Just received Charles Taylor's Modern Social Imagineries. An intriguing passage jumped out at first browse:
We can now see the space for religion in the modern state, for God can figure strongly in the political identity. It can be that we see ourselves as fulfilling God's will in setting up a polity that maximally follows his precepts, as many Americans have done...Or our national identity can refer to God, if we see ourselves as defined partly by our unique piety and faithfulness.
Taylor goes on to say that this reference to God cna degenerate so that piety fades and only chauvanism remains (examples abound), 'but this identity presence can also nourish a living faith'.
This is the new space for God in the secular world. ... in the public world, the disapperance of an ontic dependence on something higher can be replaced by a strong presence of God in our political identity. p. 193
We may live in a less enchanted universe, but God's will can be very present to us as 'the inescapable source for our power to impart order to our lives, both individually and socially.'
6 comments:
It would seem that Taylor thinks God can and does figure in the modern state. I don't doubt this. Does he say that this SHOULD be the case? If so on what grounds. Others would say that this is simply a relic from darker times and must be at best tolerated until it can phased out. What is this 'new space for God in the secular world'?
- JRS
I definitely think that one may talk about the "politics of the cross" which bears an active relationship to the nation state. However, being quite fond of the writings of Tolstoy and Ellul, I believe that the idea of Christianity as part of institutionalised framework is antithetical to the ideals of the Kingdom. The Kingdom is only promoted through the subversion of structures of domination and oppression, not by becoming a structure of power and domination itself.
That's half true... But you make the equation 'institution = power and domination', which is not a NT equation. You only get away with it with the kind of curious and idiosyncratic reading of the Sermon on the Mount that Tolstoy offered. It's not institutions per se that are attacked in Jesus' polemic against hypocrisy...in fact, when it comes to the church, the NT is pretty keen on order.
I guess it depends on what you mean by order. In my opinion, it's only really in the pastoral epistles that we see any clearly defined heirarchy structure. Order is also a fairly major issue in 1 Corinthians, but this refers moreso to ordered conduct than to any kind of authority structure. There's also a committee in the early church (Acts 7?), but I think it's fair to suggest that their role is more administrative than anything else. All of this doesn't mean that the early church doesn't have relationships where there are teachers and the taught, but I can't see this as embodying a rigid hierarchy.
I should also point out that some of my ideas have also been coming from Ched Myers, who identifies Jesus' proclamation of the "Kingdom of God" as siding with the anti-monarchic tradition we observe in 1 Samuel 8. According to Myers, Jesus promotes a return to the self-governance that existed before the monarchy of Israel.
Well I don't see 'rigid hierarchy' in the pastorals either! You might add 1 Peter 5 to your list, and also the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. All I would say is 'there is leadership and authority exercised in the church by whatever means appropriate'. Myers' thesis sounds nicely anarchical, but the canonical scriptures BOTH incorporate human kingship and relativise it as well. The whole pro- vs anti- monarchical debate misses a whole heap of subtlety in the OT text (assuming as we often do that ancient writers and editors were incapable of such sophistication...)
Thanks for adding the texts I forgot to include.
I have no doubt that the OT writers were capable of sophistication, but 1 Samuel 8 certainly seems to be a rejection of the monarchy. Indeed, if we look at the whole of (1 and 2) Samuel, it seems to be fairly critical of the monarchy in general. This is especially true when you compare the book with (1 and 2) Chronicles, in which the Chronicler seeks to excise all memory of scandal concerning King David from the public memory.
I can't say I'm really sure about what to make of subsequent references to Kingship and authority - perhaps a retrieval ethic of sorts is operating?
Post a Comment