One Nation Under Justice
I apologize for speaking in such general terms here - but for the sake of the argument…
The Church in the U.S.A. believes in the importance and value of helping the poor, but seems to lack the urgency to do so. She doesn’t ‘have to’ because the government will do that. And anything the church does is, of course, very good - but optional. It gets piled on top of what the state is already doing. And yet, the government’s policies are motivated, not out of a Christ love or obedience, but rather out of public policy. As a result, the poor family’s hunger may be abated with food stamps, but their hunger for God and for human connection grows stronger. The poor are more alone than ever - their needs being met like handouts off of a conveyer belt. I applaud the government for stepping in where the church hasn’t. The problem is that the justice a public government can offer is not God’s Justice. His design is that the Church would meet those needs.
What do you think?
A. The Church needs to step up to the plate and ‘put the government out of business’ so-to-speak.
B. The best way to fulfill God’s will for the poor through the Church is to work along side the government to actively help the poor.
C. All things considered, the government is doing a good job of meeting the physical needs of the poor. The Church’s job is to care for people’s spiritual needs.
D. Other
posted by Andrea @ 11:52 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Good questions Andrea. And relevant to current discussions in the emerging church where there seems to be a greater interest in activating the church to do what it was called to do-help the poor both as a church and individually. One question I have related to your first question-- should the Christian church carry the entire burden of dealing with poverty and let all the unbelievers of the hook? Or should we do our part but also expect non-Christians to ante up too. And would our answer work in a country with 10% Christians? Or 1% Christians? I think the church must act not to solve poverty—but because “this is what Christians do.” But as an American I also want to establish justice and make a good country even for unbelievers—I’m willing to coerce unbelievers to “do the right thing” and I’m willing to force unbelievers to “avoid evil.” I have a similar position on abortion and capital punishment too—I think Christians shouldn’t get abortions or execute people but at the same time they should try to get their country to conform as much as they can to kingdom values. Same with poverty—I think Christians (personally and in community) should obey the commands of Jesus regarding the poor but I think we should try to get our government to reflect kingdom values as best we can—knowing that in all these cases we will fail to have government that will reflect perfect kingdom values—but we try anyway.
At least that’s my take this lunch hour on your provocative question. I’m open to changing the position—it is still developing. (I plan to have my mind made up on many things by the time I’m 80)
Coach D
(I know this isn't a paper to be critiqued...but here's my thoughts anyway)
Whoa...bold of you to seperate governmental justice from God's justice!
Isn't justice...justice? Whether it's from the ranks of men and women handing out food stamps or the Church donating clothing...don't these equal justice? Even if the motivation is different...don't we celebrate justice wherever we find it? Does "God's Justice" mean more or count more? Does God approve more when Christians show justice? Same could be asked in terms of love, mercy, sacrifice, etc.
Also, at the beginning you equated Christian justice with helping the poor in practical terms (or that was assumed)...but at the end you seem to connect justice to helping the poor find God and connect with people. The latter seems more like reconciliation than justice...and of course this is the Churches job.
So are you asking/frustrated about justice or reconciliation?
I say, when talking about justice and the poor - we work together with the government. We push each other to be more pro-active...we learn from each other. And when talking about the reconciliation of humanity to God and their need for community...we do it.
But, again, for me justice is justice...grace is grace...mercy is mercy. And I want to celebrate this where I see it. I think when we find this, we're finding people who are intrinsically connecting with their creator.
Peace to you Andrea! Thanks for the post!
Ok... this is the first blog I think I'm really about to put forth my opinion. Here's to you. Also... be ye warned... I'm going to think out loud... this isn't pre-meditated as far as this particular response is concerned. Also, I'm not angry or bitter. I'm not speaking with an edge here so don't give me one reading through this.
I get this sense that when I hear you saying "Church" it's being relegated to the organization? I could be wrong in hearing that definition, but I'm pulling it more from the evidence of statements along the lines of "is it the church's job to put the government out of business", pitting "Governement" and "Church" against each other as two opposing pillars.
Ok, follow me on this for a sec.
I got thinking about the Essenes last night and their honest desire to want to be God's people, so they separated from everything around them and clung tightly to themselves. I'm pretty sure the American, and mostly the Western, Church has done that. These are quick and general observations, but I don't know that the Evangelical Church, which I think is what we're really whittled down to in this post, is any different than any historical group like that. * We've got our space that we've done well to dwell in and spend our time among our caves and community. If we don'tdo this enough, people think we're drifting from the group. * We believe we've got the edge on truth, ("The problem is that the justice a public government can offer is not God’s Justice" - I'm with Josh that justice is justice, truth is truth in or out of the Bible and the Church) * we've set ourselves up as a moral police precinct. * We've really created a very strong "us"/"them" scenario as an organization, even as the people of God... if 'they" come to "us" we can do our work... even if I reverse the words, the issue is still there in practice.
So I'm wondering about your second statement - "The best way to fulfill God’s will for the poor through the Church is to work along side the government to actively help the poor." Perhaps some of the issue is that church folk are a bit wary of getting involved where the government might be because they're afraid of getting tainted with a bit of democratic agenda... again, maybe just the evangelicals, but that's just an aside. But why would that be a problem? There are good resources in the government and they are doing something, and perhaps if we were involved enough, at all, we could be a part of the decisions and leadership *gulp* among the people that we're wondering if it would be ok to join. "But if we did that, we might be forced to compromise" - I don't think so. Probably naive, but I just really don't. I don't think when you're dealing with Kingdom values, you're ever asked to compromise on execution (which would be where the pragmatic breakdown would occur) if you're a Jesus follower... or, atleast, I don't think you have to.
What I think the real issue is "if I join up with this entity, I have to work with these people". Governing is not the problem people generally have, it's the people in the government, and people are a altering entity. That can be changed and will be. "But if I work with those people, they don't have the same values I have" which is where it gets reduced to on a more specific scale. "Will my values be compromised if I associate with these people?" But we're talking about Justice in particular here... you're on the same page. You already hold the same value. Again, execution may be differing, but there will never be an alternative option if another story isn't lived among by those who love following Jesus. And that doesn't happen if you're doing your thing or even working "alongside" but with. "With" is a big word here. "With" suggests that there might be value in something you are not purporting. It's a cooperative implication and that is very frightening idea to, generally, an organization that functions based on the belief that they have the edge on the market on things of the Kingdom (consumer/marketing mentality - what do you offer that no one else does). I just don't think God stuffed all there is on justice and truth and love and compassion within the organization, or even the group of believers calling themselves the Church. Most people wouldn't either with words, but we function that way.
I'm all over the place. I do much better with conversation. Any thoughts to this would be helpful, so this is just where I'll start if this goes anywhere.
Jenn,
Just surfacing here after finishing my last final and my last research paper. Still a works cited left to go, but mostly done.
I think the evangelical church has become like the Essenes in that we have created our own sub-culture. Which wouldn't be a bad thing except that our sub-culture is anything but counter cultural. Instead it is a mirror image of the culture around us - with a Jesus twist. (your marketing analagy is good example of this).
Hauerwas says we're to be a Chrisitan Colony - a subversive force in culture. Not because of what legislation we're lobbying for but because we're living out the kingdom.
Easier said than done. Much simpler to lobby for legislation.
Just a few thots before my head hits the pillow.
Post a Comment
<< Home