poserorprophet: Church and Government: The Pragmatic Angle

Dan (

poserorprophet) wrote,
@ 2007-09-09 09:48:00

Church and Government: The Pragmatic Angle
Stated simply this is what I would like to propose:

If we were to invest the same amount of time and energy into pursuing change through the Church that we invest into pursuing change through the government, then the payoff would be exponentially greater.

Sure, I won't deny that positive change can come through the government (or through the rather limited avenues for change that the government allows). However, it takes a great deal of time and energy to create even a little change, and big changes only occur very rarely.

I suspect that when we work through the Church we will be able to create much larger changes with much less time and much less energy.

Let me provide an example of what I'm talking about.

Homelessness is obviously a major problem in Canadian urban centres. Affordable housing might very well be the greatest need right now in places like Vancouver and Toronto. Pursuing change through the government requires a great deal of lobbying, of protesting, of capturing (and holding) the attention of the media, of rationalising, and of imposing constant pressure upon politicians, corporations, and policy-makers. Engaging in that process requires a great deal of time and energy and the end result is always minimal. The government creates 50 more units of affordable housing, or offers to open up 40 more shelter beds (in the winter only), that sort of thing. Given that a city like Toronto has 50,000+ homeless people, this is akin to putting a band-aid on a severed artery.

So, what is the alternative to this that the Church offers? Really, it's quite simple. We take the words of Isaiah 58 seriously and "bring the homeless poor into our homes." Rather than begging and pleading with the government, we simply become the change we seek elsewhere. Rather than wasting a great deal of time and energy asking the government to open new homes, we simply open our homes to the homeless.

And so on and so forth. Rather than waiting for the government to eradicate poverty (something that it will never do), we can become the sort of community that is described in Acts wherein a form of sharing exists that leads to the observation that "there were no needy persons among them" (Acts 4). It's all rather simple (which isn't to say that it is easy). All we need is a little imagination and a little courage; a little hope, a little faith, a little love.

Why waste all that time and energy elsewhere? Really, I can't help but think of something Jesus once said (brace yourself, Stephen & Co.!) in the Sermon on the Mount:

Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Of course, the "dogs" and the "swine" are the institutional Powers -- Businesses, Parties, and Laws involved (not the people, like Stephen & Co., whom I respect a great deal).

[I will now run for cover, and convince myself that I am right regardless of what is written in the comments.]

(Post a new comment)

	(Anonymous) 2007-09-09 06:17 pm UTC (link)
	I agree with your analysis of the government, as any good anarchist must. I am not convinced that we can push the church in the right direction either though. Christians, yes, people of faith, perhaps. Take church and make it Church, however, and then what? Peter (Reply to this)

	intentionalife 2007-09-09 07:30 pm UTC (link)
	duh, you are right. (Reply to this)

apdraper2000
2007-09-09 09:10 pm UTC (link)

I can totally get behind this proposal. Except for the interpretation of "pearls before swine." I'm rarely satisfied by interpretations of that verse, but I'm especially dissatisfied by yours.

Thomas Morris has an anecdote about someone who challenged him: why are you wasting your time teaching philosophy when the only thing that matters is working for nuclear disarmament? Morris gave a thoughtful answer, of course - the point is that there will always be people who say, "Why are you wasting your time doing [x] when all that really matters is [y]?" What they really mean is, "Why hasn't God called you to do the same thing that I'm doing?" In some cases, they may be right: God would really rather the person change their vocation to align it better with God's will. There's an inscrutability to vocation, though, which means those who spend a lot of time asking, "Why are you wasting your time...?" are probably wasting their time.

As long as you withhold that blanket judgment that Christians running for office, or what have you, are (we know FER SURE) wasting their time, I encourage you to speak long and loud about not putting our trust in these powerful (as in forceful) institutions and about what the church could be if we trusted God instead.

(Reply to this)

	Sue (Anonymous) 2007-09-09 10:45 pm UTC (link)
	Spot on, dude. Actually, I think the reason why we have got ourselves in this position of thinking the government should do everything is because of our inherent selfishness and refusal to do stuff the way Jesus said to do it. Imagine what would happen if the Church started taking Him seriously - wow! (Reply to this)

	Agree... wilsonian905 2007-09-10 12:28 am UTC (link)
	but just to be clear, I agree particularly that we should take people into our homes, and be the Church. Not that we should develop church programmes to house and feed people. But as you said... that we should do it. I used to. I'd pretty much decided that I couldn't anymore. Sigh. I don't think it was my call to make. (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2007-09-10 12:35 am UTC (link)
	Well put. However, for correctness of usage, I think that the community in Acts is one of believers (family) sharing amongst themselves, not the general public. (Reply to this)(Thread)

poserorprophet
2007-09-13 10:05 am UTC (link)

Hey Anon,

True, passage in Acts 4 is referring to sharing amongst Christians (as, indeed, are many of the other passages on "love" in the NT). However, there are three points I would like to make about this.

First, I think that extending Acts 4 to beyond confessional boundaries fits well with other major positions held by scripture (Deut and the prophets, for example, would lead us to conclude that such behaviour extends beyond confessional boundaries).

Second, and this is why I used the language of "confessional boundaries" in my first point, I believe that the poor can accurately be described as crucified members of Christ's body. Hence, sharing, as I describe it in my post, is a way of uniting the confessing and the crucified, two groups that, IMHO, should always belong together.

Third, a seemingly disproportionately high number of people who are homeless actually are Christians. I say "seemingly disproportionately high" because this is a purely experiential observation -- i.e. people on the street are far more open about their faith in Jesus than people in pretty much any other place (apart from church).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-09-10 01:08 am UTC (link)

Yes, the issue of homelessness is a prime example of where the church can be the church. I’ve seen this work -with some amazing results- and I certainly agree that such an initiative could work much more efficiently than lobbying the state. Indeed in these days of savage capitalism, the state is more concerned about securing “area competitiveness” than it is about the fate of homeless people.

What now of other issues, issues which cannot be dealt with through the Church. Let’s say we have a government investing in the most unethical company ever. The person who has the power to make a decision over it doesn’t believe in anything much and isn’t a member of any church.

Do you then do nothing at all, arguing that is not the business of Christians to tell non-Christians what to do? Do you leave your job working for that government so the blood doesn’t end up on your hands as well? Or do you phone up your friends, old professors and network and try to get someone to take that person out to lunch, hoping to shift “the state” for the better.

Some issues just need to be tackled from the top down. I don’t care if those who yield power over these are Christian or not, we’ll have to work with what goodwill we can find. The church -if those who are in power do not belong to it- is utterly irrelevant and powerless to change these things. So I’m quite prepared to work outside of it too and to speak whatever language they speak.

Dany

(Reply to this)(Thread)

yougavemehope
2007-09-11 06:13 am UTC (link)

I think there's a deeper issue at hand though. The fundamental problem is that people want to be unethical and others are okay with them being unethical. If you force them into paying lip-service to your ideology, they're going to push the boundaries as much as possible until it has been rendered nil. The fact is that we should not be supporting those companies to begin with. Look at companies like Coca Cola (dunno if you're aware of the whole Killer Coke thing, look it up if you're not); they've succeeded not because of government involvement or lack thereof, but because millions support them - including Christians.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	poserorprophet 2007-09-13 10:09 am UTC (link)
	Hey Dany, Thanks for the comment. Your comment reminded me a great deal of a book called Torture and Eucharist by William Cavanaugh. If you are interested in reading it, you may begin to imagine alternate ways in which the Church can create change (other than calling up powerful buddies and arranging luncheons). Grace and peace, Dan (Reply to this)(Parent)

practical example

justthischris.wordpress.com
2007-09-10 02:46 pm UTC (link)

Here, in my neighborhood, in the last week we have had three homeless people shot to death, two in the early mornings literally right outside my window. Another homeless person was shot to death outside the door of my daughter's school some blocks away. Tonight we are participating in a local prayer vigil at the very spot (outside my window) where two took place. In our participation in this prayer vigil, our church is involving itself in the realm of the political. We are mourning with those who mourn, not of our church. We are bearing witness that this violence effects us all and that we will not stand for it. Someone is targeting our neighbors. . . . and it must stop. We are visible as Christians, and yet being numbered with those working politically. Will this stop the killings? We don't know, but we are being the Church.

(Reply to this)

	steba 2007-09-10 05:05 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, you are provocative and - I'm afraid - right. Yestarday I had to say "No" to the option to invite one homeless friend of us to stay with us. I'm not happy with that. (Reply to this)

Not P.C.
(Anonymous)
2007-09-10 05:21 pm UTC (link)

I don't think the church could do a lot about homelessness even if they opened up their homes to them. Everyone is speaking of the homeless as if they were people simply lacking homes or little receptacles waiting for our love. In most cases they don't seek homes, or anything we would recognize as a home with a sense of order and relative safety. Their dysfunctions make them uncomfortable with that and thye more often prefer the 'community' of the street.

Remember these people may have come from dysfunctional abusive homes but they also have not appealed to their broader family and social network. That is indicative not of isolation but some profound social or mental disability. Many are chronically addicted to some substance. Often they are criminally inclined quite apart from their poverty. Mental issues are widespread. I don't think it's within the competence of most people in or out of the church to house most of these individuals.

It is not politically correct, but Christians should be campaigning (if not opening) mental institutions for most of these folks. That no one ever suggests this must result from either a sloppy romantic equation of 'the poor' of the Scriptures with these folks or deep form of denial that sees no personal or social problem Christianity can't fix if we were just faithful (echoed in comments here).

Homeless individuals eager for help, food, shelter, community, are quickly helped by many urban interfaith communities and private individuals (even those never-knew-the-love-of-Jesus suburban mega-church Christians, gasp!). These temporarily homeless people are easily recognized as the poor of the Scriptures by all. Most states are beginning to incorporate churches into the social helping network to prevent this form of homelessness among single mothers. This better matches the competence of the churches and addresses the problem at the stage when they can be most effective. I formally worked with a private organization that coordinated some of this activity.

I wonder why crusaders for the homeless rarely seem interested in helping the working poor which is a much larger issue. Is it because homelessness is more 'sexy' or visible? Helping the working poor is like doing your good deed in the closet after all. Or are the 'homeless' just a symbol that can more easily be manipulated to argue for social reform (capitalism is a failure, the church is a failure, etc.) Helping the working poor does feel like you are making 'the system' work better and you can remain middle class and safe while doing it. This may not be in the interest of those who want to challenge 'the system'. But if that is the case their passion is not so much for the homeless but rather symbolic witness against 'the system' since they are doing little to more effectively prevent homelessness.

Fido

(Reply to this)

itsmypulp.wordpress.com
2007-09-12 08:08 pm UTC (link)

I'm a little slow in responding. I needed to take a few days' break from the dispute.

I should also provide the url for my theological blog: http://emergingfrombabel.blogspot.com (My OpenID is for my "secular" blog.)

Here's my response to the post:

(1) I certainly agree that Christians should help the homeless (and, as Fido points out, the working poor). This may involve taking them into our homes but that isn't necessarily the only way to support them.

(2) As Fido points out, the needs of some homeless folks may be beyond our competence. I understand that the Church can be a place of healing for someone who has a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, or who has been severely abused. But no one should imagine that it will be easy to incorporate such a person into your household, especially if your household includes children.

(3) Someone else has made a good point: the New Testament calls us to serve fellow Christians. The famous parable in Mt. 25, where Jesus refers to "the least of these, my brethren" is probably directing us to look after fellow believers. I resist that conclusion, because it's contrary to Jesus' example. But Mt. 25 doesn't appear to have the breadth of application that social justice-minded Christians tend to assume it does.

(4) Re your specific thesis:

If we were to invest the same amount of time and energy into pursuing change through the Church that we invest into pursuing change through the government, then the payoff would be exponentially greater.

Perhaps. In part, it's because government has to balance the interests of all members of society. You want to prioritize the homeless: but government must also provide roads, and schools, and foreign aid, and hospitals, and jails, and electricity, etc., etc., etc. And yes, government also funds a military and a police force, and it also subsidizes big business, whether we like it or not.

The point is, Canadians expect comprehensive services from their government. Maybe government is paralyzed as a result, which supports the point you're making. But I just want to point out, we shouldn't leap to the conclusion that government doesn't give a damn about the homeless.

Second, maybe the problem lies with the indifference of the people. Government tends to respond (slowly!) to anything the community identifies as a priority. We're starting to see some signs of that now with respect to the environment — but it will only hold up if voters are willing to make sacrifices themselves for the good of the environment. In other words, if government doesn't help the homeless it's probably because voters don't care what happens to the homeless (at least, not in large enough numbers, and not with enough real conviction on the topic).

Third, don't assume that the Church can provide quick solutions either. Do you really think the Christian population of Toronto is suddenly going to take in 50,000 or more homeless people? I think you will be lobbying the Church for a very long time to find housing for 250 homeless people. As with voters, members of the church are likewise indifferent or simply overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem.

Some problems are truly intractable. My own area of engagement, with First Nations and Inuit people, is an example. There are no quick fixes. Everyone agrees that the problems exist, and they are heart-wrenching. So why weren't they fixed a long time ago? It isn't entirely because of a lack of will; it's also partly because the problems are complex and deeply challenging.

The Church has been around just as long as the government. So I ask again, why weren't these problems fixed a long time ago? In part because people don't care deeply enough; in part because the problems are intractable.

(Reply to this)

redirect "all that energy?"

ericdarylmeyer.wordpress.com
2007-09-13 02:29 am UTC (link)

Dan,

Thanks for keeping this going. This is a really helpful conversation.

Can I take issue with your initial thesis? I'm not sure that the amount of time and energy being invested into either ecclesial OR political avenues of tackling the problem under consideration amounts to all that much. The picture of a whole lot of effort being fruitlessly thrown at the government doesn't match my experience of the vast majority. The problem is more basic still. Most of us are content to tolerate the problems outside our doors so long as we have our own needs met.

I suppose that in my mind, the real solution is not an EITHER/OR model. It's not as if pouring all our time and effort into meeting the needs of the homeless through either the church or the government will solve the problem. The church can absorb all the folks on the streets into nice warm homes, but until the system that put them there in the first place is changed, there will be more. And the State can institute social programs until the military goes bankrupt and all the politicians are paid in food stamps, but some people will continue to fall through the cracks - and the church needs to be willing to take them in. You have yet to convince me that we need to choose. Can't we discern tasks and tactics that are more naturally handled by one or the other institution?

Re: Fido's comment - granted, in my experience most folks on the street don't "want" to come in. They don't really want to stay on the street either. As many "friends" as you might have out there, it still sucks... The problem is one of trust. When people trust you on the street, they are more willing to trust you when they come in. The solution involves mental help, yes. But more fundamentally it involves trust and relationship. In that context, folks can get the personal help they need--and for many it will be psychological. But a blanket policy of "cement to sanitarium" is as naive as any idealistic Christian vision of winos in the spare bedroom.

God's peace,
Eric

(Reply to this)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…