A Church on the Streets

Protesting. You could say that that this is what I do every day on social media. Although, most would identify this as a passive form of activism – slacktivism – I raise that to make the point that this is fairly innocuous. I have actually attended two protests in person. Both were protesting against the TPPA. You could say that I am a newbie at this form of public resistance. I decided to attend these more forms of activism to put my body in line with my head and my heart. It was initially intimidating considering participating in a protest. But, one of the biggest reasons for getting involved was my faith. For some partaking in a protest would be the antithesis of being faithful. However, for me, it was a way of actively showing solidarity with those who would be most adversely impacted by the TPPA. I thought this was in a similar vein to the Biblical prophetic tradition and in Jesus’ radical hospitality to the stranger who he himself identified with (Matthew 25).

Studying sociology at Auckland was where I encountered the false dichotomy of private and public. Though, attending Carey Baptist College had begun this process. During this period I encountered Shane Claiborne, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, and others who opened up my eyes to the existence of the previously invisible – the Christian left. Sociology, however, raised the stakes and rattled the bars. I realised that all of life is political because all of life is social (involves others) and all of life is implicated by those in/with power. A byproduct of this was that I had all the more reason to be dead set against neoliberal capitalism (that still has not changed) and was inspired by more egalitarian economic initiatives. These thoughts developed and once I began studying at both Carey and Auckland these thoughts began to cohere. Although, arguably the kingdom for me resembled more the “skinny-jeans gospel” that Scot McKnight challenges in “Kingdom Conspiracy.” I was torn between a socialist Christian vision and a liberal political vision. My Facebook feed offered an amalgamated presentation of these contradictory elements.

Last year I began to see the value in a theology of citizenship. I was particularly toying with the possibilities of a theory of dual citizenship (somewhat similar I now realise to Martin Luther’s two kingdoms doctrine). Dual citizenship, I thought, offered conceptual promise as a way to maintain absolute loyalty to Jesus Christ as the Lord (Tom Wright had inscribed this point deep within me) while still affirming the public role and responsibility of Christians. Examining and exegeting key texts (Ephesians 2:19 and Philippians 3:20) for my People of God paper, confirmed my hunch; there was room for a political church. During this period, I found again the existence of something I was fairly unfamiliar with, a love for the church. The church went from being a hindrance to the kingdom to being the citizens of God’s inaugurated (here-but-not-yet) kingdom. A passion that was inflamed by the books of Scot McKnight. However, McKnight’s outright dismissal of different forms of Constantinianism and the priority of the church as the new society and polis of God deflated my hopes for dual citizenship.

A new thought began to materialise. I was still passionate about citizenship and I was beginning to wonder whether a theology of citizenship could complement and offer a new direction for public theology. However, having to read much of the published works of the public theologian, William Storrar, had made me question a public theology (like his) that gave undue faith to the political processes of liberal democracy. Admittedly, I saw myself at a dead-end or more truly a loose end. This year I returned to William Cavanaugh’s work on the body of Christ as an alternative body politic to the state. Cavanaugh’s works have been my bread and butter for much of this year. Over time, I began to doubt the thinking of the nation-state as a neutral arbitrator of society and as a benevolent actor who invited intermediary bodies. Instead, I saw the state as an all-consuming power and a threat to not only civil society (which is overrun by the state) but the church.

I realised that the church was the answer. Stanley Hauerwas (one of Cavanaugh’s formative mentors) was right the church did not have a strategy it was the strategy. But, this required the church, in his words, to be the church so that the world could be shown to be the world. McKnight had been right to displace the state as the strategy towards the kingdom and replace it with the church. The problem though was that the church was running errands for the world. Where I wondered was the church as an alternative, political body? The church I began to realise needed to own its political reality as the body politic of Christ and as the citizens of God’s kingdom.

This brings me to where I am today. I have been reading material to prepare (figure out the viability of a long-held hunch) for my Master’s thesis for next year in which I will bring together William Cavanaugh with Judith Butler. In the former Catholic political theologian and the latter queer/feminist/gender-politics theorist, I hope to bring out the political nature of the church. In fact, I hope to offer a solid rationale for why the church should be on the streets.

TPPA: Have the People (Out)spoken?

Today I went to the TPPA protest in town. For many, protests are classed as antisocial, or a mere waste of time, or a considerable inconvenience to members of the public. I want to acknowledge that protests risk becoming violent and that protests can unnecessarily affect the general public. Today’s interventions on the on ramps and off ramps of the motorway were rather foolish and there is no doubt that commuters were adversely impacted by the various demonstrations. I do want to apologise to those who were prevented today from arriving at their respective destinations, whether it was work-related, social in nature or some other engagement.

However, I want to recognise too that today’s actions were necessary. There have been numerous protests over the last few years related to this partnership. Many would say since these protests had little effect, what was the point of doing another demonstration today? It was for a number of reasons.

One of them was that after all the public outcry there was still little acknowledgement by Key and his administration of the legitimacy of the concerns of the public. This comes across as arrogant when we live in a democracy and even more worrying when expert voices in health, law, and academia have vocally expressed their trepidation over the agreement. It has been even more troubling that Key has disparaged these respectable professionals rather than engage with their arguments. He has only widened the division between those who were worried about the agreement and those who were satisfied with the trade deal or simply uninformed or uninterested about it. He has merely expanded this schism through his frequent and open use of pejoratives and derision.

A related secondary reason for protesting is that Key and his key ministers instead of attempting to create discussion have created further discord. They have favoured an approach of blind trust rather than opting for an informed citizenry. This has meant that the public has had a staple diet of spin rather than substance. A democracy thrives on a healthy public sphere but for this public issue, we have had very little rigorous debate despite specialist’s offers to critically engage with the Key administration. These simple assurances of the TPPA being in New Zealand’s best interests have further added to the confusion and dissonance surrounding the agreement.

Thirdly, the trade negotiations have been done in secret. For many this has been a sign of a lack of good will by the government. After all were not the NZ public advised by the government for the “GCSB” Bill that if you have nothing to hide then there is no cause for concern? After such arguments, the lack of transparency over the TPP agreement would surely indicate a lack of consistency at best or moral integrity at worst? What’s more is that these circumstances were shared by all the citizens countries involved in the agreement and all expressed the same disapproval of this secrecy which betrayed their democratic values. Yet, corporations were offered ample opportunities to see the agreement and to inform its content.

Fourthly, is that this these undemocratic measures have been justified under the guise that this has been standard protocol for previous trade agreements. However, this claim neglects to recognise that this is not your average trade agreement. This agreement has no historical equal. It concerns all manner of issues ranging from copyright to pharmaceuticals, to financial regulations (that could prevent another recession), and to corporations having the capacity to sue us for decisions made in the best interests of its citizens. The scope of this agreement is extensive and will undoubtedly impact the lives of the average citizen in the signatory countries.

Fifthly, despite the potential issues posed by the last concern we have been given the reassurance that a lawsuit has never happened before in the history of previous agreements. However, this overlooks the fact that new trade agreements, like this one, offer new opportunities for lawsuits that could lead to the first time. New Zealand has no history of lawsuits by corporations but Australia is still in the midst of a lawsuit – made possible through trade agreements tied to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – for its legislation to put into place plain packet packaging for cigarettes that could decisively influence NZ’s own attempts at legislation. Therefore, the apprehension of concerned public citizens, over the prospect of NZ facing legal action over laws made for the betterment of the country, is reasonable.

Consequently, with all of these qualms, questions, and quandaries which were not satisfactorily addressed is it any wonder that the NZ public responded with non-violent direct action today? Isn’t it miraculous that people despite their disquiet and desperation didn’t resort to violent action? That being said I’m certainly not condoning such actions. However, I think that direct action was tame compared to what could have ensued.

Furthermore, was it really surprising that there was such a heavy presence of iwi given that the TPPA concerns the country’s sovereignty? Without the treaty’s claims being fully resolved they had every right to express their disapproval. What's more, what kind of signals are being sent to iwi when the TPPA is signed on the week of Waitangi Day and in New Zealand no less? Therefore, is it any wonder that Maori chose to abstain from conducting a powhiri for the signing of the agreement? Is it any wonder that Key was asked not to speak of the TPPA in his address at Waitangi? He was afforded the respect of the country’s PM to speak (albeit with conditions) at a time when he did nothing to mitigate the concerns of the people of the land.

Therefore, direct action was called for and was fully understandable given the circumstances. In a democracy shouldn’t we laud democratic participation rather than lambast those who choose to exercise their rights to protest and to protest with others? These citizens were not letting off steam. These citizens were not unstable, unproductive, or paranoid idiots. No. These citizens were fighting for the future of New Zealand. They don’t like the ominous nature of this agreement. Neither do I. I encourage each of you to ask yourself are their concerns and methods so surprising?