Saturday, February 27, 2010

Agents or Witnesses? Contesting ecclesiology

Some time ago I picked up for myself The Green Bible.

In the introduction NT Wright talks about protecting Creation as part of the vocation of discipleship. He expounds an eschatology of the renewal of creation and suggests that Christians are agents of this renewal. I want to focus on that word - agents. In technical terms agency expresses potency. In context it means the potency to bring the renewal of creation. Now this is not to accuse Wright of tying the full arrival of the eschaton to the full fidelity of the Church apart from God. It seems the agency, in Wright's estimation, is one of partnership with the divine.

The reason I bring this up is that the theological tradition I find myself tending towards, the Peace Church tradition, uses the language of witness. Now I will not go into the technical explanation of the this traditions theology but the populist belief it can produce. This belief is that we can witness - witness to the empires, to the powers - but have no chance of actually changing them. The witness is a positive thing, witnessing to the reign of God. But it does not bring the reign, it only witnesses to it.

The language of witness and agency, the debate between the uses of the words, may seem to be a overly detailed and nuanced academic discussion. It is not. It is a debate that refers directly to the faith, proclamation and praxis of real people.

Consider these situations (which are adapted from actual situations I have encountered):

- When confronted with corporate evils Christians shrug saying "this is a fallen world" and when confronted with the call to responsibility they accuse the confronter "of idealism"
- They can not connect Discipleship with Politics with any theologically critical thinking

No comments:

Post a Comment