A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

The new evangelical radicalism

The cover article of the latest In These Times (complete with the inevitable Jesus-as-Che cover image) is about the new “Christian radicalism” being promoted by a variety of younger evangelical leaders and what the secular left might learn from it. The author claims that folks like Rob Bell, Shane Claiborne, and Gregory Boyd are part of an emerging (if you’ll forgive the use of the term) paradigm of Christian social witness that is “explicitly nonviolent, anti-imperialist and anticapitalist.”

Jim Wallis is quoted quite a bit in the article, but there seems to be some tension between the radicalism promoted by Bell, et al. which seems wary of organized politics, and Wallis’ more traditional political approach:

[A]s of now, the Revolutionaries seem to be embracing person-to-person, “be the alternative” solutions to the exclusion of advocating for social policy that is more in line with their vision of the kingdom. Boyd says, “I never see Jesus trying to resolve any of Caesar’s problems.”

Wallis believes this reluctance comes from the recent experience of being dragged into the mess of partisan politics on the terms of the Republican party.

“But the prophets [of the Bible] don’t talk about just being an island of hope — they talk about land, labor, capital, equity, fairness, wages,” says Wallis. “And who are the prophets addressing? Employers, judges, rulers. On behalf of widows, orphans, workers, farmers, ordinary people. The gospel is deeply political. It’s not partisan politics, but a prophetic politics. It is what the prophets and Jesus finally call us to.”

“Take any big issue we’ve got: Politics is failing to deal with it. They see that,” Wallis continues. “But I’m saying that we need to change politics. Social movements change politics — and the strongest social movements have spiritual foundations.”

, , , ,

6 responses to “The new evangelical radicalism”

  1. Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

    Problem.

    If JW has to allude to the prophets, is that because there is not enough text to do what he needs in the NT?

    That would be my guess.

    Blot out the OT and just look at Jesus and the NT. Not enough, eh?

    (Luther at some point suggested Christians should ignore the OT and some parts of the NT, favoring a much shrunk new canon.)

    So, how far does the “social gospel” sort of outlook have to look outside the NT to get juicy stuff to quote?

    How much is there in the NT that reflects the “Jesus as radical” view so many NT scholars take of “the historical Jesus”? Did that radical Jesus leave a Little Red Book?

    Nope.

    Reply
  2. Wilson

    It’s fairly easy, I think, to make a case for a “radical” Jesus. Widows, orphans, turned cheeks, hating one’s father and mother, tax collectors, prostitutes, promises of persecution, and the entire Olivet Discourse all suggest a fairly disruptive social program.

    The main problem from a social-gospel perspective is that Jesus himself, as Son of Man, is at the center of this radicalism. And the kingdoms of man are generally depicted as being overcome, not transformed, by the kingdom of God.

    In other words, I think people who want Christian radicalism to work itself out in political organization actually underestimate just how radical Christianity is. I don’t think any political program can possibly harness it.

    Reply
  3. Joshie (Poo)

    I think the pernicous influence of Hauerwas can be seen to be at work here. Christian movements HAVE been able to organize politically and get things done in modern society. Abolition, Prohibition, and the 20th century Civil Rights movement spring to mind immediately.

    I have yet to see this insular approach to Christian involvement in the social sphere produce anything other than books. Nor have I heard any sort of real argument that this approach has any precedence in scripture.

    Reply
  4. Lee

    One interesting thing is that Wallis himself used to be much more of a self-styled radical – the Sojourners community was very much a kind of intentional Christian community and Sojourners magazine was originally called “the post-American.” Now you have him taking a much more moderate reformist type stance (hobnobbing with the rich and powerful at Davos, getting more directly involved in Democratic politics, etc.) and critiquing these younger radical types a bit.

    Personally I’m not necessarily opposed to “be the alternative” type stuff, but I also don’t see that as excluding broader political change. I know there are a lot of people who think that the political process forces Christians to tailor their commitments to some preexisting, secular notions of justice or fairness (at least that’s how I read the “Hauerwasian” critique – I think you’re right, Joshie, to see his influence here), but at the same time I think that when people start working on a given problem: say feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc. they inevitably run up against these bigger more structural issues (why are there so many poor/homeless people?) that cry out for some kind of political action.

    All that said, I do have a limited appetite for Wallis-style “prophetic” outrage. He seems at times to identify “God’s politics” with the agenda of a liberal Democrat. I guess I tend to see Jesus as a much more enigmatic figure who, as Wilson suggests, bursts the bonds of our typical political categories.

    Oh, and Joshie, you had me untill prohibition…;)

    Reply
  5. Kevin Carson

    This is a refreshing change from the religious politics of the Christian Right, at any rate.

    Aside from their self-appointed obsession with being the Pecker Police, the only “religious values” the latter seem to be interested in promoting are
    1) joining field to field;
    2) grinding the faces of the poor; and
    3) muzzling the ox that treadeth out the grain.

    Reply
  6. christianityismore

    Thanks for the very informative post. Just to weigh-in on the issue of the social gospel et. al… I think that for many the social gospel and the Doctrine of personal faith alone now seem antithetical, but 100 years ago (and beyond) more often than not they were one and the same. Of course this is not 100 percent true, but for the overall majority – a person that personally dedicated their life to Christ through faith alone, became a new person in Christ, and longed to “imitate” Him through bearing good fruit and performing good works. Because of the overwhelming concentration on faith alone (which I do agree with, but I think that there has been too much of an emphasis on in America because of our extreme focus on individuality) the social gospel and personal relationship seem like two disparite elements that cannot be reconciled. I think that we need to work to reconcile these two ideologies and realize that as new creatures in Christ we should long to worship Him, but also serve the world as He did.

    One of the things that has prevented this was the political alliance between the Conservatives and Evangelical movement. As Jerry Falwell shook hands with Ronald Reagan and promised to deliver him the presidency, the Evangelical movement in general moved towards the extreme individualism of Conservativism. For any of the benefits that came from this alliance came not only an acceptance, but also an endorsement for anything Conservative, even if it did not fit Christian values.

    It is time that we stop endorsing either party and instead hold both parties accountable. This will begin the reconciliation between the social gospel and personal salvation – and we can all move a little closer to “imitating Christ.”

    Thanks for the entry!

    Reply

Leave a reply to Lee Cancel reply