The Gospel As A Manifesto?

ac·tiv·ism

–noun

1. the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The Covenant People are not politically or socially oriented as liberators, nor as purveyors of a distinct cultural export. Liberation and cultural patronage are the activities, realm and purview of the common man. Entrance into and continued membership in the Covenant Kingdom of God is not based upon a persons economic, intellectual, or social “situatedness”, rather, it is confessionally oriented. No, politics and cultural pursuits do not fall within the paradigm of the pilgrimage of God’s people through this age. The People of God exist in a different covenantal orientation then the common man that he co-habitats with in the creation, the one in grace the other still ruled exclusively by law, united only in their natural occupation as image bearers. The Christian is required to passively resist those within and intrusions by hostile forces into the Church whereas the pagan has no such mandate of pacifism. What is more, the Christian also has no such mandate of pacifism when it touches the city of man rather than the city of God. Because, if the kingdom of heaven is not possessed of present earthly permanence, then it may be reasoned, if man would truly render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, a dual citizenship must then be part of the nature of the Christian in the present age. The Christian is one who lives concurrently under the authority of the divine and the magistrate, being beholden to both, to the one functioning as one created in the image of God and affirming the solidarity of the human race and to the former as one in covenant with God who has redeemed and reconciled him to himself through the work of the cross. And activism, if left solely to the pursuit of the betterment of man is perfectly acceptable, but it is when the Gospel is cannibalized in order to justify the relevance of the Church and her Gospel to the culture that it sojourns in that activism becomes syncretism.

Thus, there is nothing inherently Christian about activism, yet that does not disqualify Christians from being activists. The essential element, though, which defends against the Gospel from being used as a resource for political action and manifesto, is motivation. The minute that we seek to act in the public arena because we are Christians with the express intent of spreading the Good News of The Gospel in order to christianize or transform the culture we have confused the two kingdoms and abandoned our role as pilgrims; intent on bringing heaven down now through the “sweat of our brow and the strength of our back”. We must recall that Christendom is a failed project; it resulted either in attempted genocide and or the forceful acquisition of land and their people under the auspices of “manifest destiny” while wearing the guise of “converting the savages”, which is neither ethically, morally, or theologically defensible. So, when the Gospel is placed within the shell of activism, what is distinctly Christian begins to be transformed into something which is practiced, while taking what is secular(see culture) and making it the concern of that which is sacred, twisting the message to fit the intent of the activist. Activism in the Church flattens out any distinction between the two kingdoms to eventually politicize and moralize Christianity, leaving it as a rationalistic methodology that speaks the hollow rhetoric of religious connotation; always looking for the meaning the words affect rather than the meaning the words represent. It devours Christianity to leave it stripped of an object yet nonetheless attempting to maintain the illusion of a transcendent goal. But in the end it will become a race that cannot be won, a faith that cannot be had in a messiah who shall never return.

Furthermore, when the the Church becomes primarily a shelter for the less fortunate of society, it has jettisoned the otherworldliness of the Gospel for the historical Jesus of Liberal theology. And although I don’t think that they all actively set out to deny the message of the cross, the certainly deny its purpose by harnessing the resources of the Church for social activism rather than the care of the congregation and the evangelization of the community because they interpret the transcendent through their navel. But then again, this is why the social Gospel is so appealing, it offers the kingdom now with no cost, being already in line with the natural tendencies of man rather than declaring the Gospel over and against the natural inclinations of mankind; offering not what is attractive and desired but what is irreducibly necessary.

The meta-narrative becomes lost in a Kantian induced postmodern miasma where nothing is true yet all receive affirmation and validation, the ultimate concern being to justify Dionysian hedonism as the prevailing ethic, because man simply wants to do what he wants to do. Yet the conscience(the Law) stands in the way of that, with the Gospel offering absolution and an end to the accusations of the Law, but man would rather choose a third way, which is really no way at all, the way of narcissism. But I don’t mean a narcissism of the individual precisely, but one of the collective race of man, one that sets man not only above the rest of creation but above God himself as the source of that which is good and right in the world, in which the breaking of the covenant in Eden is seen as liberation from the oppression of “primitive myths” to finally be human. For them the Gospel, if it is good news at all, must be dealt with solely on the mortal plane, conflating any vertical activity into the horizontal as mere myth intended to justify militant social activism, moral/ethical improvement and to explain the common phenomena of the conscience.

In the end, the passivity of the Christian Pilgrimage is simply at odds with the activist inclinations and sympathies of man in the natural realm. Man naturally wants to do to cause or affect change. But that is to practice dominion, to homestead, and it is certainly not the image of a pilgrim sojourning for a time in the midst of his journey.

Points To Ponder

Confessionalism is a churchly, theological, sacramental, disciplined approach to Christianity that is probably fairly described as elitist inasmuch as The faith is mediated to the masses by the ministers. There are not endless permutations of the “Reformed” faith. As Hodge pointed out in the 19th century, anyone with a little effort can discover what Reformed folk believe by reading the classic theologies or, better yet, the Reformed confessions. Further, there is not only a Reformed theology, but also a Reformed piety and a Reformed practice and none of these three things is very compatible with American evangelicalism or liberalism. Both evangelicalism and liberalism are theologically subjectivist, pietist, and pragmatist in praxis.

There are conservatives, who embrace the past but must negotiate a modus vivendi with American Religion, and there are liberals who are quite ready to discard the past and go where ever the culture demands so as to try to remain “relevant” and influential. There is a third way to relate to American religion, however, and that is confessionalism, which is neither liberal nor conservative, but it is what the Reformed Churches have always confessed to be the theology, piety, and practice revealed in the Word of God.

Dr. R. S. Clark

Read the whole article here…

What really matters?

What happens when a society begins to stop merely celebrating diversity and cherishing cultural pluralism and starts to cherish pluralism itself, presenting diversity for diversities sake as virtuous? When did the ideas of distinction and deviation become confused and co-mingled?

Perhaps I’m simply amused by those individuals who seem to associate progress and technological advancement with a sort of moral evolutionary theory with the “modern” or maybe, “post-modern” conjectures on absolutes, objectivity vs. subjectivity, and gender roles as the apex of humanities social progress. It is these types of people who seem to be dumbstruck by the idea that society may not want or be ready for a Woman or Black president simply because they are Black or a Woman. But it also seems that they believe society should function from a platform of social promotion and enforced de-segregation in the political arena. The reality is, though, that mankind, both as individuals and collectively, fear change on almost every level and when change is pushed upon them deeper and more distinct divisions will be the only lasting consequence.

I guess I just have a hard time wrapping my head around those who decry discrimination in society yet reinforce those divisions with their politics, often re-segregating their constituents at every election; constantly describing their situation with inflammatory and pejorative rhetoric as those in need of not simply a representative but of a champion, a hero to rescue them from their oppressors.

People have become so convinced that they are divided, both culturally and economically, that I fear we still have far to go. Martin Luther King Jr. said,

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

I think we have begun to do that very thing as a collective people, both white and black, to walk back, to turn our society ever more so into the battleground of us against them. We deprive each other on a regular basis of the richness that we as individuals and citizens can offer each other because we have, both passively and actively, determined who and what the other is before a word is spoken. What we don’t seem to realize is that we cannot rectify the past by reliving and rekindling those ideologies of mistrust and victimization but rather by determining to know people as they are today and seeing them as those created Imago Dei. In that sense, the playing field is always level, it is what we do that distinguishes us rather then the color of our skin, our gender, or our heritage. Ethnic diversity is a myth that has been confused with cultural diversity, it isn’t our race which makes us who we are, but our environment, who it is that teaches us, that influences us, that raises us. I don’t believe that it takes a village to raise a child, but it is certainly where the child grows up. It is the village, in this sense, that makes the individual.

When I was a boy, they taught us that America was a melting pot where we created a new culture from many diverse heritages, a true E Pluribus Unum, I guess they don’t teach that anymore.

Thoughts From A Federalist

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure…..Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

James Madison

Federalist No. 51

We Cry For Freedom, Yet We Long For The Safety Of The Cage

Something that I have been mulling over a bit these last weeks is how we have become so selective, demanding, and unrealistic when it comes to politicians and our reasons for supporting them.

For example, those of the evangelical persuasion seem to use the platform of abortion as a litmus test for the philosophical viability of a prospective candidate, given of course, that they are republicans as well; heaven forbid that they might find any worthwhile candidate within the confines of the democratic party.  In this, of course, I am referring most directly to presidential candidates rather than other, more legislatively oriented offices, though the same indictment applies in a somewhat different manner; but that is another post.

Now, I was raised with these aforementioned evangelicals and was educated in that sort of populism.  The idea being that the executive branch was the pinnacle of the civil government, though we were actually being taught to view the presidency as an opportunity for benevolent despotism in contradiction to the historical reality that we had fought a war to end that sort of consolidation of power.  But I think that’s my point, really, that when it really comes down to it, we lean instinctively towards absolutism until it tyrannizes over us, but soon forget its taste after it is driven outside the gate.  This is why we tend to vote for political offices based upon issues rather than guiding principles, why the voting booth is filled with narcissists rather than responsible citizens.  Let’s face it, most often we vote asking how it will effect me, rather than how it will effect the country and its future inhabitants.  And this is precisely why politicians run for office upon platforms of consumerism and compassion.

So, when we see political candidates soapbox on issues typically gender-specific, religiously and or ethnically oriented, or age-specific, we should ask ourselves whether on the one hand if these issues are actually important on a large scale and on the other hand, if the presenter would even have the authority in the pursued office to even affect any change.  Do we desire representation or demagogues who we think embody our current pet issue?  Often, it seems that we surrender to either our pocketbooks or our hearts without pausing to consider that the policy that we assent to today is foisted upon tomorrow without their consent, leaving our posterity to reconcile their reality with our vision of it, or lack thereof.  That is not to say that I am advocating fiscal irresponsibility or heartless capitalism.  Rather, I am simply asking whether present, personal economic success is more important than prolonged, future, and collective economic stability?  Should we lend our support to a politician or anybody in general, who we may agree with in regards to certain issues that we feel are key, but who would have to assume the role of dictator in order to accomplish them.

At the end of the day, I think that we want a government that attempts to balance itself and provide internal and external measures of checking the will to power of any one branch against the others, but often at the start of the day the calls are for action and accomplishment, for radical change advanced by one lobby group or the other.  I think we often ask too much of our elected officials.  Now, I may make some people angry, but when we overreact and base electoral decisions upon individual issues that outstrip the purview of the office we are voting to fill, we are really asking for someone like Hugo Chavez, but if we really think about things responsibly, we want someone like Ronald Reagan; there, I said it.

Well, just had to get that out.

Weekly Quote

“When it is considered how short is the span of human life, does it really matter to a man whose days are numbered what government he must obey, so long as he is not compelled to act against God or his conscience?”

Augustine