A House Church Model for Political Activism
Posted by dlw in Uncategorized at 4:53 pm | 
Permanent Link
I wrote up the following idea for my British friend Solly. It is a way to weld together the Anabaptist-like commitment to radical counter-cultural witness with an activistic commitment to political civic responsibility.
You have a community of 30 or less adults from a local community/area. This is analogous to the size of a house church. The size matters so as to preserve a relative absence of strong hierarchy within the group. The group should have leaders, with different leaders for different sorts of ministry. What matters most is that there be built up a strong sense of mutual obligation and trust among the community. This is so the community can act together in ways that will enhance their witness to others but without sowing serious divisions within the community. It does not matter whether they are literally a house church or a cell-group within a larger church.
The house church would see its primary purposes as building each other up and serving their local community. But this would not prevent them from some strategic participation in non-local politics as a complement to their local community ministry. The key is to both to choose their issues carefully and to act together so that their impact will be stronger. Because of the limited nature of democracy, it is best for the group to choose carefully a set of three or four issues that they, as a community, will have monitored and act on. These issues could include ”Campaign Finances”, which would entail monitoring the extent a candidate, or groups acting on her or his behalf, have accepted donations from individuals in amounts greater than fifty dollars. If this issue were chosen then the candidate who raised less funds would be supported, all other things held equal.
The issues chosen should not be too vague, like poverty, or too specific like what someone voted on a specific bill. The issues should not be too partisan or too bipartisan. They should be more tangible or measurable, rather than “the leadership ability” of the candidates. This approach implicitly trusts the parties to choose reasonably qualified candidates(an assumption that may not always be true ;-)). The issues chosen need to offer a reasonable chance for the group to make a difference on them, in part, by not precommitting the group to a specific political course of action. But, even more critical is that the group use two principles to guide them: their issues/activism should generally enhance or complement their ability to witness with others in their community and second, their issues/activism must balance well with their ministry and their cohesion as a group. A focus on three or four issues at a time, with respect to different levels of government, both reduces the time needed to adequately monitor the issues and should make it easier to rank the candidates on the chosen issues.
So as to steward their time well, the community would choose one or two of their members to become the political stewards for the rest of the group. While the rest of the community abstains from interacting with the streams of political information and instead focus their time and energies on local activism, study and community outreach. The purpose of a steward would be to monitor nonlocal politics for the rest of the group and to make critical decisions for how the group could act together in a timely manner. If two stewards are selected then they would specialize in monitoring politics at different levels of government, like state gov’t vs nat’l gov’t.
There are a number of ways the stewards could strategically focus their observation. During an election period, they could monitor and petition a subset of the parties along with the three or four issues that their group had determined for them, over time. After an election, they would monitor how the elected officials fulfill their promises. The steward(s), who would still join the others in local community activities, would provide the group with periodic updates, like every 1-2 months, and decide for the others how they would vote/act politically at critical times. The stewards would collaborate with other stewards, preferably in groups of thirty or less, from other communities that have similar goals. They would share information and dialogue, perhaps on gated internet communities, on the issues.
This is just an outline. I think ultimately, there would be a fair amount of learning by doing in developing house churches/cell groups as units for a political activism. But I think it is a way to balance being politically responsible with having a focus on local affairs that we have a greater chance of influencing and local ministry that is in continuity with the early church.
So tell me what do you think? I think it’s weakness is that it doesn’t deal with how members of the group would relate to parties. I think it would inevitably weaken the importance of party -membership but not end it, per se. This would be a matter that could require us to work out creative rules of thumb to balance that sort of thing along the way.
dlw
The 23rd of October, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Good luck, though I’m already wondering if academics is going to mix well with the Ind. Party
The 24th of October, 2006 at 12:52 am
I won’t be committing that many hours to voter-turnout…
dlw
The 27th of October, 2006 at 4:04 pm
I don’t know, mate. It would have worked in the 70s, at least here in Sweden. People are too individualistic these days…
The 27th of October, 2006 at 9:53 pm
I think that is part of the problem.
I don’t care if not too many people would adopt it right now, I’d still like to see it carried out, maybe for the next elections. I can tell you that at least one radical orthodoxy types in Sweden has liked it.
dlw
The 8th of November, 2006 at 9:33 pm
[…] This could be bad. Hopefully, we can prevent this from happening by taking some critical steps back from acting like a lobbying group with strong ties to the Republican Party. The NAE could instead focus on making reasonably balance information available on the 7 areas of concern that it has identified with its “Call to Evangelical Civic Responsibility” and letting evangelicals make up their own minds how to act politically, hopefully using my house church idea. […]
The 8th of November, 2006 at 11:02 pm
I like this. It reminds me of a similar thought I had (though we never did it), to get a group together who would monitor town politics on a rotating basis… if just 5 couples committed, then that could be 10 town meetings attended over a period of 10 months–one person per meeting.
Mostly, I think people don’t get involved in politics because they don’t feel they have the time. Also they feel disconnected from a group… they just feel like spectators to a process which seems so much larger than they. Your idea (and my, sadly, unrequited idea) both address these dynamics.
The 8th of November, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Thankyou.
I think being more connected and involved in meaningful actions are important. I think we can better believe that our political actions would be meaningful if we gave up some of our individuality to participate with a group that was small enough that there is not a need for hierarchy to provide “order”.
Please spread the word… I think that even if 5% of the population engaged in this sort of idea that it would make a diff in our politics.
dlw
The 9th of November, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Actually we tried this and it was difficult to say the least. Many did not want to take the time, others were only interested in comiserating and licking their wounds. The website with email participants proved to be a good thing, however, I was disappointed to learn that the emails that were forwarded were not being spread out to a larger group which was my hope.
Somehow, we need to break down the individuality thing so that people act and react much more like a community. With so many pressures coming from work, church, community groups, and family people are feeling extremely fragmented. Prayer seemed to be the strongest link.
The 9th of November, 2006 at 5:20 pm
I agree that building up the local community is the key part of the model so that people are willing to give up some of their rights/subjectivity so that as a group they will better let their witnesses shine…
dlw
The 13th of November, 2006 at 3:26 pm
I’m not sure what I think, David. On the one hand, I like the idea of having “appointees” to monitor political affairs. It solves one major dilemma that many Christians have: not having the time to do the research they need to in order to vote/act responsibly.
On the other hand, I’m not sure I like the idea of assembling any group for the sake of political activism and calling it a “church.” Sure, christians need to be active, but it’s not the reason we gather as a church. The other problem is you’re going to have a largely homegenous church made up of mostly highly educated individuals that value all the same issues. Of course, it would be more “productive” this way, but I’d question whether that’s how the Body of Christ is meant to function.
Well, those are my thoughts, brother. Good luck!
The 13th of November, 2006 at 10:06 pm
I wouldn’t call it a “church”. If you read what I wrote, I didn’t call it a church. My point is that my idea is based on taking the idea of the house church and applying it to political activism. I think though that in order for it work, the people in the group would have to have community with each other and they would need to be committed to doing more local ministry/activism.
I would not want that to be the center of why people would gather in a church/cell group. I would simply treat it as part of how they showed their love of neighbor and carried out their political responsibilities.
I don’t follow why the church/group would necessarily be largely homogenous or highly educated. I don’t think they need value all the same issues either, what they do need to do is value each others’ community that they are willing to come together in picking three or four issues to monitor and to make other actions together. I guess that’s the part where what matters is a Christ-like willingness to lay down part of one’s own individuality for the sake of improving the group’s overall witness to others.
I don’t think less educated people would be excluded from this. I think that it could be helpful for them, as they would have some voice in the choosing of issues, with the person selected to monitoring the issues likely being in the upper half of the group in terms of level of education and political know-how.
The real problem is that we are defacto segregated by earnings status, often times, which does make it so that the variegated nature of the Body of Christ is diminished.
dlw
The 14th of November, 2006 at 12:54 pm
I see your points, dave. But the title of your entry is “a house church model for political activism.” I guess that’s why I thought it was a church.
The reason I think it would be homogenous is because in my experience there are only two kinds of people interested in politics: people with masters degrees and people who are oppressed by people with masters degrees. The two don’t necessarily mix well, but if they did, it could be a powerful model - not only for activism but for transformation.
The 14th of November, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I think the model needs to be coupled with a message to folks that aren’t interested in politics and don’t have master’s degrees that this would be a way to enhance their witness and political voice.
Now, if only Boyd would listen to me…
dlw
The 14th of November, 2006 at 10:05 pm
I would say that the majotity of the group not focusing on what is going on in politics are the most political, in that they carry out the true christian politics - mercy, through the real christian vehicle of grass roots change.
The 14th of November, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Yes, that is the point. However, never let it be said that “true Christian politics” has nothing to do with participation in non-local forms of democracy. The point is to focus on the grass roots changes and pick one’s battles carefully in dealing with nat’l and int’l politics with an eye to complementing one’s local ministry.
dlw
The 14th of November, 2006 at 10:45 pm
I guess I´m pretty pessimistic to large scale politics. That might just be a consequense of where I´m at right now, but I guess my standpoint on this one is also somewhar ideological. The church has had its hand in the power cookie jar so many times, it´s time for us to show that we have faith in our own story - that power doesnt come with violence, and that the guy on top doesnt call the shots. We are a people without land, led by a king who was put to death and manifests himself as a lamb roaring like a lion. We serve.
The 15th of November, 2006 at 1:22 am
thankyou so much for commenting here.
Who is saying that thirty or less people pooling their votes on a limited number of issues is a matter of putting their hands in the power cookie jar?
I mean, it still is a limited measure. Even if say 1-2% of the population entered into such associations, they wouldn’t have the same issues and be voting the same ways and yet, in competitive democracies such a practice could definitely alter the way the sword of the state is wielded, while still focusing on local ministry.
I don’t see how our own story is being denied in Christian participation in the more representational forms of decision-making. I think that if we believe that “Democracy” or “Liberalism/Individualism” are the answers then that would undermine our stories.
All legal change is about wielding the Sword of the state differently than before and could be expressed as “violence”. The key here is to view our fallible participation in legal changes as a specific means of seeking to love our neighbors as ourselves, not the completion of our being.
The person at the top doesn’t call the shots, they are too buffetted by political exigencies to eve do so. Read what I wrote, the goal here is not getting our people up to the top, but rather loving others by how we participate in the remaking of the rules that govern our inevitable conflicts with each other.
And so my bottom line is why is voting apart from our self-interests not a form of serving?
once again, thankyou.
dlw
The 15th of November, 2006 at 7:03 pm
I´m not against voting. Democracy is a good system ,and as members of a democratic society we should participate. I´m fed up, though with the way the religious right in your country (and in mine mimicking those in yours) have tried, and continue to try to work politically by legislation and forcing their morals on people. This has not only been a bad testimony, it has also (in many cases) been done in stead of the grassroots works of community, evangelism, mercy and servanthood. Largely because it rests on a presumption on USA or Sweden as “christian nations”. In Sweden we dug our heals in and have resisted change in every aspect of the secular society, leaving brakemarks streaching from 1850 to the present day, we have protested against women voting, getting jobs and being in the priesthood, against childcare, against gay partnership, adoption and marriage, against welfare. But digging your heals in leaves you unable to function in any capacity other than as an anchor. It is time to let go and accept the place we are in. No longer in power, BUT FREE TO BE A WITNESS TO A SECULAR SOCIETY IN THE VERY AREAS:
- WE SHOULD MASTER BECAUSE OF OUR STORY!
- WHERE SOCIETY AT LARGE HAS NO CLUE!
- WHERE WE FOR CENTURIES WERE UNABLE TO BE A WITNESS - A PROPHETIC VOICE FROM THE MARGINS - BECAUSE WE WERE SEDUCED BY MIGHT AND LEFT THE MARGIN FOR THE CENTER AND BECAME BEDFELLOWS OF POWER (stronger words come to mind, but let me just say that Hoseas testimony is applicable here, with the church in the role of his wife).
The 15th of November, 2006 at 8:39 pm
I also do not like the religious right. I think they fail missionally both on what really matters in advancing the kingship of God and even specifically on the sorts of issues they say they care about. As I understand it, in the US, the religious right fails because most of its members have a very shallow understanding of politics, stemming from the way their understanding of Christianity has been so personalized, that they are easily manipulated by their leaders who are oft in the pockets of powerful intere$t$.
I don’t mind not being in power and letting things change, even when they upset my cultural sensibilities. My theological bottom line is holism and the need to deliberate on all aspects of our lives that affect our witness to others and what sorts of disciplines we may undertake to improve our witness.
My problem is I don’t see how what I am talking about as about becoming again bedfellows of power. As I conceive of the matter theologically, the question is, “is it consistent with the mandate of the church for Christians to participate in the administration of the power of the state”. I think that there is risk to all such administration, but that it is not inherently wrong. It is a matter that requires ongoing discernment and a willingness to let go of power, rather than cling to it at serious cost.
thankyou, again for posting and I appreciate your passion on the matter.
dlw
The 16th of November, 2006 at 6:09 am
Thank you for your kind words. I also really appreciate the dialogue. I have been trying to say this for a couple of posts, but realize I have not really said it clearly: Don´t understand what I write as an argument against your position, but as an explanation to why I view “big politics” as a less fruitful way of doing christian politics.
I agree with you that being in a place of power is not inherently wrong, but very few examples of christians in positions of power who have not compromized their twestimony comes to mind. One such would be Dag Hammarskjold, another mother Theresa, yet another Vaclav Havel. In all those instances the focus of their work has not been power, but service anf they have not been able to use force to reach their ends.
The 16th of November, 2006 at 11:30 am
Thankyou for the explanation.
I was not familar with Dag Hammarskjold. I\’ll google him up.
As I understand it, all legal change is a matter of altering the way the Sword of the state is wielded. This is why I have a problem with using the same language as you re power and force. I have a both/and/but approach to power under/over as I believe there is missional basis/precedent for the use of power under and power over but that it is through the power under, particularly at the grass roots level, that our faith belongs for making lasting changes possible. I find the movie, \”The Departed\” as a good illustration of the futility of \”power over\”/force for making lasting changes.
I hope and pray that you will share my house church model for political activism with others in Sweden and that an irenic dialogue on matters of faith and politics may ensue.
dlw
The 16th of November, 2006 at 12:04 pm
[…] Kudos a minn bror i tro(my brother in faith) Daniel Astgård, who has been dialoguing with me on Faith and Politics in the comments of my house church model for political activism, I have learned about the life of Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjöld. Here is the introductory paragraph on his influences. [He] was the youngest of four sons of Agnes (Almquist) Hammarskjöld and Hjalmar Hammarskjöld, prime minister of Sweden, member of the Hague Tribunal, governor of Uppland, chairman of the Board of the Nobel Foundation. In a brief piece written for a radio program in 1953, Dag Hammarskjöld spoke of the influence of his parents: “From generations of soldiers and government officials on my father’s side I inherited a belief that no life was more satisfactory than one of selfless service to your country - or humanity. This service required a sacrifice of all personal interests, but likewise the courage to stand up unflinchingly for your convictions. From scholars and clergymen on my mother’s side, I inherited a belief that, in the very radical sense of the Gospels, all men were equals as children of God, and should be met and treated by us as our masters in God.” […]
The 8th of December, 2006 at 10:24 pm
The idea is good in one way. It has the intention to create a christian community that tries to make a change in the political matters, but mainly focus on spreading the gospel and pray together. (I hope!)
But the problem is that humans have a difficulty in leaving their choices and to other persons without knowing what will happen with their choice. Who will “lay down” his political will in different matters to another, even if it´s a “brother” or “sister”? It´s a matter of trust. And I´m not sure that people. including christians, trust each other that much! Many persons in the community will think; “hmmm… do the guys represent me as good as I would represent myself.”
So I don´t think there will be that many that willingly will let other vote for them, or represent them this way. In Sweden we already have a “represent-house” national (riksdagen) and local (”county” - kommunstyret)
In some way it would be like having a representant who vote for me to get a representant to rule and vote in the “representant-house”. Does it sound complicated? It is!
Im not sure you mean this kind of elections David, but if we just talk about questions I must agree with TORO; people, not only in Sweden, is invividualists that don´t trust other to choose for them.
And there´s another thing. How will it develop? People will be even more unintrested in political issues with someone else making their engagemang or involvement for them. How will the members relate to the issues, even if they are “informed”. I think the only way to make changes it to engage the whole group, how hard it ever can be, to make differences political.
If people are motivated there can be changes. So there´s a big need for persons spreading enthusiasm for the important matters.
And there´s something not to be forgotten. If we try to make political change, we have to pray a lot and ask God about what to do - some is told inte the word- but not all! With knowing were God will send us to make changes it will be a lot easier.
So conclusion. The idea of trying to make people more engaged among christians; good! But I think the whole croup must be engaged to make an impact.
And by the way… I´m to tired to try to correct my poor english… have compassion with swede trying to be understandable!
The 8th of December, 2006 at 10:58 pm
The idea is good in one way. It has the intention to create a christian community that tries to make a change in the political matters, but mainly focus on spreading the gospel and pray together. (I hope!)
I agree.
But the problem is that humans have a difficulty in leaving their choices and to other persons without knowing what will happen with their choice. Who will “lay down” his political will in different matters to another, even if it´s a “brother” or “sister”? It´s a matter of trust. And I´m not sure that people. including christians, trust each other that much! Many persons in the community will think; “hmmm… do the guys represent me as good as I would represent myself.”
dlw: One could ask are having my personal views represented to the max as important as improving our witness to others and exerting more influence (on some issues) at the informal local community and at the kommunstyret and the the riksdagen?
Honestly, realistically can we claim that our voice is that significant in most political debates and can we justify putting as much time and energy into the issues that could have been spent praying, reading the Bible and doing local ministry for people?
So I don´t think there will be that many that willingly will let other vote for them, or represent them this way. In Sweden we already have a “represent-house” national (riksdagen) and local (”county” - kommunstyret)
In some way it would be like having a representant who vote for me to get a representant to rule and vote in the “representant-house”. Does it sound complicated? It is!
dlw: Yes, you would delegate someone to monitor your representatives or read the relevant articles on the three or four issues your group chose to prioritize. I think all politics takes place through intermediary institutions that hold politicians accountable. I think only intermediaries that we are in community with can we truly trust to do this well.
Im not sure you mean this kind of elections David, but if we just talk about questions I must agree with TORO; people, not only in Sweden, is invividualists that don´t trust other to choose for them.
dlw: Shouldn’t the Christian community, in a decentralized fashion seek to form relationships where one can trust each other in a limited realistic fashion? I think it is easier to trust a careful review of three or four issues each at the local or national levels, with more attention being given to the parties that the group considers feasible. I don’t think that is rocket-science. I think if the person is relatively well educated and articulate it should not be too much of a burden.
The goal in picking the topics and the presentation of the summaries on them and the selective calls to action should be subject to the constraints of complementing the local ministry of the group/church and maintaining trusting relations with each other.
I think trusting relations are best maintained in smaller groups who are committed to similar views on morality and ongoing interaction with each other.
Lars:And there´s another thing. How will it develop? People will be even more unintrested in political issues with someone else making their engagemang or involvement for them. How will the members relate to the issues, even if they are “informed”. I think the only way to make changes it to engage the whole group, how hard it ever can be, to make differences political.
dlw: I think they would all act together or be engaged periodically, that would be part of the agreement to both abstain from processing the streams of political information and to act together on critical occasions. The main difference would be that the group members would rely on their specialist to monitor and collate the information on the topics of interest. The rest of the group would be updated periodically. I said initially every 3 or 4 months. This could be even more frequent if practice showed that it was needed.
Lars: If people are motivated there can be changes. So there´s a big need for persons spreading enthusiasm for the important matters.
And there´s something not to be forgotten. If we try to make political change, we have to pray a lot and ask God about what to do - some is told inte the word- but not all! With knowing were God will send us to make changes it will be a lot easier.
dlw: I think that would be particularly important in selecting the issues that the specialist would focus on and the groups they should monitor. For me, the rule of thumb would be that the political activism should complement the ministry of the group.
Lars: So conclusion. The idea of trying to make people more engaged among christians; good! But I think the whole croup must be engaged to make an impact.
And by the way… I´m to tired to try to correct my poor english… have compassion with swede trying to be understandable!
dlw: No problems, tusand tack.
dlw
The 18th of December, 2006 at 5:15 am
Hmmm. It’s not quite a church. It’s not quite a party.
I think what you are trying to describe is really a movement.
Leaving aside how a movement is actually organized for another day, and keeping my comment as generic as possible for now, it seems to me that movements gain the most momentum when they are multidimensional and have “two wings” or two complementary sets of agendas that a diverse set of people can organize around. In this case people from a number of different churches and perhaps even a number of different political parties as well.
The 18th of December, 2006 at 2:28 pm
It could be the same as house churches or cell groups. It does matter that there be community within the thirty or less people.
Hmm…I look forward to hearing more from you on this…
dlw
The 7th of February, 2007 at 7:11 pm
david,
I think your approach has merit. It attempts to resolve the sorts of critiques that I (as someone with an Anabaptist perspective) would level to those Christians that are politically active:
1) It doesn’t depend upon use of the political system to bring about change. Instead, the community focuses on “doing the stuff” and relies upon a few politically minded folks to help leverage votes so that the community as a whole can have their focus elsewhere.
2) It allows Christians to enter into “public space” more authentically as Christians.
3) It undercuts the individualism often intrinsic to American Democracy.
However, as you know, I would have difficulty getting on board with this fully. You and I have talked about this stuff before and I think you know why, at least from my perspective, I opt-out of voting past the non-local level. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t have any problems encouraging my politically-active friends into your direction. There is a lot of redemptive power with your approach that is definitely a HUGE step in the right direction. Yoder is a good role model for me in this–he often times would encourage ideas that he disagreed with because he thought that they moved the conversation in the right direction. Though I am a Christian Anarchist, I admit that if more Christians put this plan into action, America and the Church would both be richer for it.
The 7th of February, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Why would it be hard for you to get on board with it? You could very easily be one of the people who were focused on the local ministry aspects or if your Missio Dei did it, you could all agree for an even lesser is more approach.
I just don’t seem to get your position. If somethings good for more Christians then why not join them? It comes across as very irrational. The “evilness” of the state is not going to change dramatically either way.
dlw
The 7th of February, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Hmm…Your attitude to my perspective seems a bit condescending. I am not a kook, but usually when I articulate my view, you share how off or irrational it is.
Your perspective is indeed good for Christians…but isn’t the best or most consistent approach. It isn’t as though my weird anabaptist anarchist perspective is widespread…why do I need to encourage Christians to engage in public space through democracy to positively influence society? What the world needs more of, in my view, is the church-as-prophetic witness. Your approach, better than most approaches that are sympathetic to classic liberalism (in the broad theological sense in which both Republicans and Democrats and everything in-between tend to embrace), tries to be prophetic while also working within the system. I affirm that attempt…it is better than the approach most Christians advocate. But it isn’t my approach. I find the anabaptist vision more compelling. Since very very few Christians share in my convictions, I don’t see why it is detrimental to pursue it.
You say that the “evilness” of the state is not going to change dramatically either way…that may be true. However, I don’t know how it is better, in the long run, for Missio Dei to engage in the approach you offer instead of focusing all of its energy in embodying a counter-ethic.
The 7th of February, 2007 at 11:43 pm
I’m glad this is not coming across as personal attacks.
You gotta understand that’s just the way your perspective comes across. Your hermeneutics of scripture are welldone, but the last part when you relate it to Christian anarchism usually is the most tenuous. You implicitly claim a more true macro-theistic perspective on things regarding the state, but from a critical realist interp of the Bible and someone trained in the modern social sciences the perspective comes across as deceptively beguiling. I don’t want to paint a rosy pic of the state, but I don’t want to demonize it, nor do I want to claim that there is no human-agency involved in how it wields violence.
As for my perspective not being the “most consistent”… I think you need to unpack that. My position is missional holism and ecumenical fallibilism in the advancement of the kingship of God. I think I’m quite consistent with that in my above house church model. Whereas, I don’t see the consistency in cheering on others actively participating in the political process when you yourself refuse to cross that line.
MVS:It isn’t as though my weird anabaptist anarchist perspective is widespread…why do I need to encourage Christians to engage in public space through democracy to positively influence society?
dlw: If the above would positively impacts our ability as Christians of different traditions to share our faith with others then why shdn’t as many of us as possible seek to do it? There is a band-wagon effect on these sorts of movements. And I never used the term “society”, as you may not have noticed. The issue here is not positively influencing society but whether some limited participation in political decision-making is part of loving our neighbors and complementary to the Great Commission.
I see no reason from an Anabaptist perspective to reject that statement, apart from extrascriptural traditions that view the state as irreparably pagan or a rather literalistic view of what it means to follow Jesus in our changing contexts. If that’s condescending its because it honestly reflects how my own Swedish Baptist Pietist view sees things.
MVS: What the world needs more of, in my view, is the church-as-prophetic witness. Your approach, better than most approaches that are sympathetic to classic liberalism (in the broad theological sense in which both Republicans and Democrats and everything in-between tend to embrace), tries to be prophetic while also working within the system.
I think we are within the system whether we like it or not. If that is true then it is only logical to be prophetic while within the system. After all, God’s mysterious workings can also be found within the system, though muddled by the misuse of human freewill by Christians and others.
MVS:I affirm that attempt…it is better than the approach most Christians advocate. But it isn’t my approach. I find the anabaptist vision more compelling.
dlw: You mean, like it’s not your favorite flavor of icecream? Come on… visions are like swimsuits, what they reveal is interesting but what they conceal are often vital…
Since very very few Christians share in my convictions, I don’t see why it is detrimental to pursue it.
dlw: Now, that is a logically fallacious argument. I think I’m going to use it for Christian marxism or Christian totalitarianism next… Come on, if something advances the kingship of God then we shd be encouraging other Christians to emulate it. There needs to be a market-place of sorts of ideas/practices among Christians. Yes, we will have differing traditions, but lets not discourage new cross-pollinations by claims that one doesn’t want to be a Cafeteria (fill-in-the-blank). I get the e-letters from the anabaptist organization PeaceMajority Report and they are quite political. Another example would be the anabaptist blogger Michael Westmoreland-White who is even employed as a political activist.
MVS:You say that the “evilness” of the state is not going to change dramatically either way…that may be true. However, I don’t know how it is better, in the long run, for Missio Dei to engage in the approach you offer instead of focusing all of its energy in embodying a counter-ethic.
dlw: I don’t see how not engaging in the approach I am pushing would counter the goal of engaging all of one’s energies in embodying a counter-ethic. Pooling one’s vote with 30 or less people and letting someone make the key decisions for you, that would be a pretty serious counter-ethic.
You could even take it lower-key and just vote for the candidates in state and nat’l levels(whose party got at least 5% of the vote in the last election) that took less money in amounts above fifty dollars per donor. You combine that with possibly encouraging lower-income people to vote through personal visits right before elections and the fraction of time diverted from your ministry would be minimal. Would it help your ministry? That would be an empirical question. If it didn’t help then one could go back, but is there a truly good reason not to try it?
sorry if this offended you. I obviously believe its worth pushing some on, but if you don’t want to respond or simply want the last word on it, I’m fine with that. I don’t see myself coming up with too many radically new arguments.
dlw
The 8th of February, 2007 at 12:18 am
I don’t want to keep rehashing the same arguments on this. Some of my last comment could have been worded more precisely. Especially where I say that “since very very few Christians share in my convictions, I don’t see why it is detrimental to pursue it.” My point was more emotive than logical.
I think the best approach is to try to figure out the overlap and work to enlarge that overlap–if you catch my meaning.
I think I’d be more willing to engage your model at the local and perhaps the state level as well. That is where it has the most merit for our particular context. We at Missio Dei definitely want to get more involved with the issues that effect the people in our neighborhood. Having a couple people in our community who focus their time understanding those issues and sharing their findings with others is well worth it.
Meanwhile, we are also interested in exploring various economic and health-care alternatives that aren’t as dependent upon the state…for example something like “health democracy” (www.healthdemocracy.org) is worthy of exploration. If someone wants to fight for a better national healthcare plan, then they can go right ahead. I don’t think it is necessarily “evil” to try to bring about change via the national political system. We should look at things case by case as we engage in the political process as Christians (I reject the myth of a secular public space).
My perspective is more nuanced than it comes off at first blush, I think. Most of what drives my thinking are things like the rejection of the myth of a secular public space (like I mentioned earlier…here I take my lead from Hauerwas and Cavanaugh), an understanding of the Gospel that centers around nonviolence, a largely realized eschatology (where Christ is already our political King instead of “not yet” our political King), and a fundamental refusal to place affiliation with any group before allegiance to other brothers and sisters in Christ (in particular and especially the state).
It is possible that I may someday change my mind on these issues, but I am much more likely to change my mind about the particulars of what it looks like to live these sorts of convictions out.
The 8th of February, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I’m not arguing for a secular public space. I’m arguing for missional holism.
I’m arguing that the issue is not violence vs non-violence but a matter of whose interests the state wields its monopology of legit violence on behalf of. I don’t see how Christian participation in political change as violent, though it will inevitably engender some conflict. I think decentralizing much of decision-making to house-church/cell-group level is the best way to deal with conflict, as Christian community is strongest at that level.
I have an implicit not yet completely realized eschatology. I think Christianity is still suffering from the 30 years war and its aftereffects and that the poor health of Christianity is affecting our social/political/economic institutions. I see Christian Anabaptist/Anarachist thinking as bearing some of the scars of that event as well.
I am not asking you to affiliate with any group, I’m asking you to value helping to constrain the influence of $peech on our democracy as part of your ministry. The way I see it, you, thru Missio Dei and those you would have some influence over could get at least a hundred people to vote that would otherwise not vote. That could easily tip a Senate election and help determine the majority rule of the Senate.
The Dems are not perfect, but them remaining in power at the nat’l level is the best option we have for mitigating the influence of $peech in our country’s policy-making and I believe pragmatically that is what is most important for checking a country’s willingness to go to war, as with war the political-economic gains are always concentrated, while the political-economic-human losses are widespread.
dlw
The 8th of February, 2007 at 1:45 pm
[…] I rewrote the earlier post I made on a house church model for political activism. I think I made it more clear that the purpose of the model was missional holism. I invited my former fellow seminarian and fellow blogger/brother in Christ Mark Van Steenwyk to read it. He commented on it and an exchange ensued. […]
The 11th of February, 2007 at 4:18 pm
dlw, I wonder if you might enlarge upon what you mean by “missional holism” including detail about its general features.
Personally I’ve given up on the whole idea of the Church engaging the World from within the World’s own power structures. (yep, that means I’ve pretty much counted myself out of that Christian Democracy project I was working on!). I think we have all witnessed with our own eyes the damage that is done when we allow our Christian faith to be co-opted by the World. It dilutes the witness of the Church and weakens the voice we must use to speak truth to power.
We all want the World to change. And it can. Holy Scripture states in words of great plainness that the World changes when the Church makes manifest the will of God on the basis of the fellowship of the Church in the form of actual demonstration of a life without poverty, with war and without racism, and probably as an extra bonus, without reality tv too. Therefore the Scripture says that the nations will gather to Zion to learn of Her ways. It doesn’t say the Church will change the World by forming some kind of fifth column within the World.
At least this is the logical conclusion of a belief I’ve long held that Jesus is our King, quite literally, and that the political effort of the Church must be seen in that context.
The 11th of February, 2007 at 4:22 pm
typo alert: I meant to speak of the churches actual demonstration of a life without poverty, WITHOUT war and…ee tak dal yeye…you get the picture.
The 11th of February, 2007 at 9:52 pm
dlw, I wonder if you might enlarge upon what you mean by “missional holism” including detail about its general features.
dlw: I think you shd read my integrating motif. I’ll send you a copy of my statement of faith when I finish it this week…
My vision would include: inner missions, such as making US Christians more biblically literate and aware of their history and the “politics of Jesus”, fostering the need for reflection on our witness to the world that is less concerned with getting our church to grow bigger, better relations/exchanges between European and USAmerican and 2/3rds world Christians, more racial reconciliation within churches,; outer mission, a strong push for a detente in the cultural wars issues(with the issues reframed in ways that make such a detente more feasible), getting more devout Christians to be swing voters in elections on specific issues apart from our selfinterests, pushing for political system changes that help third parties get footholds onto power so as to make the main two parties be more dynamic,(I think this would make third party activism more Christ-like as the focus would be on helping to make political changes happen than getting our people into power.) acting even more on behalf of the people in the 2/3rds world through all of our lifestyle choices, such as supporting organizations like FAIRTRADE and labor institutional reforms in the 2/3rds world, we got to get taxes on scarce resources like oil/gas so as to steward it better as a resource, reduce pollution and the amount of money going to oil/gas autarchs. And, for that to happen, I think we need to get the US to repent of our hyper-individualism so that we’ll be willing to make the sacrifices and not be so focused on keeping gas-prices lower in the short-run. I could also mention other issues I’ve championed here at my blog. I see it as a blog-treatise on what missional holism is about.
Alan A:Personally I’ve given up on the whole idea of the Church engaging the World from within the World’s own power structures. (yep, that means I’ve pretty much counted myself out of that Christian Democracy project I was working on!).
dlw: I think we are hooked up to the matrix whether we admit it or not. I think that house churches and third parties can provide the momentum for the changes I’ve mentioned above. I don’t see too many barriers to folks trying out the house-church/cell group idea, though if it could get more popular exposure, it would be better. I also think that the coming two years would be ideal for trying to get a pragmatic alliance formed of third parties at the state level that would be focused on changing the state legislative political system to be more third-party friendly. I think given the current political system, that a pragmatic(pan-ideological) alliance is the only way forward for changing the US political system.
I think we have all witnessed with our own eyes the damage that is done when we allow our Christian faith to be co-opted by the World. It dilutes the witness of the Church and weakens the voice we must use to speak truth to power.
dlw: I think the damage is largely due to the weaker habits of political deliberation by many white USEvangelicals. This is what allwed their faith to be coopted in ways that harmed our witness. I think that our voice needs to be coupled with fallible leaps of faith that inevitably work within the existing system.
When we demonstrate our ability to thoughtful strategic participants in political issues without letting such matters define us then we will speak truth to power.
We all want the World to change. And it can. Holy Scripture states in words of great plainness that the World changes when the Church makes manifest the will of God on the basis of the fellowship of the Church in the form of actual demonstration of a life without poverty, war and without racism, and probably as an extra bonus, without reality tv too. Therefore the Scripture says that the nations will gather to Zion to learn of Her ways. It doesn’t say the Church will change the World by forming some kind of fifth column within the World.
dlw: I think you’re discounting the holistic nature of the ministry of reconciliation and whether Christians helping to administer the sword of the state and alter how it is wielded is a part of our itness to the World.
AA:At least this is the logical conclusion of a belief I’ve long held that Jesus is our King, quite literally, and that the political effort of the Church must be seen in that context.
dlw: From my perspective, our proclamation of Jesus as Lord implies that Caesar is not lord which further implies a desacralization of the state, which is an underlying premise in political theory and the social sciences. The aforementioned would not have blossomed as they did if it were not for the impact of Jesus on Western Culture. Though there is a fair amount of obfuscation and myth-propagation going on in such endeavors as well.
So I would say that while I think your and Mark’s pessimism may be understandable, they do undercut missional holism. I think one has to believe that Christian leadership on slightly politiciazed house churches/cell groups and strategic structural reforms in the political system are a feasible venue for our activism that would complement, not displace, the rest of our ministries.
dlw