Like many Christians, I feel ambivalent about church politics. Church politics is, of course, reported in the NT - think of the council of Jerusalem! As a human reality, the church on earth needs - and indeed is called - to order and govern its mutual life in accordance with its discipleship, to decide and affirm right doctrine, to manage common resources, and to make space for the exercise of right authority. To say otherwise is to have an over-spiritualised ecclesiology. Even the most free of free churches has to agree with this. Anarchy is not in any sense properly Christian. On the other hand, church politics as we experience it, in denominations or congregations, can be exceedingly unpleasant and a travesty of the gospel. It is possible to make it better? Here are some principles:
1 - the process is as important as the outcome. If God is truly sovereign in the church as he is in the world, then it is not necessary to use means that are not his means. His means might not be politically expedient or efficient. That means that love has a priority over outcomes.
2 - give reasons for your position that you believe, and not just reasons that are likely to persuade. Being Christian, we believe certain things about speech and its integrity to speakers. It is impossible to carry on a genuine disagreement with the possibility of mutual enrichment and edification if people are arguing merely in order to manipulate those voting. If you speak in this way, then I can not actually speak to you.
3 - seek more mutual accountability, not less. That is, the ordering of church life ought to have a realistic doctrine of sanctification. The child abuse scandals have taught us that 'trust me' isn't enough - there was a naivety about the extent to which the Christian is progressing in sanctification. Now most churches have all sorts of accountability structures in place in this area. Why not extend this to other areas of church life too? It is boring and painful, but isn't it actually right?
4 - respect the process. manipulating the process demeans the process. The law is an ass if it is treated like an ass... Church laws exist as an expression of mutual purpose and accountability. If the words and intentions of the framers of laws are twisted, then the law no longer protects the fellowship of believers. If no-one can trust anyone else, then we might as well be in the NSW state parliament. Which, if you don't know, is bad.
5 - protect ourselves from groupthink. People would much rather leave the messy business of church politics to others. It is hard work to think through church life at an organisational and theological level, and what is more, most people actually don't like conflict and would prefer to avoid it. We would much rather just do what the agenda says we ought to do and live harmoniously. This pattern does not lead to wise or mature church-political processes. Those entrusted with decision-making ought to be diligent, or give up their votes to someone else.
6 - practice agreeable disagreement. That is, it ought to be possible to strongly disagree without casting doubt on the other person's salvation. And the 'winners' in any decision ought to seek reconciliation if necessary with the 'losers' - indeed, it is their responsibility to do so. Don't label those you disagree with as defensive. Also: understanding and agreement are not the same...I can actually understand you and still not agree with you. Please don't keep shouting!
7 - take the long view. Christians understand history in a particular way. We don't need to rush! Theological and ecclesiastical discernment takes time - sometimes generations. Patience practiced in church politics means that sometimes thirty years thinking about a particular issue isn't enough.
8 - don't pretend that political acts are somehow not political. There's nothing wrong with them being political. The processes of lobbying and grouping together to urge for change are not in themselves wrong. On the contrary, they are perfectly appropriate to an exercise of church government. What really stinks is when someone exercises or achieves political power in a church context and calls it something else - spiritualises it so that it doesn't appear to have all the supposedly grubby aspects of politics. If we can call it 'politics', then when can judge it for what it is. Indaba groups are not somehow more spiritual or less political that a synodical style with parliamentary rules! They are just different.
any other ideas?
18 comments:
Is there any sense in which denominational politics are distinct from church politics?
Point 7 is almost postmillennial...
I agree with it, by the way.
I'll take that as a compliment then! Postmillennialism is the better of the two millennial errors of course. ;-)
I just don't buy that denominational politics don't have a churchly nature to them. Denominations are expressions of Xn fellowship, even if they are not, by themselves 'the Church' in a way that even local churches are.
The issue for denominational politics is the awareness of the mixing of the wheat and the tares, all too evident in some denominations!
Thanks for these points!
Some questions:
Why doesn't local church politics also have an awareness of the wheat and the tares? Or why is this a lesser awareness?
Re #8: yet I presume that there are better and worse structures for collective deliberation and resolution on the common good. Might not indaba groups or parliament lead to different kinds of outcomes (both political and relational)? That is, might not the "just different" on which you end include difference in quality, if not in spirituality/politicality? (At the very least, indaba groups managed to hide open conflict from outsiders and so make Lambeth boring to the mainstream media, who then couldn't run stories about "a church split" quite so easily!)
I guess I am just musing on experience. Denominational structures have not protected denominations from outright apostacy, that is evident. And it is evident in my denomination at least that there are wolves among the flock. So, trust takes a back seat... these things are more manageable at local level.
My feeling with the indaba groups was that they served an agenda which was no less 'political' than any other form, but they had the appearance of not doing so - which was a bit duplicitous. However, not having to do it all in public was a positive aspect of the whole thing.
Thanks for the article! Very clear and very helpful (I struggle with this topic, so thanks!).
Re 8: From my own thoughts and rants, I would argue that politics is inherently about power and the ability to influence decisions (this would possibly be a secular definition that I think extends to church politics too). As such, politics in all forms is inherently divisive. It's about keeping yourself in power, and those that you disagree with out of power. My case for church politics would be here in Sydney, where certain political groups within the Diocese aim to keep the "Liberal" elements out of power by playing the political game. The argument is that without such groups, Sydney would become similar to Melbourne.
Where do you stand on politics being inherently divisive, and if true, what does that mean for church unity?
No, I don't think politics are inherently divisive. That has been my argument all along! I think that is a postmodern (and gnostic) mistake, and a bad one. Politics at their best are about authority - ie, power rightly ordered. Politics are always present in human communities - and a real danger is to not name them as such. Could I go so far as to say that politics are not the result of the fall, as we ordinarily assume?
I do think there can be an exclusionary or divisive element to church politics - that is, the ordering of the church body is not vapidly inclusive. The church is called to be a self-disciplining and self-judging body (see 1 Cor 5-6). The is exclusion as well as embrace. There is plenty of warrant for this in the NT.
I am interested in your use of the word 'game'. Perhaps that word comes up because we have lost trust in the system of governance as a means of real theological deliberation and Christian consultation...
I wasn't saying that the move to indaba groups wasn't political, merely saying that structural decisions about how to conduct political discussion need not be purely "political" (in the sense of self-serving). That is, there are better and worse ways of structuring such deliberation, which is why western nations have a (much battered, but still standing) belief in the usefulness of parliamentary democracy over against, say, the whims of an individual tyrant with a secretive group of advisors. Did I say western? Hmmm...
Anyway, I'm still curious about the agenda you saw in the indaba groups. I'm not coming from any preconceived notions about their value or otherwise, other than the fact that I now know little about Lambeth because that structure excluded the media who might have (mis)informed me.
Fair point on the difference between local and denominational politics, though I assume this then means that the distinction is quantitative rather than qualitative?
Michael,
Here's a short angle (which admittedly comes from recent frustrations) which ties in with this thread.
From the premise that there is a distinction between the local church and the denomination (and addressing just the local church here): My simple thought would be to start with a theology of church discipline which caters for 3 branches of participation: members, leaders, elders. The 1st and 3rd having in biblical categories, and the 2nd as a piece of principled pragmatism (although, perhaps some would argue as 'deacon'). Each with differing levels of responsibilities. And, an implementation of a Matthew 18 understanding (and attendant an culture which sees discipline as the norm) accompanies the aim "to make space for the exercise of right authority."
Perhaps one's view of Baptism and the Lord's Supper (front door & back door!) comes into play here also. (Well, stronger than perhaps!)
I'll leave it there for now, but in my experience Church discipline seems to be more of an afterthought in ecclesiology than an important aspect.... perhaps this is due to an over-emphasis on the 'heavenly church gathering' at the expense of the local church...? or perhaps it's due to a growing Foucault-esque dislike of power!? Whatever the case, I say bring back the local church and it's order! ;)
postmodern mistake ... politics are not the result of the fall ... lost trust
I really like this point. What is usually summed up by 'postmodernism' is so often a lack of trust extended to all systematic and structural elements of life. Unsurprising, given some of the horrors of the 20th C and in the few short years of this one. But what is needed is not cynicism, but clear sighted judgement as to what are good structures, good systems, and, as you say, loving ways of participating in them. Of course, deciding on good structures itself takes more politics...
Perhaps we need more politics, not less!
Mike
love the post - esp 8! Amen.
I want to say 'Yes, but...' to 7.
Rushing sounds bad but there must be an urgency to our mission together.
Do your suggestions tend towards conservatism and protection of the status quo? I think we need the political process of church to be committed to reforming itself - this can help stop the process becoming the master of the church's mission rather than it's servant
Michael
This thread also touches on some issues I have been thinking through: primarily the similarities and differences between a just process and a just outcome.
I am attracted by the idea that a just outcome requires a 'judgment'
although many still insist that justice itself bears many names. If this is the case, the act of judging becomes insignificant, a just outcome becomes a ‘dilemma’(in Charles Taylor-speak) because we do not have ways of judging between the spheres or worlds of justice. The very (pomo??) concern for differentiation excludes the possibility of taking a stand in the name of justice.
According to Ricoeur, the act of judging necessarily puts 'an end to a virtually endless deliberation.’ This 'endless deliberation' (the triumph of process over outcome) is a real possibility of both an indaba group and a parliament, although one suspects there are less 'circuit breakers' (e.g. 'majority rule') in the indaba group. While I am basically committed to consensual decision making, I have also lived in a couple of intentional communities which made decisions by consensus, and so have spent more hours than I care to remember in 'endless deliberation' without an outcome! Conversely, I have also spent many hours sitting in synod, while speaker after speaker rehearse their set speeches, while the 'outcome' was never in doubt because the numbers had been crunched well before-hand.
One critic of western liberal democracies (and their processes) argues we have lost the ‘ability to distinguish’ with the dire consequence that we are left with ‘nothing to fall back upon but egalitarianism’ which masquerades as justice.
So it seems that the issue of justice, or more properly the judgment inherent in justice is crucial in discussions of church politics. This is related to issues of power and authority already raised.
A couple of questions to finish:
1. How do we arrive at difficult judgments (that include just processes and outcomes)?
2. How transparent can / should / are those judgments?
Geoff - lots to chew over. Basically, it is as you say - the church/es don't escape the need for judgment. In fact: 'let judgment begin with the household of God'! Remembering of course, that human judgment is imperfectible (O'Donovan), even in church.
Mike (that great city): I am a conservative, so I am not troubled by being called one. A great deal of value has been traded away in the name of 'mission' and for not much result. What we are left with is no tradition AND not many people either! I am not sure you can just simply preserve doctrine and at the same time play havoc with a given denomination's development of church order. The two are not as easily separable as we think. Mission is urgent enough to go slowly for.
I think Byron's point about better and worse structures for politics is important. This is recognised in secular political theory; it should be in church politics. In particular, there are real dangers with entrenched partisan politics. The adversarial tension of it all can stifle capacity for reflection and proper deliberation, and can mix freedom of conscience up with all sorts of other considerations. I think church politics should avoid parties that are too entrenched. It doesn't help parliamentary government very much; it won't help a synod.
Yeah, nice points.
I would be surprised if any of our present church politicians enter into the process thinking anything different. But, as we have seen in Sydney many times over, such principles often get jettisoned so that certain outcomes can actually be achieved.
I wonder what it is about the actual practice of politics (and I have to say, most if not all of the comments on this thread have come from observers of polictics on a denominational level, not fully fledged participants - *open to correction*) which makes people take more 'pragmatic' approaches.
I suspect that it has to with the time it takes to get certain things done. A more loving process takes time, and that time might mean that the horse bolts on certain issues before anything can be done about it. Of course this brings up issues of 'do we really trust in God's soverignty' etc, but is there space for a retrieval ethic here? The reality of the process means that we have to act as we might not want to?
Well, yes, and I think this is O'Donovan's point: human judgment is necessary, but imperfectible. A call has to be made by human beings who, even when guided by the spirit of God, just don't have all the info to hand. And it is impossible to make everybody happy... I think that some people believe that church politics should never make anyone cross. We 'observers' and critics need to be a bit more robust sometimes. We are well aware of the damage institutions can do, especially church ones, but we also need a right eschatology of the church here!
Concerning point 5, groupthink seems to me a sort of positive-feedback loop whereby isolated systems tend over time to increase in entropy. External reference points might perhaps help there.
Thanks very much Michael, great post.
I especially appreciate points 1, 4 and 5. These are the ones that can get abandones 'for the good of the gospel'. But, as you say, in the process, the gospel is dishonoured by the method and those who go down this road live in fear of being found out.
Post a Comment