Friends of the Blog-o-sphere, and indeed friends of the real world...hello! It has been many a month since I last dabbled with the world of The UnCritical Thinker, and for that, I am not entirely sorry. Why, you may ask, would this very notion of blog-related abandonment not bring me to tears? The reason for that, is that I have just, as of around about 12.30pm on Monday October 25, in the Year of Our Lord, 2010, just handed in the final hard-copies of my thesis. It has been the main object of this last year of academic work and examined the topic of the separation of religion and the state within a political-philosophical construct. I examined the writing of John Locke and Wilhelm von Humboldt in order to provide said political-philosophical arguments, as well as some key Biblical texts to provide a look into the key materials around which the Enlightenment thinkers developed their arguments. As it stands, I have been thinking of nothing else for the last few months, and so it was an exercise in discipline and prioritising that I have stayed away from 'le Blog'. Despite my lengthy digression, I will now return to the particular point of this post.
I just read over the blog post Christendom Schmistendom (http://stephlentz.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/christendom-schmistendom/) written by one of my friends from church, and as per her request, have spent some time considering/replying to her concepts and ideas. As I started writing this response, it occurred to me that it was going to end up as another of my typical miniature essays, so why not put it up on my blog, says I. So here we are...
Steph's blog relates to the notion of living in a society in which Christian morals and ethics are/are not the accepted norm, and indeed whether it is a good thing that we no longer live in this kind of a state of affairs, know as Christendom. My response deals not only with the arguments contained in Christendom Schmistendom, but also an element of "where to from here?" for the Christian and the church as a whole, in relation to the points contained within the original text.
Personally, I think that there certainly are benefits and detractions from living in a Christianised society. In fact, I don't even know if that's the right way to express what I mean. Some of it is selfish ponderings of 'how I wish society was like X', and some is perhaps more considered...
The key detractions and negative side-effects of living in Christendom, I believe, are provided throughout the history of European Christianity, in which the church was intrinsically linked with the relevant State. It was a problem of people living 'like' Christians, but not living 'as' Christians in that their words and voices praised God, but the desires of their hearts were placed on anything but loving God and serving his people. There was hypocrisy and cruelty in the church, which ensured that it lost its position as a social and moral authority. The most extreme form of this which jumps to mind, was perhaps the state of affairs in Bourbon France up until the French Revolution in the late 18th Century, where the state-supported Roman Catholic Church copped the brunt of a disillusioned, angry and frustrated nation. Churches were looted and destroyed, priests and other clergy murdered, and a Cult of Reason established in Notre Dame cathedral. The absence of a changed heart and the development of an attitude focussed on God will undeniably, and potentially irrevocably, damage the potential of Christianity to act as an authority, and I think we can see from many examples more recent than the 1700s of how this has played out.
I do not, however, think that the notion of Christendom is perhaps doomed entirely. Or, at the very least, we shouldn't write it off entirely. I'm certainly not condoning a return to the European state of affairs (as I'm sure you can figure out for yourselves), but neither am I suggesting that the Christian/the churches should stay out of the affairs of government and society, and only interact with non-Christians at an inter-personal level, or in the form of reactionary sound-bites from the church hierarchy directed at venom-fuelled comments made by critics and commentators about the church and its activities...
In the middle somewhere is where I think we should try and place ourselves. Classic Gen Y, Facebook 'maybe attending' status update kind of response I hear you say. Au contraire! I think to take up the middle ground on this issue is appropriate and necessary.
In regard to the former, and the notion of a deeply established involvement by the church in the operations of the State. I believe that this form of church involvement is not at all what God intended for when he issued direction as to how the Christian and the church ought to interact with the realm of government. I think this arrangement will, invariably, lead to more harm than good. I won't bore you with the particular details of my thesis, but I think the argument for the separation of religion from the state does not exist predominantly from the perspective of 'for the State', but actually 'for the church' or more specifically, 'for the Christian'. Summary point: government of the State does not correspond with the role of the church, therefore, end result does not look promising
Regarding the latter notion, that the church and Christians should sit behind a 'wall of separation' and leave the running of the State to the elected officials, whose best interests are always that of the nation, and whose personal beliefs will never factor into decisions...*cough*...not withstanding that little display of political cynicism, I do believe that it is the duty of Christians to be involved in the operation of the State in which they find themselves. As equal citizens, we have every right to be involved in the political process, and our voice is just as legitimate as those who preach the opposite message. Simply having and voicing an opinion does not correlate with forcing religion upon others. I would go so far as to say that it is our obligation to make our voice heard. If we can make the State a better reflection of God's purposes for humanity and this is in fact helping our fellow-citizens, and not harming them, then I would think of this as a good thing.
(Train of thought side note: It has occurred to me over the course of my thesis writing that meeting a balance between democratic liberalism and Christianity is perhaps harder than it might appear at face value. Perhaps a topic for another day and another blog...)
It seems to me that finding the middle ground of political involvement without government/State attachment is perhaps easier for the church to achieve and harder for the State/the people to accept. This attitude is certainly framed by the Sydney Anglican experience, where I think we find a highly intelligent and intellectual (not the same thing) diocese, at the level of both the leadership and the members. There are an assortment of means through which Christians in Sydney can, and do, engage with the government and the public alike. Particular examples that jump to mind would be things like the Diocese's "Social Issues Executive" and the Centre for Public Christianity (CPX). I haven't really dwelt much on whether we (as Christians) in Sydney are actually doing a good job/whether we're being effective in our mission, but I think we've at least got some things right in that both the Diocese and individuals are trying to find ways to engage with the community and influence the public morality and ethics framework as well as raising awareness in regard to Christianity and its relevance, whilst not attacking the beliefs and attitudes of our fellow-citizens.
I think I've about hit the end of my current and undeveloped thoughts on the topic, but as usual, post any responses and questions below. Make me think a bit more about what I've said here, because if it's indefensible, well then I probably shouldn't hold the position...
Hopefully I won't be so tardy in keeping you all updated over the next little while, so check back soon comrades!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)