My
last essay proposed how the response to poverty fits into the church’s mission
and identity. I now want to propose where
the church fits into the response to poverty.
This is an important idea to consider.
It would appear that the church has a diminished role because other
groups – whether international governments or assorted NGO’s – address poverty
effectively. Does the church even have a
role anymore? I want to suggest that it
does and will therefore define my fifth proposal as:
When the church
takes action to address poverty, it must act within its God-ordained role in
society.
For
the sake of clarity, I will split this essay into two parts. In 6a (which you are reading now), I will
present the proposal. In 6b (which you
will undoubtedly return to this blog to read tomorrow), I will present some possible
problems with the proposal and suggest potential solutions.
In
proposing that the church has and must act within a God-ordained role in
society, I want to begin with some guidance from the early church. John Chrysostom claimed that everyone –
whether she or he believes in Christianity or not – has the responsibility to
be merciful. Mercy is a defining aspect
of what it is to be human. The Christian
responsibility is heightened, however. The
very essence of Christianity is caring. Christians
who do not show mercy not only deny their humanity, they also deny their faith.[1]
Chrysostom’s
teaching indicates that the church has a continuous role in responding to
poverty. I want to agree with this
teaching and move it into our context by arguing that the church’s response is impacted
by it being one of many groups to address this problem. Therefore, I want to propose that the
church’s primary role in responding to poverty in our time and place is that of
prophet. If I am correct in my
suggestion that transformative
justice is the ideal response to poverty, the church’s role as prophet is
crucial. Transformative justice is a
response unique to the church.
I
borrow the idea of the church’s prophetic responsibility from Walter Wink. He suggests that the prophet’s job “is to
unmask (the Powers’) idolatrous pretensions, to identify their dehumanizing
values, to strip from them the mantle of respectability, and to disenthrall
their victims.”[2] It is the church’s responsibility to evaluate
the ideals of the surrounding culture. The
church is therefore a prophet to capitalism, to the culture, and to the
government.
The church should prophesy to the entire culture, rather than focusing only on capitalism. This means that the church will reject some of the values culture holds. This is difficult. The church has to make an effort to avoid becoming a product of the surrounding culture, while still being linked to that culture so it can present the gospel in such a way as to be relevant to the people we live amongst. We must allow the gospel to judge cultural norms without putting ourselves in the role of judge. We cannot distort the message of the gospel.[4]
The third way that the church can be a prophet is to direct prophecies to the government. This prophetic role is different from the previously mentioned prophetic roles. The church and government each have a God-ordained role. This means that it is a mistake to say that government is inherently evil. Wink describes the ideal role of the “Powers,” which includes government. The Powers protect. The Powers inspire community and relationships. The Powers encourage communal good. If The Powers indeed have guilt, the sin isn’t having power. The temptations that The Powers must protect themselves from are idolizing their strengths and offering false salvation. If we witness the government idolize itself or offer salvation, the church should not simply yell “Sin!” A prophet’s role is to aid repentance,* so we need to understand why such idolatry is problematic. This particular idolatry is dangerous because it distorts government. The proper response to a distorted government is to fix it, not reject it.[5] Be thankful for democracy. Change may be a struggle, but we are able to peacefully struggle.
When the church prophesies to the government it prophesies to an institution that is either meeting or not meeting its God-ordained mandate. God empowers governments in order to contain evil and to initiate good.[6] We can judge the success of a government partly by its service to the poor.[7] Being a prophet forces the church to be politically aware. Gutierrez proposes that the church should develop a political theology that will speak to whatever political struggles are contextual. In its political theology, the church must evaluate what role it has in helping to solve the political struggles – both at home and abroad – that people have.[8] Such a prophecy is inherently political. This means that the church’s political theology must present faith in a way that can speak into actual political reality. The church must consider both its role and the government’s role and be very careful to avoid confusing their respective roles.[9]
Check
back tomorrow for 6b.
*If the
Church doesn’t remember the lesson God taught to Jonah
we too risk a nasty sunburn.
[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, Faith and Wealth: A History of Early
Christian Ideas of the Origin, Significance , and Use of Money, 202.
No comments:
Post a Comment