One who is a participant in the Church, one who is incorporated into this Body, one who is baptised into this company has not only the personal freedom to expend his own life without guile or calculation or fear of death – or any more minor prudence – but also, characteristically, he is indifferent to whether or not the churches maintain an amiable reputation in society, or whether or not the churches have much wealth and a sound investment program, or whether or not the churches, or the ecclesiastical authorities, have much political influence. On the contrary, the Christian is suspicious of respectability and moderation and success and popularity. And this is so because the genius of the Christian life, both for a person and for the company of Christians, is the freedom constantly to be engaged in giving up its own life in order to give the world new life. All the questions of status and power and reputation, and all defensive, conservative and self-serving questions about preserving the institutional existence of the churches are matters of some indifference except insofar as they impede the ministry of the Body of Christ, entice men into false religion and a wrong understanding of what the Christian society is, and lure them into misleading notions of what the Christian life is all about.William Stringfellow, A Public and Private Faith
12 comments:
One would only believe this is one thought the bible as it is written in its cultural context is true for today (ala fundamentalism)...That is, liberal democracy, or a Constitutional government is not an "ideal".
I mean by fundamentalism, as literalizing scripture as the ONLY reality one can adhere to and be a christian. This is the stance of the Anabaptists.
"I mean by fundamentalism, as literalizing scripture as the ONLY reality one can adhere to and be a christian. This is the stance of the Anabaptists."
Angie, simply not true.
Alan, '
"Christ against culture" is how Stringfellow understands faith. And those that believe that Christian work is to be done separate from power, influence, etc. are those that hold this position.
This position literalizes the text's political situation of the "Christian" into present day reality, which also means that there are some "powerful Christians" (or Jews), who subvert another Christian's life, for the means of Christ. This is like saying that one Christian has the right to take the life of the other Christian. But, at the same time, the one "giving up their life" is required to love without being loved....love your enemies. Put that situation into the political realm and you have undermined how the West has understood justice.
And you are right, "scientists" who want to study the text's literal political position would love to set up these scenarios...and they would go along gladly with the evangelical, so their purposes could be implemented...
And i might add, the Establishment Clause does not forbid Christians from voting or participating in public life, but it does forbid a religion special sanction or priviledge from the rule of law.
Angie,
Richard Niebuhr's typology has been more than adequately been critiqued as woefully inadequate in understanding the diversity Christians take toward the culture.
You need to update your scholarly perspective on this.
And as far as the "scientists" and their texts... I did not say what you think I said.
Jesus "faithfulness" and not our faith is considered by some to be what scripture demands, to be a part of the Body of Christ. And it is following in his steps that literalizes Jesus life in our lives, as the Body of Christ. Therefore, one has to believe in Jesus as God's representative on earth and be representatives themselves, which is evangelicalism....charismatic and fundamental in light of scripture.
Therefore, on has to be a supernaturalist, because one must believe that "ONE God" exists and that he demands us to be his disciples, otherwise, we cannot "enter the Kingdom of heaven"...etc. etc.....
What does this view do to the "human being"? It demands a "one size fits all solution" to the problems in the world. And it demands that everyone that is in the Body of Christ should "get on board" to do his work...in whatever capacity the Church demands...or deems necessary. Salvation is and is not about personal encounter with God, but also communal living...etc. etc.
This is tribal to the core...because it dismisses the nation-state...
The aforementioned does not negate the fact that humans are social animals.
I am trying to defend the necessity of understanding the individual, as an independent entity, in his own right. And that is not a communal understanding of personhood, but a development of a human being...
Religion is one aspect of man, but not the whole aspect of "man"...
When we talk of 'human sacrifice', "total surrender", "total consecration", "holiness", etc. then we have made some standards that are not too humane, if one really takes the time to think about it..
Angie, your frame of reference is in such a different world from mine, that it is as if I am speaking English and you, not knowing my language, are responding in French.
Alan,
If you would be kind enough to translate my French into your English...
I might ask you to explain how you understand Stringfellow. (I used to believe as he....)
Angie,
I appreciate the question. Please give me a couple days to respond. I am teaching an intensive class this weekend.
Post a Comment