In listening to this part of the worship, I noted three things rather quickly that were seemingly at odds with each other. First, there was clearly an expression of interest in the well-being of others, a concern that is not unbiblical or non-Christian by any means. Second, this articulation of critique and concern for a socioeconomic issue of inequality and the accompanying exhortation to affix a signature were political acts that occurred in the context of Christian worship (as opposed to a business meeting or an informal gathering, or even a newsletter).
But third, I also noted that there was no biblical or theological basis or framework for this articulation and exhortation, no attempt made to locate the issue and the call to action in a more explicitly theological context. It was almost as though there was no need to give a theological justification. Or perhaps the pastor and worshipers simply assumed that the theological legitimacy of the request was self-evident. Or maybe the pastor and/or the worshipers had no theology to warrant the inclusion of this item in the service.
I know of congregations where this would never happen. There would be no mention of political issues during worship and no one would be asked to sign such a petition anywhere on church property. I also know of congregations where the announcement in worship would be about the time and place the buses would be leaving to transport the congregants to D.C. to the political rally, following which contingents of congregants would visit the offices of their representatives and senators. And I know congregations like the one in this case. A little political activity is there, however tentative, and it seems to fit in with the congregation’s identity and mission, even if it isn’t made theologically explicit.
Sitting there that Sunday morning, noting this little confluence of Christian worship and social justice advocacy, I thought of the many reasons why churches locate themselves–deliberately or unmindfully–on various places on the faith-and-politics spectrum. Some think that the church has no business in the public sphere, while others think that there is no other place for the church to have its business. Some think the world is going to Hell anyway, so it’s best to remain as untainted by its wickedness as possible, venturing out to participate only in those activities that are clearly necessary (e.g., grocery shopping) and consistent with one’s beliefs (e.g., honest and diligent labor). Others think that the world is the object not of God’s condemnation, but of divine love and redemption, and those who hold such beliefs are called to work for and give evidence of the message of the triumph of love over evil in all their talking and walking.
And of course, some churches are okay with individual members being involved in the public sphere, but not okay with the church as a community being so involved. Some churches even provide educational events to help members gain new insight and understanding on issues, but these same churches will encourage each individual to make up his or her own mind on what this means for their own personal lives and political activity—and leave the church as church out of it.
I suppose that some churches can justify their preoccupation with themselves and their disinterest in worldly affairs. The personal testimony and proclamation of the gospel as an opportunity for unbelievers to come to faith are probably sufficient to satisfy the job description as it appears in Mark: "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned" (16:15-16).
But there are churches who can also justify their preoccupation with the inequalities and injustices in the world. Bringing about social change and working for a more just and equitable socioeconomic order is understood to be at the heart of the job description as it appears in Matthew, where feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and visiting the imprisoned (25:31-46) are activities that exemplify God’s concern for those on whom others have trampled to get to comfort and well-being, those whose circumstances inhibit the capacity to live fully and realize their own potential for thriving.
In the early twentieth century, German theologian and ethicist Ernst Troeltsch wrote a book entitled The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches in which he argued that social history had produced two types of Christian faith communities. On the one hand, there was the church-type of religious community, the more-or-less established church that effectively sanctioned the socioeconomic status quo and served to support and preserve the interests of the ruling elite. If this type of church was not a direct instrument of the state, it nevertheless served those interests as the dominant if not sole religious institution in the social world. In this sense, in Troeltsch’s view, the church-type is essentially conservative.
On the other hand, there was the sect-type of religious community, a somewhat obscure and socially marginalized religious group with no illusion of being or becoming the dominant religious institution in a society. Typically the attitude of sect-type groups toward the larger world was notable for its interest in some degree of separation. This posture could take the form of hostility, direct opposition, and subversion, or some demeanor more restrained such as tolerance, indifference, or disgust. In any event, sect-type groups perceived themselves as other than, even more truer than, the church-type groups and the socioeconomic world in which they both existed.
More recently, sociologists of religion (such as Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge, and Roger Finke) and social scientists studying religious practices and structures have referred to the church-and-context relation as one characterized by either high-tension or low-tension; either the church is in a high-tension relation to its context, or in a low tension relation. In these cases, a religious group is in low-tension relations if it essentially supports the status quo and acquiesces in its role as a kind of legitimator of the way things are. Religious groups that dissent from social and economic conditions and find themselves in conflict with prevailing social beliefs, attitudes and values are high-tension groups.
It is interesting to observe that over the decades of the twentieth century, progressive Christianity and conservative Christianity in the United States have been variously high-tension and low-tension with the socioeconomic environment. The social gospel movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century took on some of the high-tension features even as it appeared culturally to be a church-type religious group. Arguably, conservative Christianity during this hundred-plus year history has always been a high-tension and sect-type group but, to some, has more recently taken on both low-tension and church-type features as showing itself to be an endorser and supporter of status quo socioeconomic conditions and taking on a more visible and active role in representing a religious perspective in certain areas of public policy (particularly on the wedge issues of family values, reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, and U.S. military activity in the Muslim world).
So, what type of congregation takes up organizing and mobilizing itself on behalf of social justice? What are the characteristic features and theological commitments that mark a congregation as a church-type or a sect-type, a low-tension group or a high-tension group when it comes to advocacy for the common good and well-being of all? What encourages a faith community to stand up or to give in, to survey the immediate terrain of human social and economic life and note the inequalities, or to gaze above the horizon to imagine the contours of an eternal world and thereby discount the quality of life as experienced by the greater number of earth’s inhabitants?
Ultimately, the alternatives cannot be reduced to two, to an either/or. These are important questions, and my intent is to spend some time looking more closely at the types of churches that take up or stay away from social justice as a local congregational mission. So, stay tuned....
Peace,
Douglas Sharp
Posts
