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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment