone who had a fundamentally conservative view point about the world, and now I have changed to be someone who thinks rather differently.  I may have changed sides, but did I actually change the way I think?  It depresses me to think that I have merely switched the side towards which I am blind and biased.  

In religious terms, I've often asked people if there was any sort of "truth" that if they learned, would totally dismantle their faith.  I am not sure that faith should operate on this sort of level, but I think it is a question worth pondering.

-Tim

One Idea of Progress

A fair warning.  I am going to be a huge Debbie Downer in this post. 

Matthew Yglesias:

One the oddities about the current economic doldrums afflicting the developed world is that if you look at the global average, this is almost certainly the best time to be alive in human history. Not only have we seen rapid per capita GDP growth in many poor countries, but even in countries that haven’t gotten richer major development progress has occurred. Last, but by no means least, the world is getting much less violent.

Yglesias goes on to quote some statistics showing a major decrease in the number of deaths caused by war in the last century and ends by saying: "This is major good news."  This is the type of argument many people would agree shows some sort of human progress, and I would have to concur it is indeed good news that fewer people are dying violent deaths.

But when we ask ourselves whether or not humanity is progressing, is bettering itself towards some higher state, is moving in a positive direction, I don't quite buy the argument that certain metrics, such as per capita GDP growth, are positive indicators.  When we ponder the question of progress in a theological way, it takes on a rather different connotation all together.

It is important to state here that a Christian idea of a progressing human being need not be relegated purely to the soul, ignoring the flesh as an inconsequential, temporary vessel.  Indeed, an organization like Protestants for the Common Good believes fully in the expression of God in both soul and body.  To fight for health care is a theological virtue.  However, we cannot argue this point at the expense of the soul either.

Let me strip away the religious language for a second, and frame this discussion in term of intent (soul) and consequence (flesh).  To measure progress by consequence only, denies a fundamental (for some, not all) notion of ethical behavior that cares as much, if not more, about intent as the actual result.  Certainly, it is wonderful for less people to die at the hands of war, but there is a difference between less war because the intent of harm has diminished in the human person, or less war because the geo-political systems that control such actions are in a state of constraint for many different reasons.  If our intent to harm is the same as it was a hundred years ago, we are merely the same monsters in a stronger cage. 

You can probably deduce that I am of this last opinion.  If you disagree, share!

-Tim

Acting with Certainty in our Uncertainty

Kyle Cupp:  I cannot dismiss the possibility that my faith isn’t something otherwise than a response to a revealing God. It’s possible that what I call my faith experiences are the result of digestion, bodily chemistry, neurosis, the fear of death, or the desire for meaning. Because I do not know myself with certainty, I cannot know my faith with certainty. I cannot say for sure what it is.

I’m not in the least bothered by my uncertainty. It’s not as though certainty is one of the virtues, theological or otherwise.  I seem to get along, faith-wise, just fine without it.

Can you live a life of conviction, advocacy, and passion without certainty?  If I am not certain of the things my faith calls me to have faith in, can I speak regarding my faith without a sense of feeling disingenuous?  Cupp's short blog post on the matter includes this quote from Philosopher John Caputo:

The acting subject is something acted upon even in its very acting, for the acting subject is itself a function of the anonymous, presubjective forces by which it is traversed—by language, the unconscious, by the weight and momentum of its own past, of the collective past to which it belongs, by the biochemistry and neurophysiology of which it is constituted, and by numberless (because anonymous) other forces. When the subject acts, we cannot be sure what acts, i.e., what is happening, because the individual subject is an irreducible complex of other events.

In my interpretation, this is a wordy way of saying, whenever you do anything, there are an infinite number of things that have influenced you to act that way, and there is no real way of saying what it is that is doing the acting.  

However, perhaps we can agree (and maybe not) that the sum total of all the influences, be they historical, biological, etc., add up to this thing we call personhood, and therefore, while it may be impossible for us to point at the person and say you are doing this because of x,y, and x, we can say that it is you that is doing it.  Whether or not such a claim is rationally consistent with an "irreducible complex of other events" is inconsequential in my opinion.  That we act with any sense of certainty, in the face of uncertainty, means we have to act with a sense of responsibility for the I that is taking action.

-Tim