In the mainline churches, which is what I know best, the political views leaders express are generally those of what could be called the ”˜foundation left’ ”” emotionally grounded in concern for the poor and development, historically linked to the ”˜new left’ mix of economic and social concerns as developed in the 1960’s, shaped by an atmosphere of privilege and entitlement that reflects the upper middle class background of the educated professionals who run these institutions. The social sins they deplore are those of the right: excessive focus on capitalism, too robust and unheeding a promotion of the American national and security interest abroad, insufficient care for the environment, failure to help the poor through government welfare programs, failure to support affirmative action, failure to celebrate and protect the unrestricted right of women to abort. I am of course speaking very generally here and there are lots of individual exceptions, but many of these folks are generally tolerant of theological differences and rigidly intolerant when it comes to political differences: they care nothing at all about doctrines like predestination but get very angry with people who disagree with them about issues like global warming or immigration reform. Theological heresy is a matter for courtesy and silence, but political heretics fill them with bile….
Let me nail some cyber-theses to the virtual door.
1. Nobody cares what you think while your tiny church is falling apart.
In a diocese not a thousand miles from my home in glamorous Queens, there once was a bishop whose long and public battle with alcoholism rendered him unable to carry out his duties. For years and years this diocese suffered under grievous mismanagement and its rotten condition was an open scandal widely discussed and lamented throughout the national church. Yet in the general shipwreck of his episcopacy, this bishop (or what remained of the diocesan machinery) somehow managed to get ”˜prophetic’ statements out on political causes of various kinds. So far as I know, none of these statements ever had any impact on anyone’s thinking anywhere on Planet Earth.
This poor bishop, now thankfully retired, was an extreme case, but why, exactly, would any sane person today pay attention to the political pronouncements of an Episcopal bishop? Episcopalians are a tiny minority of the population and the church long ago lost its social power and cachet. The Episcopal church today is in the worst condition it has been since the aftermath of the Revolution; its clergy has visibly failed to keep the church together or prevent its ongoing decline. I’m afraid that the penchant to make political pronouncements proceeds less from a true prophetic vocation than from a nostalgia for a time when it mattered what Episcopal bishops thought. In any case, there is nothing more ridiculous than a proprietor of a failing concern who officiously lectures everyone else on how to manage their affairs. Please, for the sake of what remains of the dignity of your office, give it a rest….
I like this writer and particularly was struck with the following:
[blockquote] African church leaders compare their American counterparts to George W. Bush: arrogantly unilateral, deaf to other points of view, seeking to impose a uniquely American agenda on those who do not agree.
To mistake an ideology or a social model for the transcendent and always surprising (and irritating!) Kingdom of God is, technically speaking, the sin of idolatry. It is to worship the work of our own hands. What makes it worse is that to some degree in the mainline churches we have replaced faith in the scripturally based and historically rooted doctrines and values of the Christian heritage with faith in progressive social thought.
Instead of proclaiming a gospel of salvation that still brings lost sinners streaming through the doors (ask the Pentecostals and evangelicals who have continued to grow even as we shrink) we issue statements urging the federal government to fulfill its contributions to the Millennium Development Goals and to raise the minimum wage.
[/blockquote]
This is exactly what we can learn from the Global South leaders. Although they are like us far from perfect they are committed to spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a view to conversion, making disciples and changing society through releasing Biblically formed Christians into society. They have a vision for robust, spirit led, biblically literate churches. Their vision is spiritual and transformational. The political results are a result of spiritual change. In the end who do we follow the spirit of the age or the Holy Spirit. It is this choice that makes the difference. The spirit of the age is an idol and TEC is reaping the whirlwind for having chosen this idol.
When you believe salvation is to be found in government programs, social justice, tolerance, diversity, and the lot, true salvation through Christ tends to lose its importance. There is consequently no remaining reason for evangelism, as the path to salvation is right there at next month’s rally, or in the coming election. Membership and ASA subsequently follow a quite predictable path.
Here’s a handy guide — in the most dynamic and evangelism-focused churches, ASA will tend to equal or exceed membership.
Finally, I encourage all readers to explore another recent Mead column (buried in his links): [url=http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/28/american-challenges-the-blue-model-breaks-down] The Blue Model Breaks Down[/url], wherein he offers a multi-generational overview of how we got to our present situation and its likely [i]denouement[/i].
Spot-on!
Of course they won’t listen to him and do it but it was still worth pointing out.
[blockquote]The social sins they deplore are those of the right: …too robust and unheeding a promotion of the American national and security interest abroad.[/blockquote]
Here they and I agree but it’s accidental; they’re not interested in joining a coalition with us libertarians for example to do something about this. (Of course many of us are Not Their Class, Dear: the Wrong Kind of White People.)
Speaking from about as far left as it gets….i could not agree more. How does a degree in theology make you an expert in economics? or climate, or what have you?
#4: cos it makes you Prophetic, OK?
Great article! Wonderful truthtelling coming from the liberal perspective.
I am getting very tired of this misuse of the work “prophetic.”
It is not prophetic to ask the government to take money from some people to give to others.
It is not prophetic to speak out against our baptismal covenant or to bless practices that the Church finds sinful.
It is not prophetic to disobey the Body of Christ.
It is not prophetic to deny the truths taught in Holy Scripture or in the Creeds.
It is not prophetic to abandon the faith of the Church.
A prophet is one who speaks for God. The prophets in the OT cried again and again for the people to return to their covenant. The way that the rich treated the poor was not the problem. That was a symptom. The problem is that the people had forgotten their covenant with God.
The Prophet never calls people to forget or abandon or enlarge or change their covenant. The Prophet calls people back to the Covenant they made.
We need to recover our Covenant to believe what has been passed on to us and to pass it on to others.
We need to recover our desire to live according to the Apostles’ teaching and within their fellowship.
We need to abandon the false prophets of social activism and return to the covenant to live according to the Apostles’ teaching.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, that is a very convenient way of reading scripture. Scripture doesn’t quite treat the wealthy with kid gloves. Joseph paid his taxes; Jesus rendered unto Ceasar; and we’re all expected to give our shirts.
Perhaps the wealthy aren’t meant to be Christians, and we are not meant to have a Christian country, then. What is clear, as sinners, we do not share enough, even though we think we do.
Hmmm, Abram was a wealthy man when he left along with Lot. They got wealthier and had to split up. Lot took the urban route and values and lost it all. Abram got the less easy life and the covenant. Somewhere in there is paradigm not quite with the one John Wilkins notes. Could it be that poverty or wealth is neutral and what you do with it counts?
John,
You completely missed my point (as usual). The tax issue was one among several. It is not a prophetic call to call for the government to raise taxes on other people so that your pet problem can be “solved.” It is prophetic to call people back to their personal responsibility to care for the poor, the homeless, the sick, the oppressed and those in prison. In the parable of the sheep and goats, the sheep were not saved because of their government programs, but because of their personal involvement. The goats were not condemened because they lacked government programs, but because the did not get involved personally.
Part of the Apostles’ teaching is corporate works of mercy. Part of the Apostles’ teaching is also obedience to lawful government (and, yes, that includes paying taxes).
Too many “prophets” today are too interested in politics and political process – voting to achieve this end or win that vote. Instead of calling us to political processes, true prophets call us to repentence and to renewal of our Covenant with God.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
10, and of course some are always willing to do great things with other people’s money.
John: America is the most generous nation in the world — no other even comes close. In 2009 (not exactly a “good” year for anybody except government employees) Americans gave $300 Billion to charity. That’s more than we spent on consumer electronics of all sorts, gambling, and sports — [i]combined[/i].
It is clearly established that the stingiest states in the Union are those most solidly liberal in politics. Within those states the most generous are the working poor. Economically advantaged liberals support their own — NPR, the Sierra Club, etc — but share little with the poor. I guess they figure it’s government’s job.
The single best indicator of charitable giving in the US is religious observance, and people of faith contribute at a rate three or four times greater than others. About one-third of a giving is to religious institutions, and the pattern of that giving is generally similar amongst Christians, Jews, Mormans, and Muslims.
Much of that giving, however, merely passes [i]through[/i] the church to people in need. A Methodist church near us, for example, raised over half a million dollars for Haiti relief, from a very broad donor base (they have ASA around 10,000).
There is, however, one essential difference between private charity and government programs. Any charity gobbling up 25% of its funds on “administration” is likely to be investigated. In the case of federal government anti-poverty programs the key number is 24%.
Except it’s the other way around. Only 24 cents of every federal anti-poverty dollar ever make it to a poor person. The rest is “administration.”
As I said, it was a good year for government employees, but that’s another discussion. America is not yet ready to deal with the fiscal implications of the manner in which legislators across the land are currently hostage to unionised bureaucrats.
Philip,
I share your frustration with the loose identification of what is a prophet, and what is prophetic.
I believe, though, you have allowed the one loophole that is used to continue the problem. It seems primarily semantics, so forgive me for this critique, if so.
You said, “A prophet is one who speaks for God.” My understanding is that a prophet is one who speaks God’s word as it is given to him or her by God specifically for an intended audience, private or public. Thus it is a direct revelation. “I heard God tell me to tell you”, or “the Lord showed me a vision, and this is what he wants you to hear”, or “the Lord says to you…..”
A false prophet is one who says something denoting it as God’s message (“Thus says the Lord”), but it in fact did not come from God, or did not come from God at that time.
Of course, at some point, whether speaking prophetically or whether speaking on behalf of God’s message (which is what I heard when you said “speaks for God”), if it is not God’s message it is false. And then everything else you said……