I have begun reading "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. As part of my reflection of Graham Ward's notions of the Body politic, particularly in "The Politics of Discipleship" and his reflection on constitutional monarchy, Francis Fukuyama's misguided liberal-democratic interpretation of Hegel and the necessity of some sort of monarchy I have often, in jest, suggested that the Lewis', the Canadian political family should be the Royal family replacing the current British one.
Naomi Klein, who's husband is Avi Lewis the son of Stephen Lewis, writes the following at the end of her introductory chapter:
"This desire for godlike powers of total creation is precisely why free-market ideologues are so drawn to crises and disasters. Non-apocalyptic reality is simply not hospitable to their ambitions.. Believers in the shock doctrine are convinced that only a great rupture - a flood, a war, a terrorist attack - can generate the kind of vast, clean canvases they crave. It is in these malleable moments..that these artists of the real plunge in their hands and begin their work of remaking the world." (page 24)
These concluding remarks finish her discursive activity in the introduction; with frequent reference to neoliberal economists and policy-makers as 'fundamentalists', a quotation from Milton Friedman when he describes himself as "an old-fashioned preacher delivering a Sunday sermon", a quotation from a Republican congressman from Lousianna where in passing reference suggests that the events of Hurricane Katrina somehow was God-ordained in order to reform the education system in favour of the free-market and of course the quotation from Genesis 9 (the narrative of the global deluge) that begins the chapter. Even the title of the book suggests some sort of religious reference.
Klein, again "Rooted in Biblical fantasies of great floods and great fires, it is a logic that leads ineluctably towards violence." (pg 23)
In her introduction Klein distances her position from a kind of 'unattainable purity' position of 'dangerous ideologies', such as but not exclusive to neoliberalism and the Chicago school of economics. She gives a brief glimpse into her own political location, favouring among other things the disbelief that Markets are inherently violent (because she suggests that it is possible to have a market economy demands 'no such ideological purity') and supporting a somewhat Keynesian position of a mixed market, quasi-socialist state.
I would like the file a grievance of some-sort, but I will do it by telling a story that Klein narrates at the beginning of her introduction. Speaking about how these "Shock" capitalists were using the tragedy of Katrina in New Orleans one of the characters in Klein's story asks "Are they blind?". As in blind to the immense suffering of the impoverished citizens of New Orleans who have lost so much because of poor planning and terrible natural events.
"'A mother with two kids chimed in. 'No they're not blind, they're evil. They see just fine.' " (page 4)
That mother had the courage to label what it was that these people were doing. Evil. Now although I appreciate Klein's insistence that this ideology leads to violence I feel that universalizing the tendency that all notions of 'purity', essentialism or the absolute leads to violence is false. Not neccesarily more dangerous, although perhaps it is, but false.
With her journalistic efforts and crusades I am sure Klein would find herself agreeing that we have to be rational and not ideologues in our search for justice. But may I continue by adding in the words of Alasdair Macintyre "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?"
With her support of diversity and her suggestion that perhaps some sort of 'free' market could exist she seeks co-existence with other communities with different belief systems. In evoking the communitarian discourse of Macintyre I am really asking if this contempt of things that are "contemptuos of pluralism" (page 23) really understands the meaning of difference, especially of different communties.
To take another angle her suggestion that 'purity' of ideology, belief or vision leads to violence seems to suggest she holds on to an 'ontology of violence' (Milbank). Such an ontology, as Milbank points out in "Theology and Social Theory", a book greatly influenced by Macintyre,is at the heart of classical liberalism, pragmatism, a little bit in Hegel and Marx, and certainly nihilism.
Now I believe co-existence is neccesary but "What existence? Which communities?" (Macintyre again), for the co-existence of Reformed and Anabaptist church in the Netherlands had very different views of what co-existence looks like, as the mainline Church-state relationship though in their refusal to be part of the state church as so non-conformist as to be dangerous to the state. Certain Islamic groups would have a view of co-existence, for example in the Ottoman empire Christian and Jewish communities were allowed to exist but with less privileges that the dominant cultural group. In Canada following the seven year's war a more positive situation arose where the french Catholics of New France and the british settlers and Loyalists were able to co-exist, with the establishment of the Quebec Act which guaranteed french cultural (read economic, legal, linguistic and religious) rights. But one must remember that at that time the Quebec act was so offensive to some of the Enlgish that it became part of the Intolerable Acts leading to the revolutionary war.
I think Klein must be clear that she is coming from a Non-Marxist Keynesian socialism which is a tradition in itself. It is not a universal view which hopes for peace in putting communities beside each other in co-existent pluralism but a particular view that may want to establish a happy faced hegemony over various traditions watering them down and making them the same. Sure there maybe Islam, or Christianity, or what have you, but they are really not Islam, Christianity or what have you in the traditional sense but simply historically cultured enclaves that have delayed degeneration as an imminent liberalism conquers all. Is this the End of History? Perhaps Klein is philosophically similair to her neoconservative (classically liberal) enemies in her refusing 'purity', or more outrightly particularity, she sets up a situation where her Keynesian politics 'consumes' other political and religious traditions.
If only she would come clearly out of the closet and like that mother label these other traditions as 'evil', or at least imperialistic.
Which brings me to the most important question for me: is it possible to have a tradition that is not imperialist? Outside of classical liberalism which paradoxically denies tradition yet produces similar 'Empire' can we have a tradition that is anti-imperial intrinsically? I will be honest I appeal the crucified God as the only honest way out of empire.
Part II of this post will deal with the biblical Apocalyptic as inherently anti-imperial, despite the distaste for it Klein displays in her introduction.
Also forgive the untideness of this post, I think I had go ideas but they did not really arrive on screen very well.
Showing posts with label Peace Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peace Church. Show all posts
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
re-thinking Christendom
A lot of the intellectual issues I try to deal with our fundamentally about the relationship between the Church, it's theologies and political practice. Recently I have decided to try and work through something that John Milbank poses in an interviewover at the The Other Journal:
"And that means of course, re-think Christendom. But now in more festive, pro-body, yet more interpersonal, less fearing terms and ones celebrating much more excellence and virtue in every realm including those of craft, farming and trade. And having a greater will to the democratization of excellence."
Considering the anti-Christendom strain in my thinking and the traditions I have been apart of (Anabaptist,evangelical,anarchist and missional) this quotation is directly challenging. The political thinking intrinsic to Milbank is that theology has a place in the economic, social and political world beyond the position of prophetic utterance or face-to-face relationship. Examining my thought it seems that the ecclesiology I pertain to puts a monopoly first on the personalist 'face-to-face' and the Anabaptist/liberationist 'prophetic utterance'. For me Milbank has effectively de-stabalized these two monopolies in my mind.
In Missional Church, a book I have mentioned before, Darrell Guder describes the relationship of the church, the people of God, to the reign of God as "the sign,foretaste,instrument and agent of God's rule in Christ" (pg 221). The church is not identical to the reign of God, but is certainly related and the relationship is not easily severed. I will call 'Christendom' a social arrangement which is not identical to the reign of God and neither identical to the Church.
Milbank seems to mention some of the harsher criticisms of the Christendom arrangement including the less festive,anti-body,impersonal,fear-mongering,lack of virtue and lack of respect for the common person as citizen and worker. He is open about the reality that historic Christendom has major flaws but does not abandon the project altogether after the failure of both socialism and liberalism in avoiding both wide-scale genocide,economic injustice and nihilism.
As a member of those various traditions above I would argue about, or more precisely add to, his constructive politics of a re-thought Christendom is a heavy suspicion of power, a rejection of violence, a need to reconcile localism with global technocracy and a recognition of cultural diversities. I would also caution that european imperialism has been an experienced reality of the last five centuries partially out of the failures of the old Christendom.
Re-thinking Chistendom means for me thinking through my cautions and additions to what Milbank is saying. Much of what seems to me to be 'post-Christendom' political theology seems to bubble out of a dialect between an ethical aim (to respond to the other, to have justice) with political suspicion (which comes out of a lived reality of imperialism - such as the Anabaptist persecutions by the state churches in Europe). Yet at the same time in quite clear terms Post-Christendom theology must come to the realization that it is not politically neutral and that even the concept of 'Christendom' is the recognition that our theology will inevitably, if taken to their the logical conclusions, will produce or support some sort of social arrangement which although neither the reign of God nor the Church is something related to the two.
First of all, following Macintyre and also Milbank and 'Theology and Social Theory', we must recover a robust understanding of virtue. But I would caution that this must be 'textured' by the Scriptures and should be more from the Spirit than Aristotle. This means both practice and understanding arising out of the New Testament, especially Paul's epistles. Perhaps love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" can be the virtues of this new order.
Secondly the suspicion of power and rejection of violence must be taken into account, especially as informed by the New Testament. This means both the development of virtues and communities of nonviolence and a communal respect and distrust of power. There are practical ways of exploring this including favouring the local and de-centralized institutions, including economic and politics ones.
Thirdly - learn from De Certeau and Ellul about technology and it's use. Technology is not a bad thing intrinsically but has the potential, as is shown in actual history, to be very alienating. There are ways to use technology to build community, strengthen the local economy and build towards what Illich call 'conviviality'.
Two things in those whole Christendom discussion:
First - it is secondary or ever tertiary. Not in the sense that it does not matter but in the sense that ethics come before politics. What matters primarily is not the setting up of an order but the spiritual flourishing of individuals and the church in the willingness to suffer and love the last,the lost, the least,the widows, the orphans and the enemies.
Secondly we must head Illich's warning "Responsibility is the soft under-belly of power".
"And that means of course, re-think Christendom. But now in more festive, pro-body, yet more interpersonal, less fearing terms and ones celebrating much more excellence and virtue in every realm including those of craft, farming and trade. And having a greater will to the democratization of excellence."
Considering the anti-Christendom strain in my thinking and the traditions I have been apart of (Anabaptist,evangelical,anarchist and missional) this quotation is directly challenging. The political thinking intrinsic to Milbank is that theology has a place in the economic, social and political world beyond the position of prophetic utterance or face-to-face relationship. Examining my thought it seems that the ecclesiology I pertain to puts a monopoly first on the personalist 'face-to-face' and the Anabaptist/liberationist 'prophetic utterance'. For me Milbank has effectively de-stabalized these two monopolies in my mind.
In Missional Church, a book I have mentioned before, Darrell Guder describes the relationship of the church, the people of God, to the reign of God as "the sign,foretaste,instrument and agent of God's rule in Christ" (pg 221). The church is not identical to the reign of God, but is certainly related and the relationship is not easily severed. I will call 'Christendom' a social arrangement which is not identical to the reign of God and neither identical to the Church.
Milbank seems to mention some of the harsher criticisms of the Christendom arrangement including the less festive,anti-body,impersonal,fear-mongering,lack of virtue and lack of respect for the common person as citizen and worker. He is open about the reality that historic Christendom has major flaws but does not abandon the project altogether after the failure of both socialism and liberalism in avoiding both wide-scale genocide,economic injustice and nihilism.
As a member of those various traditions above I would argue about, or more precisely add to, his constructive politics of a re-thought Christendom is a heavy suspicion of power, a rejection of violence, a need to reconcile localism with global technocracy and a recognition of cultural diversities. I would also caution that european imperialism has been an experienced reality of the last five centuries partially out of the failures of the old Christendom.
Re-thinking Chistendom means for me thinking through my cautions and additions to what Milbank is saying. Much of what seems to me to be 'post-Christendom' political theology seems to bubble out of a dialect between an ethical aim (to respond to the other, to have justice) with political suspicion (which comes out of a lived reality of imperialism - such as the Anabaptist persecutions by the state churches in Europe). Yet at the same time in quite clear terms Post-Christendom theology must come to the realization that it is not politically neutral and that even the concept of 'Christendom' is the recognition that our theology will inevitably, if taken to their the logical conclusions, will produce or support some sort of social arrangement which although neither the reign of God nor the Church is something related to the two.
First of all, following Macintyre and also Milbank and 'Theology and Social Theory', we must recover a robust understanding of virtue. But I would caution that this must be 'textured' by the Scriptures and should be more from the Spirit than Aristotle. This means both practice and understanding arising out of the New Testament, especially Paul's epistles. Perhaps love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" can be the virtues of this new order.
Secondly the suspicion of power and rejection of violence must be taken into account, especially as informed by the New Testament. This means both the development of virtues and communities of nonviolence and a communal respect and distrust of power. There are practical ways of exploring this including favouring the local and de-centralized institutions, including economic and politics ones.
Thirdly - learn from De Certeau and Ellul about technology and it's use. Technology is not a bad thing intrinsically but has the potential, as is shown in actual history, to be very alienating. There are ways to use technology to build community, strengthen the local economy and build towards what Illich call 'conviviality'.
Two things in those whole Christendom discussion:
First - it is secondary or ever tertiary. Not in the sense that it does not matter but in the sense that ethics come before politics. What matters primarily is not the setting up of an order but the spiritual flourishing of individuals and the church in the willingness to suffer and love the last,the lost, the least,the widows, the orphans and the enemies.
Secondly we must head Illich's warning "Responsibility is the soft under-belly of power".
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Ecclesial Alliances
This is another in my series of posts on Peace Church type stuff.
The point of this post is to point to emerging alliances between Peace Church theologies, practices and organizations and other Church traditions and movements. This is not meant to be comprehensive, but a meager list.
Alliances:
- the thought and work of Walter Brueggemann -- > the reason seems to be that he focuses a lot on what it means to be the ecclesial community in post-Christendom. At certain points, in his criticisms of consumerism and militarism, comes close to Peace Church ethics on economy and nonviolence.
- Liberation theologies -- > not necessarily of the Latin American variety but the kind that do theology from the perspective of the marginalized as do Anabaptist theologians
- Black Church --> Martin Luther King Jr.'s transformation of nonviolent nonresistance to nonviolent resistance is especially impacting
- Postcolonial theologies --> any theology that engages with "Empire" and builds it's ethics around that subject
- Missional Church --> coming from the perspective of the Missions movement and Missiology this type of theology critiques Christendom ecclesiology
The point of this post is to point to emerging alliances between Peace Church theologies, practices and organizations and other Church traditions and movements. This is not meant to be comprehensive, but a meager list.
Alliances:
- the thought and work of Walter Brueggemann -- > the reason seems to be that he focuses a lot on what it means to be the ecclesial community in post-Christendom. At certain points, in his criticisms of consumerism and militarism, comes close to Peace Church ethics on economy and nonviolence.
- Liberation theologies -- > not necessarily of the Latin American variety but the kind that do theology from the perspective of the marginalized as do Anabaptist theologians
- Black Church --> Martin Luther King Jr.'s transformation of nonviolent nonresistance to nonviolent resistance is especially impacting
- Postcolonial theologies --> any theology that engages with "Empire" and builds it's ethics around that subject
- Missional Church --> coming from the perspective of the Missions movement and Missiology this type of theology critiques Christendom ecclesiology
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
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
Thursday, February 25, 2010
More about Peace Church
What prompted my other post on Peace Church the other day is that I am currently reading Violence, Hospitality and the Cross.
This quotation struck me as something I need to work through:
"The resurrection mandate of pure hospitality needs to be tempered, therefore, by the wisdom of conditional hospitality. Inasmuch as we are still constrained by current historical conditions, our welcome of the stranger and the prodigal will necessarily involve some restraint, conditionality and even violence. The penal element of the atonement offers some significant insights into the way we should act in our everyday social, economic, and political realities. Practicing hospitality is a difficult and painful task." (178-179)
He is arguing that although the resurrection promises pure hospitality the hospitality we offer is always conditional. He expands what he means by conditional by saying that it will mean, sometimes, violence. He accounts for this conditionality theologically by reading the violence of the cross as an example of how we, in our 'everyday social, economic and political realities', should act. Although his definition of violence is broad, a definition that ends up placing restraining your children and genocide in the same category, he does not advocate it's use arbitrarily. Yet he does advocate some violence based on the violence God use on the cross.
Now that I have un-packed his writing a bit I will go on to articulate my position.
First of all he has the presupposition that to act in nonviolence will actually increase the violence. I do not necessarily disagree but wonder if he is now basing his ethics on an ontology of violence, the belief that reality is essentially chaotic, aggressive and Malthusian, which, along with Milbank, he accuses Levinas and Derrida of possessing. Perhaps this binary opposition between a harmonious ontology of peace and discordian ontology of violence needs to be deconstructed to account for what exactly the Church means when it theologizes saying "this is a fallen world".
Boersma consistently references Paul in his book but I do not believe he takes an adequate look at a Pauline pneumatology and certainly he does not connect pneumatology to ethics. The phrase "the Spirit who rose Christ from the dead" is one of the canonical idioms in the Pauline corpus almost to the point of become cliche. It captures Paul's theology of the spirit quite adequately.
Because the Spirit has risen Jesus from the dead those who are part of the Church can be justified in participating in a different praxis. This praxis is no longer based on the conditional hospitality of a violent reality but based on the 'eschatological hospitality' (Boersma's wording) of the resurrection.
This different praxis is 'Christian' in the very literal meaning of the word, being based on the actions of Jesus. The actions which were to act non-violently in surrendering to the crucifixion rather than acting violently against the Roman or religious authorities. More importantly he did not put confidence in violence to establish the reign of God, nor did he accept that he had to match the chaotic reality on his own terms, but rather chose to obey God (cf. the Gethsemane narratives in the gospels) and was rewarded in being risen from the dead.
Now theologically, the historical life and especially resurrection of Jesus, means that the eschaton and it's reality has appeared in the present. Theology discourse, especially of the radical reformation variety, uses the language of God's kingdom having "broken in" within history. This has implications for our ethics. It means acting nonviolently is based not on pragmatic ignorance towards the violence that this might allow but based on three theological confessions: the counterintuitive death of the Jesus, the surprising resurrection and the inheritance of the Spirit.
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Romans 8:9-14, NASB
In this Paul is not directly talking about nonviolence but it is not inappropriate to use this passage to illuminate any discussion on the issue. Paul here contrasts 'the flesh' to 'the Spirit' in explaining some of his ethics and he manages to work the events of the death and resurrection of Jesus into this account. I understand that the historical reading of 'the flesh' has a significant amount of quasi-gnostic meanings to it but I do not have the space to go into that here. The point of the passage is because Christians have the same spirit who rose Jesus from the dead we no longer have to live according to 'the Flesh' or, in the context of my argument, violence, because we have been empowered to live otherwise.
Now it is not clear but Boersma seems to be saying that although we do have hope for that 'eschatological hospitality' because of the resurrection of Jesus we live in the time of 'conditional hospitality' (read: necessary violence) where the violence of the cross has implications. These implications it seems (he may be saying otherwise but I see no hint of this in his book) means necessary violence now which could mean things like the death penality, just war (or maybe, since he is Canadian, 'peace-keeping') etc. This seems like a bizarre reading of the implications of the cross to me, and I would suggest he read NT Wright's work (one of his main sources) closer and perhaps even the New Testament itself (which I admit, saying that is a bit polemical on my part)
There that is my counter-reading of the hospitality of the death and resurrection of Christ and it's implications. I will now proceed to show areas where further, critical reflection is needed on my part as I hope I have already shown some areas where reflection is needed on his.
Copious amounts of graphic nonviolence: the presupposition that is held by Boersma and not necessarily challenged by me is that nonviolence actually has no power. I believe that I need to do a lot more critical thinking, careful reading, meticulous observation and authentically pray about this issue. The hypothetical situation set-up to criticize advocates of nonviolence is that mass scale use of nonviolence will lead to very bloody war. I have had to engage with this situation on a theoretical level as well. Not to long ago I found this blog post which critiqued this view pointing to examples in history of nonviolence resistance, such as Gandhi, the civil rights movement etc.
Perhaps it is the historical situation (I refrain from saying it will always be the case) that most people, including most Christians, do not believe in nonviolence. And it is this particular situation which socially constructs the belief that nonviolence is ineffective and will produce more violence.
But it is this particular situation where the Church is called to act, and according to my belief act nonviolently. Which means, in effect, that our nonviolence will not stop violence. But I am finding myself disagreeing that the proliferation of violence makes nonviolence a choice complicit in this proliferation.That is to say makes nonviolence irresponsible and a contributor to violence. It is not people who choose to act nonviolently that causes the nonviolence but the fact that those who choose nonviolence are in the minority.
The final issue is my defense of a nonviolent stance from the position of my pneumatology. What does it mean that The Spirit gives life to our mortal bodies? Does it simply mean the wisdom and courage to act nonviolently or, alternatively, does it mean that our nonviolence will actually be effective?
This quotation struck me as something I need to work through:
"The resurrection mandate of pure hospitality needs to be tempered, therefore, by the wisdom of conditional hospitality. Inasmuch as we are still constrained by current historical conditions, our welcome of the stranger and the prodigal will necessarily involve some restraint, conditionality and even violence. The penal element of the atonement offers some significant insights into the way we should act in our everyday social, economic, and political realities. Practicing hospitality is a difficult and painful task." (178-179)
He is arguing that although the resurrection promises pure hospitality the hospitality we offer is always conditional. He expands what he means by conditional by saying that it will mean, sometimes, violence. He accounts for this conditionality theologically by reading the violence of the cross as an example of how we, in our 'everyday social, economic and political realities', should act. Although his definition of violence is broad, a definition that ends up placing restraining your children and genocide in the same category, he does not advocate it's use arbitrarily. Yet he does advocate some violence based on the violence God use on the cross.
Now that I have un-packed his writing a bit I will go on to articulate my position.
First of all he has the presupposition that to act in nonviolence will actually increase the violence. I do not necessarily disagree but wonder if he is now basing his ethics on an ontology of violence, the belief that reality is essentially chaotic, aggressive and Malthusian, which, along with Milbank, he accuses Levinas and Derrida of possessing. Perhaps this binary opposition between a harmonious ontology of peace and discordian ontology of violence needs to be deconstructed to account for what exactly the Church means when it theologizes saying "this is a fallen world".
Boersma consistently references Paul in his book but I do not believe he takes an adequate look at a Pauline pneumatology and certainly he does not connect pneumatology to ethics. The phrase "the Spirit who rose Christ from the dead" is one of the canonical idioms in the Pauline corpus almost to the point of become cliche. It captures Paul's theology of the spirit quite adequately.
Because the Spirit has risen Jesus from the dead those who are part of the Church can be justified in participating in a different praxis. This praxis is no longer based on the conditional hospitality of a violent reality but based on the 'eschatological hospitality' (Boersma's wording) of the resurrection.
This different praxis is 'Christian' in the very literal meaning of the word, being based on the actions of Jesus. The actions which were to act non-violently in surrendering to the crucifixion rather than acting violently against the Roman or religious authorities. More importantly he did not put confidence in violence to establish the reign of God, nor did he accept that he had to match the chaotic reality on his own terms, but rather chose to obey God (cf. the Gethsemane narratives in the gospels) and was rewarded in being risen from the dead.
Now theologically, the historical life and especially resurrection of Jesus, means that the eschaton and it's reality has appeared in the present. Theology discourse, especially of the radical reformation variety, uses the language of God's kingdom having "broken in" within history. This has implications for our ethics. It means acting nonviolently is based not on pragmatic ignorance towards the violence that this might allow but based on three theological confessions: the counterintuitive death of the Jesus, the surprising resurrection and the inheritance of the Spirit.
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Romans 8:9-14, NASB
In this Paul is not directly talking about nonviolence but it is not inappropriate to use this passage to illuminate any discussion on the issue. Paul here contrasts 'the flesh' to 'the Spirit' in explaining some of his ethics and he manages to work the events of the death and resurrection of Jesus into this account. I understand that the historical reading of 'the flesh' has a significant amount of quasi-gnostic meanings to it but I do not have the space to go into that here. The point of the passage is because Christians have the same spirit who rose Jesus from the dead we no longer have to live according to 'the Flesh' or, in the context of my argument, violence, because we have been empowered to live otherwise.
Now it is not clear but Boersma seems to be saying that although we do have hope for that 'eschatological hospitality' because of the resurrection of Jesus we live in the time of 'conditional hospitality' (read: necessary violence) where the violence of the cross has implications. These implications it seems (he may be saying otherwise but I see no hint of this in his book) means necessary violence now which could mean things like the death penality, just war (or maybe, since he is Canadian, 'peace-keeping') etc. This seems like a bizarre reading of the implications of the cross to me, and I would suggest he read NT Wright's work (one of his main sources) closer and perhaps even the New Testament itself (which I admit, saying that is a bit polemical on my part)
There that is my counter-reading of the hospitality of the death and resurrection of Christ and it's implications. I will now proceed to show areas where further, critical reflection is needed on my part as I hope I have already shown some areas where reflection is needed on his.
Copious amounts of graphic nonviolence: the presupposition that is held by Boersma and not necessarily challenged by me is that nonviolence actually has no power. I believe that I need to do a lot more critical thinking, careful reading, meticulous observation and authentically pray about this issue. The hypothetical situation set-up to criticize advocates of nonviolence is that mass scale use of nonviolence will lead to very bloody war. I have had to engage with this situation on a theoretical level as well. Not to long ago I found this blog post which critiqued this view pointing to examples in history of nonviolence resistance, such as Gandhi, the civil rights movement etc.
Perhaps it is the historical situation (I refrain from saying it will always be the case) that most people, including most Christians, do not believe in nonviolence. And it is this particular situation which socially constructs the belief that nonviolence is ineffective and will produce more violence.
But it is this particular situation where the Church is called to act, and according to my belief act nonviolently. Which means, in effect, that our nonviolence will not stop violence. But I am finding myself disagreeing that the proliferation of violence makes nonviolence a choice complicit in this proliferation.That is to say makes nonviolence irresponsible and a contributor to violence. It is not people who choose to act nonviolently that causes the nonviolence but the fact that those who choose nonviolence are in the minority.
The final issue is my defense of a nonviolent stance from the position of my pneumatology. What does it mean that The Spirit gives life to our mortal bodies? Does it simply mean the wisdom and courage to act nonviolently or, alternatively, does it mean that our nonviolence will actually be effective?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Peace - - Church: why you can not have one without the other
When asked about my family's background I point out their denominational heritage. I consider this far more important than our ethnic heritage even though the account of my grandparent's and their families being put in a concentration camp has effected me greatly.
One of the reasons I find this more important is I generally concede I lean heavily towards a pacifist interpretation of Christianity. Although this is not a-critical as many of time I have been challenged, by close friends and even by other family members, in this position. Although I still hold to this position I would like to point out something I have learning through critical engagement with the larger Christian tradition.
There is no PEACE interpretation without the supplement of CHURCH. What I am saying, therefore, is that pacifism is an ethic stance rooted in the church and thus peace-thinking is an ecclesiology.
I started thinking this way while reading a journal article of the stance of Reinhold Neibuhr which questioned whether he had an adequate ecclesiology. Neibuhr's ethics were national and not ecclesial, he based his answer to the question "What shall we do?" in the context of the American establishment and not the Church. To use contemporary Anabaptist discourse he answered as a citizen of the polis but not as a member of the ecclesia. This discourse use the greek concepts of polis (literally: City) and ecclesia (literally: Assembly or Called-Out Ones) and reads the bible through this lens. The church, the 'called-out ones' of God, must witness and provide a better alternative for the polis, or the human political establishment. Neibuhr answered from the perspective of an American citizen who also was a Christian but in the discourse of Peace Church questions whether you can answer from both perspectives as suggest you can not.
I generally agree with that line of reasoning and I would like to here an Ecclesialogical defense of violence from some-one of the just-war interpretation.
One of the reasons I find this more important is I generally concede I lean heavily towards a pacifist interpretation of Christianity. Although this is not a-critical as many of time I have been challenged, by close friends and even by other family members, in this position. Although I still hold to this position I would like to point out something I have learning through critical engagement with the larger Christian tradition.
There is no PEACE interpretation without the supplement of CHURCH. What I am saying, therefore, is that pacifism is an ethic stance rooted in the church and thus peace-thinking is an ecclesiology.
I started thinking this way while reading a journal article of the stance of Reinhold Neibuhr which questioned whether he had an adequate ecclesiology. Neibuhr's ethics were national and not ecclesial, he based his answer to the question "What shall we do?" in the context of the American establishment and not the Church. To use contemporary Anabaptist discourse he answered as a citizen of the polis but not as a member of the ecclesia. This discourse use the greek concepts of polis (literally: City) and ecclesia (literally: Assembly or Called-Out Ones) and reads the bible through this lens. The church, the 'called-out ones' of God, must witness and provide a better alternative for the polis, or the human political establishment. Neibuhr answered from the perspective of an American citizen who also was a Christian but in the discourse of Peace Church questions whether you can answer from both perspectives as suggest you can not.
I generally agree with that line of reasoning and I would like to here an Ecclesialogical defense of violence from some-one of the just-war interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)