Xtianity & Social Order - Ch4: Christian Social Principals
The purpose of this chapter is to announce that the Church as a voice to express Christian principals and inform people where things are in contrast to those principals. From there, the Church expects its people to act as citizens in their civic capacity to reshape existence.
This can very much sound like the Christendom model, relying on the governmental structure to accomplish Christianity. This is not the case at all however, rather the voice from the Church, quickened in the hearts of the members maneuver out as blood cells away from the heart to nourish community, then to return for their refocus.
Everybody conforms to certain communal structures, be it political, social, (both), economic or whatever. Social structures are inevitable and also pluralistic. A Christian in America does not engage existence in the same way as a Christian in Africa, yet both are dynamically moved by the Spirit to exist and press within the given structures - possibly to shift the structure.
Temple points out that self-centeredness is disastrous. He says: ...I am not the centre of the world, or the standard of reference as between good and bad; I am not, and God is. In other words, from the beginning I put myself in God's place. This is my original sin. (50)
To avoid the original sin of displacing God as center, and to exist within structure for God's purpose Temple's genesis is God. God begins Christian thinking about society. Thus man's value is:
...not what he is worth in himself or to his earthly state, but what he is worth to God; and that worth is bestowed on him by the utterly gratuitous Love of God.
In essence, this chapter sets up for Temple that humanity must rid itself of its self-centered tendencies. God is the beginning and the one to base order upon. From here, then the Church as it is and as it exists in individuals can move within the appropriate structure to encourage God's societal design.
Xtianity & Social Order - coming back to it
So I have taken a good month or two off of going through Temple's Christianity and Social Order. I left off at chapter 3, so I will be beginning shortly on chapter 4.
Please visit here for previous Temple writings.
Temple Wisdom
Just read this and liked it. Most people I know that this should speak to (well it should speak to everybody, but a specific group) wouldn't like it because it comes from one of the architects of the World Council of Churches ecumenical society, and that is just blasphemous huh. Well I like Temple's wisdom so here it is:
If we have any responsibility for one another's spiritual welfare we cannot, as a rule, meet that responsibility by methods of ostracism. There may be some cases where action of that kind will be effective in stimulating conscience for the first time. There will be far more where such action will have the effect of merely making the offending person resolute in his resistance to moral claims. You will merely put his back up.
William Temple, The Preacher's Theme To-Day, "Christianity, Ethics, Politics" (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1936) 72.
Temple Reflection - MLK Buttress
I am sure my Emergent and post-modern friends would object to my frequent use of institution in these William Temple reflections. I hesitate often to write them, but realize that my narrow philosophy is not all encompassing and that I need to include some Modern philosophy to keep me well rounded. To help with this, a quote from Martin Luther King reminds his audience, "The Kingdom of God is neither the thesis of individual enterprise nor the antithesis of collective enterprise, but a synthesis which reconciles the truth of both," (Strength to Love, 104).
Christianity and Social Order - Chp 3
Temple Reflection – Christianity and Social Order – chp 3.
“Has the Church Claimed to Intervene Before?”
The answer to the chapter title question is a resounding “Yes!” according to Temple. Almost fourteen of the fifteen pages Temple devotes to this chapter are sequential accounts of Christians of history intervening in the social order. He gives summaries for each major time period of Church history to prove his point.
Temple begins recounting the communal property of the disciples. He believes that this is an ideal situation for a small minority group, communal in focus and intimate, but frequently acknowledges the breakdown of community at the increase of population. He also points out, almost as often that the breakdown is due to the sinful nature of mankind. This most obvious observation can barely be refuted. Even in the most basic monastic communities, no doubt some issues of pride comes in.
Along with this idea, it is important to turn towards the modern New Monastic communities, the Simple Way being the primary media representative (though I would suggest looking at The Camden House and Rutba House as well-Google them). Even in these communities, private property is minuscule, but existing. Members buy or make clothes, tailoring their styles to match their personalities or personal convictions. Though, these clothes are viewed lowly, and would be given freely without much huff, ownership by possession still occurs.
After describing the Early Church's use of private property, Temple moves into later thinkers, Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and Luther. All these figures are the primary thinkers, but the discussion surrounds the Church. The specific mention of these leaders is not to single them out specifically, but to place a name to the thought of the age. The most notable thing Temple mentions in this description is the successive decrease of community and its effect on private property.
Temple's take on each theological era is interesting. It serves to show the regular interference of the Church, in so doing, he enlightens his reader with his economic biases. Early on in the chapter he states, “To renounce property is a conspicuously vivid act of personal freedom; to have no property or to be forcibly deprived of it is a serious infringement of personal freedom,” (33). Even here, Temple relegates economics to the individual, placing responsibility upon the individual, despite his later criticisms of such individuality, it is obvious that he cannot divorce himself from it.
Before delving deeply into the Church history, Temple sums up his entire view of private property, saying, “The fundamental Biblical principal is that the earth-land-belongs to God; men enjoy the use of it, and this use may be so regulated as to ensure to particular families both security in that enjoyment and exclusive right to it. But this was to be so done as to ensure also that all members of the community shared in the enjoyment of some portion,” (34). Members then should not be in exclusion-while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Throughout the chapter Temple writes positively on the thinkers who seem to follow this line of thinking and sobers his tone for thinkers who allow for massing large amounts of wealth. This is especially noticeable when he discusses the Puritans.
The presentation he gives on the Puritans is rather negative. What is most prolific from this portion of the discourse however is his complete degeneration of the law of supply and demand. This is what attracts me to Temple. His flirtation with the capitalist antithesis is astounding. It instructs all on the individual and corporate level that to ask a price that is more than reasonable, even if the buyer demands it at a higher price with a willingness to pay, is an embrace of avarice, of usury, of sin.
The position that Temple illuminates is that privation of goods need not be an issue of morality, though its cause may be due to immorality. Ultimately, the Church or parishioner lives a good life, a Godly life as a private owner, but at the point in which usury sets in, live becomes degenerative. Temple smoothes the high and low, making mountains into nubbins on the economic plane. People are close to equal, and must be given equality after certain periods, if inequality arises. He entreats the laws of Jubilee from the Old Testament to buttress his claim.
The Church must then have a theology and practice of interference. It must continue with its tradition of interference so long as people are unequal; so long as those gaining are oppressing, either directly or indirectly, those who have no opportunity to even possess.
Reflecting on Temple, imparting his wisdom for today, we must first root out the usurious attitudes that our individual, self-dignified, pompousness fuels. We must not fear privation of goods, and accumulating them in an acceptable manner, but we must be willing to renounce them for the sake of others. To allow people on the streets, to allow the African to starve, while watering our golf courses or funding high price sporting events is avarice. Both liberal and conservative do this and frequently and those who come from rags to riches often do not think to go back. Going back is necessary. We must reconnect with our roots, go back to the poorest of the poor. The Church community must go back and remember its lowly history and from there begin to pour blessing out of renunciation of wealth-not property necessarily, but wealth-and tumble mountains into mole hills economically.
Christianity and Social Order - Chp 2
Christianity and Social Order – Ch 2: "How Should the Church Interfere?"
Chapter 2 bids less reflection than Chapter 1 does. To answer the question titling Chapter 2, “How Should the Church Interfere?” Temple uses about half the pages he needed to explain Chapter 1. Naturally, once the introduction and layout of the book happens, it is just filling it in that is required. Each chapter, though no less important in content, need not waste much time on introduction. So into it I go.
Temple begins reminding his audience that a great number of things done in world have come from the Church. What he spins this positively, but certainly the Church has been involved in some scandalous affairs. Skipping past his introduction, sparing the gory, tainted past of the Church's History, Temple clarifies that, “Nine-tenths of the work of the Church in the world is done by Christian people fulfilling responsibilities and performing tasks which in themselves are not part of the official system of the Church at all,” (23).
Thus inlays the “public theology” of Temple. The Church does not sanction all of its work, for better or worse, but empowers and encourages the people of the Church to be Christian, to be members of the Body in their everyday life. Church institution, though necessary, need not define the all-encompassing moments of a parishioner's life. Instead, “public theology” the all-encompassing moments are defined by community, being a member of the Body of Christ.
Institutions compete for time and often loyalty, but community need not compete for either. Community exists in many facets, and institutions play into those facets. Not every member need be a part of every institution, but every member must be in community. Christians must search for transformation, as empowered by the Church institution that one belongs. Many Church institutions can empower the people, but each Church institution, denomination, faction, cliché and sub-culture must pour into the Church community and not preach denigration from it. The Church as individual parishioners and as distinct institution all comprise of the Church community. Within the community, Christianity must be played out as empowered by the individual and institution. It must be transforming from the inside.
As an institution, if it is to truly transform the community, the Church official must not “commit to any particular policy,” (24). As an institution, the Church is ill equipped to involve itself directly in other institutions. It competes with others, and vies for power. To quell this, the Church must only advise as it is effected, but never replace institutions for which it does not belong. It must leave the works to its members, commissioning them to hold Christ's loving and moral influence within the institution.
The Church need not stay out of government or corporate institution (or any other institution for that matter). Rather the Church can advise as it sees fit, but never displace these institution. The community, the Body must however act according to Christian principals as each engages. Like the government places regulations on the Church, but not on its members for attending religious services (in many countries, but not all), the Church need not call out members in government or business. Likewise, the Church can instruct not just its members, but community constraints on government or corporations. The Church as an institution holds some understanding of basic communal principals as dictated by Christ and need not feel ashamed to voice these. Ultimately, the Church institution deals with faith and practice of Christianity, and government deals with adherence and organization of a populous. Neither should claim its orthodoxy upon the other, but neither should attempt to exist without the other.
This puts a lot of responsibility on the informal community. Christians must then vote in manners that apply to their government and to the Church, maybe also to their business. However, the Christian must be obligated to participate in ways that cleave to Christian teachings, probably the two greatest commandments being priority, even at the demise of whatever institution, be it Church, business or government. Temple says about a Christian in government, “...Christians should vote in a Christian spirit at least to the extent of preferring the public advantage to their own, and of subordinating the interest of their own section of society to that of a section evidently in greater need,” (26). Thus the Christian, must vote in the least self-serving way, but in a way that the voter understands the “best” for the section. Subordinating self for the greater of the section is truly Christian and the influence in any institution is necessary.
Temple goes on to lament that Christianity has been regulated to the individual, personal aspects of living and that, “this whole area of human activity was evacuated by the Church,” (27). This still rings true for todays Church. Partisan Churches often end up glossing over true human activity for either political gain or a monopoly on morality. Abortion verses lowering the number of pregnancies becomes the issue and many other areas of embittering fighting occur.
Temple suggests for the Church as institution and community to repent of its evacuation tendencies. The Church often forgoes any viable option for policy, but as its figurehead is the leading agent of reconciliation for eternity, the Church must act, then, as an institution of reconciliation. It must be an “agent of goodwill,” (29).
Temple concludes his chapter reminding the reader that the Church is often unqualified for specialist issues. It must then be an interceder as an institution, and members must be transformers of community by individually taking charge for conciliation and development. Christians within specialist institutions must act as a Christian, led by the charge of Christ to follow and love both God and neighbor.
The Church, the institution and the community must therefore leave its petty ways. Partisanship must press down to individuals, who should still refrain from such loyalties, and all members, institutional and individual, of Christ's Body must be in search of reconciliation for the better of the community. This must, repeat, must not, be self-serving reconciliation. The Church uniquely must subordinate itself as its master. Governments, businesses and other institutions should as well, but all of these institutions lack the Christ, the Savior as their leader.
Christianity and Social Order - Chp 1
This is the first reflection on Temple's works. It comes from Christianity and Social Order, chapter 1: "What Right has the Church to Interfere?"
(it is a long blog post)
Temple begins his book titling the first chapter, “What Right has the Church to Interfere?” A resounding question of his day. He begins recounting how the question met with answer in the exclusion of the Church from other institutions, particularly government and economics. We see today, that the Church, or a voice of the Church has claimed this back in America. Politics buzzes with adherence to religious constituencies. After President Bush's first election, with a strong support from conservative Evangelicals, Democrats attempted to follow suit and painstakingly presented their own religious affiliation's. The Church in America does interfere, and works hard to claim the right to do so-both the right and the left participate in such ways (ex. James Dobson and Jim Wallis). Whatever you believe is the correct politic, it is without question that the Church holds considerable influence on our leaders, for the good and the bad.
The layout of this chapter revolves around four main arguments: 1. the claims of sympathy for those who suffer; 2. the educational influence of the social and economic system; 3. the challenge offered to our existing system in the name of justice; 4. the duty of conformity to the “Natural Order” in which is to be found the purpose of God (13). To illustrate these for points, Temple uses unemployment as an example. I will mention the noteworthy thoughts in each section and provide my own reflections.
Temple boldly claims, “The suffering caused by existing evils makes a claim upon our sympathy which the Christian heart and conscience cannot ignore,” (13). Such structures include bad housing, ignorance (uneducated), and unemployment. These are systemic structures that effect the Church's sympathy for those who fall under abuse. He touches on the aspect of unemployment and states that Christian sympathy must call for employment, the only combatant for unemployment.
It is here that maybe the efficiency of many corporations fails society. Not one to knock efficiency, I do think that the more we technologically advance in certain ways, relieving people of the mundane jobs to pursue a higher American Dream (this dream is sought not just here, but globally), the more vacancies for labor we lose. Some villages in Africa farm with hand tools still. A pull-cart plow is new technology for these people. The product lacks in volume, but the many who partake, partake together, sharing in the work and sharing in the reward. Certainly there is are costs to be accounted for. A small, inefficient crop base, could spell large disaster for the community, however this is situational and not systemic. Smaller in terms of community employment may indeed be better.
(Side Note) At one point, reflecting on seasonal employment (not a systemic evil, but rather one that can be counted on), Temple discusses the possibility, “seasonal unemployment can be converted into valuable leisure,” (15) such as education or much needed rest. This is an idea that I highly embrace for industries that yield seasonal unemployment.
Temple concludes his discourse on point two (see above) by saying “the Church must do its utmost to secure a change in the economic system to that it may find in that system an ally and not an enemy,” (19).
It is here that I relate more closely to the call of Jim Wallis and others, yet I must not forget that those discussing a more conservative economic policy are exercising the same principal that Temple gives above. It may just be these differences help to keep in check a wantonness on either side of a political scheme. It is easy for one to get wrapped up into partisan politics, a pride and priority that often results in higher loyalty than the Church. Nonetheless, neither conservative or liberal side of the Church must give into their partisanship, but remain strongly convicted and a strong advocate for an allied economic system. This Christian ally, then intends a system that does not put out or discount the lowly and all possible means should be sought to structure these systems that the poor are not put out. One can work within either party to effect change, but as soon as either party (assuming a typical two party politic) desires a system that diverts from the Church's concern, the Church must dissent in such a way as to bring the system in as an ally and not an enemy.
Section Three asks the question of injustice within a system. Temple says that jealousy is not the issue (as jealousy would constitute a notion of self-seeking), but it is an issue of justice verses injustice that the Church is concerned. He asks, “Why should some be in the position to dispense and others to need that kind of charity?” (19).
It is an issue of human greed and self-seeking that brings people to need charity (most of the time). Sometimes this greed, pride or self-seeking is the poor person's ownership, resulting in demise. Drug addiction, sexual promiscuity or something else in this nature can attest to this. Other times it is the “bid dog” who is greedy, prideful or self-seeking that inevitably (directly or indirectly) causes for another to want. It is here that the example of those at the Simple Way (www.thesimpleway.org) provides great teaching. People, “the haves” come to relate to the “have nots”. A remedy to injustice is compassion. A chasm between these “haves” and “have nots” does not foster an situation of compassion, therefore the chasm must be filled. It is more likely for the “haves” to take responsibility in moving into the “have nots” arena, not for exploitation (as some have done), but to bring and learn compassion. This may result in a personal loss in material equity for the “haves”, but it will limit the need for charity to be distributed or received. Charity can then exist, not as a need, but as an act of love.
All of the above could be said without any mention of the Church. The last section however requires the Church as the fulfiller of the purpose of God. Here Temple preaches to the Church, “The members of the Church do not, or should not, belong to it for what they can get in this world or in any other world; they – we – should belong to it in order to take our share in the great work, the fulfillment of God's purpose in the world and beyond it,”
The Church should thus not be self-serving. The early Church example is one of survival, but not defensiveness. The Church made disciples, changed communities and kept provocatively proclaiming the Gospel of the Good News of Jesus Christ at the risk of their demise, at the risk of the demise of the Body. Many went to meet their deaths in order to proclaim Jesus. This is not self-serving, survival. The Early Church met with their challenges in the faith of God, with reckless abandon, causing an “Irresistible Revolution” (plug for Shane Claiborne's new book). The Church now is self-seeking, attempting to contain itself and advance its own desires and not the Good News. I address the American Church above as political partakers, and for sure they are, however, it appears that they are assuming their own doctrine of salvation. Jesus truly did charge his disciples to “take up your cross”. The political Western Church faces no cross. Persecution is not the removal of the 10 Commandments from a building. Persecution is not teaching evolution in schools. Persecution is death, for following God and possibly for creating a new community that lives in reconciliation with people and the earth. Persecution is longed for by disciples and asked for by Jesus. Blessed are they that are persecuted, not blessed are they that are outraged because their mythology is questioned.
Temple concludes the chapter saying that, “It [the Church] is bound to “interfere” because it is by vocation the agent of God's purpose, outside the scope of which no human interest or activity can fall.”
We are not to dissent from our system, but rather to interfere, i.e. interact. Justice does not come about by evading the courtrooms, but comes about by becoming lawyers who advocate for the unadvocatable. Economic equality does not come about by abandoning work, or production, but by being an employer who seeks employee and resource well-being above the profit. To disengage is to lack interaction, is to avoid interfering. The Church cannot be a people who separates. It must, regardless of self, engage to help the poor-the unemployed, the uneducated, the homeless, the sick, the weary and all those that deserve rejection. The Church is to be the transformer of the World, not an agent of opposition.
William Temple. Christianity and Social Order, (London: SCM Press, LTD) 1950.
Temple Reflection 1
This hopefully is the start of a series of reflections on William Temple, former Archbishop of Canterburry. This post serves as an introduction to my desire for Temple. Reflections on his works to come.
I came by Temple in my first visit to Archives Bookstore in Pasadena. An incredible find, might I add. I picked up a book and was immediately struck by his writing.
Temple's primary concern is the witness of the Church. It is not a missionary, soul-saving witness, but rather a mission of engagement. The Church, as the redeemed people of God is to engage culture in all avenues and act on the convictions that God gives them.
He is not quite so relative to say that all individuals should represent the Church in their associations, allowing for a relative Church who conforms to anything, but states that Church members must follow the call of God in whatever association they belong.
Associations are not antithetical to the Church as some may see, but rather the individual Christian, must act the Christian in the association. Temple is not so pompous as to think that there is only one correct way or method of thinking. He is open, allowing for God's revelation to speak beyond certain human structures.
I look forward to enhancing my understanding of Temple as time goes and I certainly look forward to sharing his work with you. His thoughts seemed to die with him, but this need not happen. His philosophy, though rooted in timely illustrations, can easily be translated to the present, and I seek to do so. Dr. Wendy Dackson has made much work out of developing Temple's works and makes them relevant to the Church today by deciphering the philosophy from the illustration. I recommend checking out her articles and if you can afford it, her book (I can't afford to yet, and haven't).
|
Permalink
