The Church & Power: Further Reflections on Church-State Relations

Canadian Politics, Political Theology, Theology No Responses »
Jan 312011

Hello All,

This last Sunday Ward Parkinson led us in a reflection on how we are to, as Christians, relate to the state/government. It was a great discussion and one that is ongoing. Today, Ward emailed me and asked me to share this quote with you which he felt nicely fit with the theme of church and state from an Anabaptist perspective. Let me know your thoughts:

Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.

—Martin Luther King, Jr., “Where Do We Go From Here?

Posted by zac at 7:16 pm

Some further thoughts on the implications of the cosmic scope of God's reign

Canadian Politics, Mission, Reconciliation, Social Issues No Responses »
Oct 262010

In the previous post, we saw that God’s plan for redemption is not limited to a people group or a nation, but is cosmic in scope. This all sounds great and profound, but in what way should this cosmic scope affect and shape our identity as followers of Jesus the Christ? Perhaps at least one way in which it should shape our practices is in terms of how we understand our own identity. Let’s take a common form of identity for an example:

Most of, if not all, the people who attend The ConneXion are Canadians. Yet in what way might we imagine this type of identity to influence or be influenced by faith in Jesus? Is our Canadian identity constitutive of our Christianity or vice versa? Now, this is a complicated question, especially seeing as how what exactly makes for a “Canadian” (is it love of hockey? multiculturalism? the diverse landscapes? social status? economy?)  and what makes for Christianity (is it a particular denomination? is it commitment to the church? is it doctrinal positions?) is up for grabs. Furthermore, this may seem to some an odd question and one to which we would (if we gave the pat answer) reply: “Of course my identity as a Christian is more constitutive of my Canadian identity than my Canadian identity is of my Christianity!” Yet if we were to challenge ourselves, perhaps we would have to ask, as Kent Dueck did this last Sunday while exploring Psalm 146, “at the end of the day, who do we trust?” Do we trust the identity that gives us the most “security” in life, or the identity that makes the most demands? The identity that encourages us to work for a life of individual pleasures or an identity that pushes us into the complicated and frustrating work of community and mutual submission? Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to claim that everything “Canadian” is in opposition to God but rather that as Christian disciples we will always face the temptation to find our security in the “gods” of the world (whatever form they take) rather than the one who is “true” and “faithful” forever (Psalm 146:6). Canadian identity need not be a rival God, but it certainly can become one.

This is not hard to swallow, especially when one looks at what has gone on in the Middle East for so many years now.

Much evil has been done from both sides and yet at the end of the day, so much of the struggle comes to a head precisely over the question of identity (especially national). Previously I provided a quote from Alain Epp Weaver’s States of Exile and I think it appropriate to do so again to begin to imagine what the cosmic scope of God’s reign might mean for Christian identity in a world in which Nations and other Global Systems vie for allegiance:

Epp Weaver says, quoting Gerald Schlabach, “Christians can live rightly in the ‘land’ that God gives…only if they sustain a tension with landedness itself.” Part of this tension is not being fully at home in the land so long as others are excluded from the benefits of landedness, with exile allowed to shape our understandings of home.” pg.50

I think that last line, “not being fully at home in the land so long as others are excluded from the benefits of landedness, with exile allowed to shape our understandings of home” is critical for any Christian discipleship as it always recognizes that the many competing identities of this world always seek to make a dividing line between those who can come in and those who must stay out. This is easy to see at work in the Canadian question as well.

There is no doubt that while much has been done to try to atone for sins against the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, these peoples still largely find themselves excluded from the “benefits of landedness” and, recognizing that this is an incredibly complicated issue, one could make a pretty good argument that this is in large part based on certain notions of what makes for “Canadian” identity (individualism, certain economic systems). The Christian message must push us into discomfort in this regard, as the Gospel states that God’s justice and benefits are to encompass all nations, in their uniqueness; that all are to be beneficiaries of God’s reconciling work. May we, in our communities, ponder how our “landedness” (whether that takes the form of our Canadian status or economic or social status) must be put into question in light of those who are excluded, knowing that God executes justice for the oppressed and the hungry (Psalm 146:7). And in response to that pondering, may we imagine practices that can faithfully join God’s already active work among the nations.

Posted by zac at 3:00 pm

Are there limits to redemption?

Canadian Politics, James Bezan, Reconciliation No Responses »
Oct 182010

Recently I received a flyer in my mailbox from the Interlake’s local MP, James Bezan. I normally do not bother reading these as they tend to be the same old rhetoric: “this political party doesn’t do its job, we do”. However, this time the image on the front shocked me enough to give a second look and when I did, I became quite saddened and angry:

Now, let me be clear and fair in my response to this mail-out. When someone is taken advantage of in our society, especially in such a personal way, there is NO justification for it. In other words, it is clearly WRONG for someone to do that. However, how we deal with such wrongdoings will tell us much about what kind of people we are and what kind of world we live in. The sad reality is that we live in a society that does not have the patience for the work of healing and reconciliation that is so desperately needed not only in cases of sexual offences, but in many many other ways. The image shown above is meant to make a very specific claim: sex offenders should not be issued pardons. On the surface, such a claim is not all that offensive, especially in a system that has, no doubt, pardoned people who have then had a repeat offence. However, what is offensive is what lies beneath the political posture exemplified in this picture, namely, a desire to keep the “troublemakers” out of sight so that communities can go on contributing to the economy in a productive and efficient manner. Never mind dealing with the effort of reconciliation, instead, let “the system” take care of the offender. In some ways, the way “the system” deals with offenders is an obvious consequence of the way our society is ordered and purposed and so is not, to many, all that shocking an approach (indeed it is desirable for many).

The real question is, as part of the global church, can we accept the story being told in the picture above? Do we think there are limits to redemption and reconciliation — both in this world and in the world to come? Should some hands never “come clean”? Should we simply let “the system” take care of issues of “justice” (for that is indeed what reconciliation is about) when the system itself in many ways contributes to factors that encourage many “offences”? I can’t help but wonder what the Apostle Paul would say. He was a murderer and a persecutor of many Christians and then became one of the foremost apostles of the faith. His life was changed and his hands washed clean. What if Paul would have been told by the Christians, “sorry, you persecuted us and so we cannot let you be healed or accept that you could be healed. The bottom line is, Paul, some hands should not come clean and your hands are some of them.”

Thoughts?

Posted by zac at 3:05 pm
© 2013 The ConneXion Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha