Christian Theology

About This Presentation

Title:

Christian Theology

Description:

Title: PowerPoint Presentation Author: nnt Last modified by: Nicholas Townsend Created Date: 1/1/1601 12:00:00 AM Document presentation format: On-screen Show (4:3) – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:659

Avg rating:3.0/5.0

Slides: 60

Provided by: nnt7

Category:

more less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Christian Theology

1
DCM, Oxford, Mar. 2015 N. Townsend

Christian Theology
and Political Life
Aim to distinguish the main questions addressed
in the Christian tradition's discussion of
politics,
and to begin to address them with reference to
biblical and theological sources.

Structure
Introduction (i) the obedience of rulers?
(ii) context liberal society
(ii) definitions
A. Three normative political questions
Why? What? How?
B. Christian political participation in
radically pluralist, liberal societies

Three periods in Christian political history
30-313 Pre-Christendom
313 Edict of Milan tolerance of Christians
after Constantine becomes Emperor
313-1791 Christendom
1791 First Amdt of the American Constitution
there shall be no law respecting an
establishment of religion.
1791-now Post-Christendom
O. ODonovan suggests these symbolic dates
(Desire of the Nations, p. 195)

ODonovan takes Christendom to refer to,
a historical idea that is to say, the idea of a
professedly Christian secular political order,
and the history of that idea in practice.
Christendom is an era, an era in which the truth
of Christianity was taken to be a truth of
secular politics. (ibid., italics orig.)

We are now in post-Christendom, liberal society
What form should Christian political witness now
take when our culture is no longer
characterized by the idea of a professedly
Christian secular political order, but by plural
religious and philosophical convictions,
discourses and communities?
We shall address this in Part B.

What is politics? As this term is generally
used (e.g. in British public life), politics
refers to
determining what will be done for a whole,
geographically-defined community by means of
enforceable law
together with all the activities directed
towards that elections, lobbying, opposition,
underhand scheming, and so on.

Authority
morally rightful holding/exercise of power
Political authority
morally rightful holding/exercise of power for a
whole society,
in other words, morally rightful determining of
what will be done for a whole society

Questions about political authority are
normative about what should be done.
That is, they are questions in normative
political theory (à la John Rawls, Theory of
Justice, etc).

Three normative political questions
1. Why should people accept governments
claim to authority at all?
The problem of political obligation
2. What should government do?
That is, what is the proper role of govt?
3. How should government be constituted?
That is, should the form of government be e.g.
monarchical or democratic?

How can Christians address these questions?
1. The Bible
We can read both of two political strands within
it
The just government strand
The prophetic strand
(From Walter Brueggemann, Andrew Goddard see
further N. Townsend, VPlater Mod A, 1.3 ) and Mod
B, 2.2.)

The just government strand
- human rule as authorised by God
OT The Torah
The role of ancient Israels king
Ps. 72, Prov. 16 10-15, 312-9 Isa. 11
NT Jesus fulfils/transforms that royal role.
God above Caesar, but Caesar has a role
Mark 1213-17 Rom. 13 1 Pet. 2.
Contemporary Oliver ODonovan

The prophetic strand
- God calls people to critique the very rulers
whom God authorizes
OT The Exodus
Warnings about monarchy 1 Sam. 8 Kings
The prophets Amos, Micah, Jer. 2111ff
NT Jesus Luke 416f critique of Sanhedrin (et
al)
Paul life in Christ James Revn
Contemporary liberation theology

How can Christians address these questions?
2. The tradition(s) of Christian political
thought
Augustines pessimistic contrast the two cities
arguably closer to the prophetic strand
Aquinass more optimistic vision of government
directing persons to virtue and the common good
closer to the just government strand
See ODonovan ODonovan (eds), Irenaeus to
Grotius
Witte Alexander (eds), 2 vols on modern RC and
Protestant writers

The two political strands in the Bible, plus
the three normative political questions (why?
what? how?)
can give a structure within which to think
clearly about Christian faith and politics.

1. Why should people, including Christians,
accept governments claim to authority?
(a) Jesus message The reign of God is at hand
for any holders of worldly power, a subversive
slogan.
But Jesus way of bringing in Gods reign
repudiated all dependence on normal political
means taking worldly power, coercive imposition,
military force.
Rather, his way was the cross as is his
followers.
Jesus was simultaneously political and
anti-political.

(b) Pauls teaching, esp. in Romans
Chs 1-7 How Jesus life, death and resurrection
are significant, for the Jewish people and all
people
Chaps 8-16 What that means for how those in
Christ should live
(incl. a passage, chs 9-11, on how the Jewish
people fit into Gods purposes after Christs
coming).
In summary live according to the Spirit (85).

From 121, Paul sets out what this means in
practice in an astonishing series of
exhortations.
What the whole letter up to ch. 12 conveys is
that, under the authority the Christ and the
Lord, his followers are to live in a way that
makes worldly structures of law and power
superfluous.
Their way of life is supposed to transcend these.

But, at this very point, Paul suddenly gives
attention to how the Christians in Rome should
see the Roman authorities!
They should recognize and be subject to the
governing authorities / the powers that be
(131).
Why? Their authority comes from God - the same
God who is made known through Christ and the
Spirit.
The powers who executed Christ are Gods
servant for your good! (v. 5)

Summary
The few verses about the governing authorities
in Rom. 13 are a brief aside in the letter
overall.
Romans 12-13 can be seen as a relativization yet
affirmation of human government.
We should obey government because its authority
is from God. But this is of secondary
importance, relative to what God has done in
Jesus and is doing by the Spirit.

The other two normative qs can be seen as
arising from this one
If (1) God has authorised political authority,
(2) what should it do, and (3) how should it be
exercised?
But can you think of another question that also
arises, a fourth question?

When? Is political authority pre- or post-Fall?
Is it given in creation, or only as a remedy for
some of the effects of sin?
What do you think?
The can be called the q. of the ontological
status of government.

Thought experiment
In a human society without sin in the state
of innocence (Aquinas) would there be
government? That is, would some people exercise
authority for society as a whole, hence over
others?
See further sheet to be supplied Does
government have a directive as well as a
remedial role?, and see www.virtualplater.org.u
k, Mod. B, p. 3.3.3

2. What should government do?
In summary justice the Bible witnesses to
this in many places.
To do justice to people is to recognise them for
what they truly are, each alone and in community,
and then to render to them what is due.
But different visions of humanness mean
different conceptions of justice.

Ps. 72 a portrait of an ideal king
O God, give your judgments mishpatim, pl. to
the king
your justice tzedakah to the kings son
That he may govern your people with justice
tzedakah,
your oppressed with judgment mishpat.
That the mountains may yield shalom for the
people,
and the hills great abundance,
That he may defend the oppressed among the
people,
save the children of the poor and crush the
oppressor.
vv. 1-4 (NAB) cf. esp. vv. 12-14

The mishpat, judgment, that the ideal king
exercises is for the sake of those who
are oppressed, poor or needy, or victims of
violence (vv. 1-4, 12-14).
One commentator on Ps. 72 says this
The only stated responsibility of the king in
vv. 2-7 or vv. 12-14 is to establish justice for
the oppressed, to save the needy Such
salvation was what God did in the exodus and
this function is the measure of royalty, whether
human or divine.
J. Clinton McCann, Jr., The Book of Psalms, in
L. Keck et al., eds, The New Interpreters Bible
A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, Vol. IV
(Abingdon, 1996), p. 963.

Ps. 722-3 shows also this
Through judgment (mishpat) in favour of the
oppressed and poor, there will be not only
justice (tzedakah) but shalom.
Shalom wellbeing, shared welfare, peace with
justice, peace and prosperity, the common good.
The king has responsibility for shalom, but this
comes through just judgment for the sake of the
exploited and poor.

Numerous other references in the Hebrew
Scriptures show that governments role is mishpat
and tzedakah.
E.g. Exod. 23 1-8 Num. 35 9-34, esp. 11
Deut 1618-20, 17 8-11 1 Kings 3 Ps. 72 1-4
Prov. 16 10-15, 31 4-9 Isa. 11 3-4 Amos 5
1-24.
Rom. 13 seems to presume too that a basic purpose
of government is judgment in court.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but
to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the
authority? Then do what is good, and you will
receive its approval 4for it is Gods servant
for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you
should be afraid, for the authority does not bear
the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to
execute wrath punishment (NIV) retribution
(NJB) on the wrongdoer. .5Therefore one must be
subject, not only because of wrath but also
because of conscience.
Romans 13 3b-5, NRSV

Tom Wright on this passage
In Rom. 12, Paul has just said, strongly and
repeatedly, that private vengeance is absolutely
forbidden for Christians. But this doesnt mean
on one hand, that God doesnt care about evil,
or, on the other, that God wants society to
collapse into a chaos where the bullies and the
power-brokers do what they like and get away with
it . . . That is almost all that Paul is saying
in Rom. 13 4-7.
Paul for Everyone Romans Part 2 (SPCK, 2004), p.
85.

Interlude The common good
The human good is inherently or irreducibly
common. It is analogous to the good of a concert,
a football match or a great feast of celebration
it can exist for anyone only as all participate
in the shared action in which they produce and
benefit from it simultaneously.
It is participation in communion, ultimately
with God.

How has that biblical emphasis on government
as judicial been developed in Christian history?
We can distinguish at least three ways.

(i) Government as directive to the common good,
including by disciplining people through law to
the end of their virtue
This sees government as pre-Fall, given in
creation.
Government uses the force and fear of law to
discipline people (Christian and not) in right
conduct so that they are formed in good habits
the virtues.
Influenced by Aristotle the locus classicus is
Aquinas early modern Calvinism (C16-C17) is
similar the disciplinary society (Charles
Taylor)

(ii) The judicial role of government is made
central/paradigmatic the ruler is most
essentially a judge/magistrate.
According to O. ODonovan, this reflects the
long history of Christian political thought,
going back to Augustine, more faithfully than
Aquinass directive view.
He labels this view government as judgment.
This sees government as post-Fall, as of Gods
providence for the fallen world. So government
is reactive (OD).
Given OT emphasis on rulers exercising mishpat
(judgment), and, arguably, as similar emphasis in
Rom 13.2-4 1 Pet 2.13, he advocates govt as
judgment
ODonovan sees this position as Augustinian.
On this view, everything govt does is a response
to wrongdoing remedial ODonovan speaks of
the reactive principle

(iii) Government as to establish/uphold
conditions necessary for a supra-political good
the common good including not least by
upholding human rights.
(a) Modern Catholic Social Teaching govt as
maintaining the public order (John Courtney
Murray) or the social conditions which allow
people, either as groups or individuals, to reach
their fulfilment (Gaudium et Spes)
(b) Kuyperian neo-Calvinist govt as
maintaining public justice among other social
spheres
In both, govts role has directive and remedial
aspects.

We need to be aware of a fourth position (but
not one that can be seen as a development of the
biblical emphasis on government as judicial)
Government as alien to the gospel and not to be
exercised by Christians neo-Anabaptist
Hauerwass ecclesial ethics.
Emphasises that the church community itself is a
polis Gods city and therefore political.
But nothing is said about what Christians should
do as participants in secular public
institutions.

3. How should government be constituted?
The q. of form of government
Slides on this are included, though the session
could not consider this question.
Good form Bad form
Rule by one Monarchy Tyranny
by few Aristocracy Oligarchy
by many Republican govt Democracy

Jesus ministry and the early Churchs mission
generated a contrast between the Christian
community and earthly government.
The community that professed Christs supreme
authority wasnt willing to see itself as under
Romes authority alone even though Rome had a
role.
This produced a new institutional duality the
contrast we now refer to as between Church and
State.

This duality is rooted in the OT in the
experience of exile
Seek the shalom of the city to which I have
exiled you pray for it to the LORD, for in
its shalom you will have shalom. (Jer. 297)
The Jews in Babylon and the Christians in Rome
were each a city of Gods people within another
city. The advice Jeremiah and Paul each gave
was live with it! Augustine two cities.

That was at the end of the monarchy, the
terrible risks of which Samuel had warned about
at its beginning 1 Sam 8.
I and II Kings portray the monarchy as failure.
Hence the OT history paints a negative picture
of monarchy.
Yet in I Sam 8, God concedes to it, and works
with it and an ideal of good kingship emerges.

In Jesus kingship, three things happened at
once
The pre-monarchical ideal, in which God was
directly the peoples king (1 Sam. 8), was
restored.
What became the monarchical ideal of an heir to
Davids throne who would make real the vision of
Ps. 72, Isa. 11, etc. was fulfilled.
The post-monarchical model of two cities (Jer.
29) was affirmed Jesus kingship is supreme but
Caesars rule has a place under it. ?

Then, after Christ has come, God gives the
Spirit, the Spirit of the Christ, to all his
people Acts 2.
This offers to all renewal of true human living
as those made in the image of God and granted
dominion, authority, at the beginning.
Here are seeds of democracy..

While there are roots in Scripture for an
assessment of forms of government, the Church was
relatively indifferent among them, insisting
instead that what matters much more is that
government is just and for the common good.
In other words the what question is more
important than the how question.

Reminder three normative political questions
1. Why should people accept governments claim
to authority at all?
2. What should government do?
That is, what is the proper role of govt?
3. How should government be constituted?

B. Christian political participation in
radically
pluralist, liberal societies
Appeal to Christian faith in political debate?
Not allowed, says neutralist liberalism.
Most prominent defender John Rawls
(In Political Liberalism, 1993, and Justice as
Fairness A Restatement, 2001)

45
Christian participation in political life

To see why not, consider the context of public
speech
Religious, philosophical and ethical
plurality/diversity/disagreement
Rawls refers to this as the fact of pluralism
More accurately, his expression is The fact of
reasonable pluralism. In a free society, people
will reasonably disagree about religion,
philosophy and ethics so reasonable pluralism
is permanent, he says.

46
Christian participation in political life

But if we disagree, how can we live together
without conflict?
More specifically, how can we talk together and
decide in public if we have deeply different ways
of understanding the world?

47
Christian participation in political life

Two main answers
1. Translation into a neutral, secular, shared
language
- thin, neutralist liberal, John Rawls
2. Difficult conversation despite deep
disagreements
- thick, post-liberal, Jeffrey Stout, A.
MacIntyre

48
Christian participation in political life

1. Translation into a neutral shared language
Religious language needs to be excluded from
public debate, because it cannot contribute to
reaching agreement.
So public discussion needs to be secularised.
And Christian speech/practice is to be
privatised.

49
Christian participation in political life

Translation into a neutral shared language,
contd
Advocates of this secularist position
generally hold that the only content of the
shared language is do with individuals rights
to be maximally free from external interference
and
to choose themselves how to live.
Hence a thin language.

50
Christian participation in political life

The most influential such position is Rawlss,
who argued for two principles of justice. In
his words
Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a
fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties
such as speech, association, religion, which
scheme is compatible with the same scheme of
liberties for all
Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy
two conditions
first, they are to be attached to offices and
positions open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity and
second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of
the least-advantaged members of society (the
difference principle).
(Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, p.42)

51
Christian participation in political life

Difficult conversation despite deep
disagreements
Advocates of this thicker version of public
discourse
hold that this is possible without conflict
recognise that mutual understanding by those in
different traditions can be very difficult.

52
Christian participation in political life

Difficult conversation despite deep
disagreements, contd
Advocates of difficult conversation also
hold that this is possible, thanks esp. to a
vigorous democratic culture
refer to such a culture as strong democracy or
deliberative democracy. (Benjamin Barber)

53
Christian participation in political life

To recap, two main alternative answers
1. Translation into a neutral shared language
2. Difficult conversation despite deep
disagreements
Luke Bretherton suggests a third alternative
hospitality. Im not sure this is
fundamentally different from 2.
Luke Bretherton, Translation, Conversation or
Hospitality, in N. Biggar and L. Hogan (eds),
Religious Voices in Public Places (Oxford OUP,
2009)

Main problem with the translation approach
Some of the main issues we need to decide in
public require appeal to matters on which people
disagree religiously/philosophically, e.g.
the beginning and end of life
human responsibility for non-human nature
economic justice should income be distributed
by individual contribution to profitability or by
participation in generating a common good?
whether its better generally for children to be
raised by their own two biological parents than
others
what marriage is

If that is so, public discussion on such matters
cannot take place in a neutral shared language
as this would not engage with the reasons why
people disagree.
So there is no option but answer 2 difficult
conversation despite deep disagreements.
This is what Christians who participate in
public debate have to contribute to.

56
Christian participation in political life

Summary
Public discussion in our day is deeply divided.
So can we use a neutral language?
No, because many contentious issues turn on deep
differences that no neutral language can
articulate.
So in public life and witness, Christians and the
churches have to participate in a difficult
conversation.

Whether people are Christians or
hedonist neoliberals
voluntarist social liberals
Burkean conservatives
ethical socialists, etc, etc, etc (see Map)
they have no option but to come to public debate
willing to articulate how their comprehensive
conception of the human good supports what they
advocate should be done by political authority.

58
Christian participation in public life

It is democratic procedures which enable us, to
the extent that we do, to live together
politically despite the extent of the radical
plurality among us.