God's Politics

Anyway, I never much liked Jim Wallis's book about politics, God, and the church. I actually only read the first sixty or so pages and then decided, since the chances of the rest of the book saying anything new were rather slim, to stop reading but tell everyone I had read the book. I never really understood why I didn't like the book, it seemed as if the arguments were good and the heart of the matter important for us to hear (though I couldn't tell you what any of the arguments or themes were now... I only read 60 pages, after all). Now, years later, I think I know the reason.

I think I've always been interested in politics because my father has been involved in local politics as long as I can remember, and he always yells at the TV while watching CNN. But I'm also a reaction first person. I rarely reflect on choices I make or beliefs that I hold until longer after I've made them. Usually, if someone says something, I react against it. What makes it worse is that people my age, or at least the people I grew up with, say some a lot of things that deserve to be reacted against. "Oh I don't know history much at all. Does that make me a bad person? Oh well." "I'm so bad at math, but who cares because I'll never need it in my life, I'm gonna be an English major and be creative and stuff." (As an English major I can attest to how silly this really is. Everyone needs to do some accounting at some point or another, first of all, but a lot of what makes good literature, or good art in general, is a mathematical/logical precision) "The United States is so stupid. Why can't we be more like Spain?" "Who am I voting for? I don't know. I hate politics so I generally stay away from it completely. But I think I'll vote for Hillary because she's a woman."

The last two statements are the ones I'd like to address today, and maybe I'll tackle the history one later. Nothing frustrates me more than someone's complaining or using the word "hate" to describe something and then putting in zero effort to make that thing better. If it peeves you that much, do something about it. That's why, as a high school student, I had notions of being elected either to the state government of Massachusetts or make it to D.C. God called me in other ways, so then I took hope in that great movie about William Wilberforce, Amazing Grace, when Wilberforce (played Ioan Grufudd, so amazing... if I were a girl I'd drool over him) screams out, "No matter how loud you shout, you will not drown out the voice of the people!" Wilberforce was a man who took his faith and put it into practice in politics, taking the advice of his friend William Pitt that, "Surely the principles of Christianity are simple, and lead not to meditation only but to action." Yes, action: action to end the slave trade, action to raise the moral awareness of a country, action to save the lives and souls of citizens. Wilberforce became the hero of my life. I was reacting against my peers saying they hate politics, staying clear of anything associated with the word politics except when it was time to vote, at which time many uninformed decisions were made, and allowing my faith to enter in. I was going to change the world of politics and change the minds of my peers and change the world. My representatives and the Boston Globe have evidence of where my life was heading. And the fact that I tried reading God's Politics, concluding that it had good ideas but was a bad book, is also good evidence.

Yet, after years of reflection and reading the likes of J.R.R. Tolkien and Leo Tolstoy, I've come to conclude that, indeed, politics is worth staying away from. I forget the root of the world politics, or else I'd take about it here. Oh well. What I will talk about is God in the Bible. There are three stories that I'd like to focus on, but I won't preach on them or anything or even give the Scripture references to them. For whatever reason, when I learn stories and phrases from the Bible I don't learn the references to go with them. Anyway...

First, in Genesis, the Bible starts a theme for us that, indirectly, is continued throughout most of the Bible: "spread and multiply." In fact, some people argue that the moral of the Tower of Babel story is not that humankind is not meant to spread its wings and climb to the reaches of heaven, but that humankind is not meant to cluster and wall itself in, physically or metaphorically. We are meant to go out and interact with our brothers and sisters and create more of our brothers and sisters to multiply our collective peace and joy. Second, the story in 2 Samuel about how the people of Israel want a king, but God cannot understand why His people would want any ruler besides the Creator of love and mercy, the only true ruler. Third, Jesus' claim in the Gospel of John that He is "the way, the truth, and the life."

Essentially what we do by setting up rules of society, both government and economics in my opinion, is waive off all three of those stories. Considering that those three stories are not only in the Bible, not only significant, well-remembered stories, but are stories central to the themes of the Bible, it takes an act of foolishness to disregard these stories. Now, perhaps you have a different understanding. Ok, fine. Let me explain with a story.

I have a friend for whom politics is perhaps the most basic ingredient of life. Without governments, he might say, we'd all be lost and there'd be no order to life whatsoever. That disorder, according to my friend, would give way to criminal minds doing whatever they want with no repercussions. Even those without criminal minds would see that there's no point in being honest, polite, compassionate, or anything else we Christians associate with being good, because there's nothing in it for them and everyone else would be getting ahead by behaving immorally and committing all sorts of injustices (only they wouldn't be injustices without governments, he would argue). Governments, he concludes, are needed to control so that the worst is cut out of society (I would add that governments only have laws in place to punish the worst if they are caught... how many people get away with holding the 20+ million slaves in the world today?) and everyone has an opportunity to have a somewhat good life. When I argue that governments for 3,000 years haven't figured out how to provide for a somewhat good life for a majority of its citizens, he retorts that at least there is a system in place to possibly do so.

I realize that wasn't quite as much a story as I thought it would be. Apologies. But, moving on. Keeping in mind those three stories that I mentioned, it should be easy why I have a problem with my friend's arguments (which, I think, are the classic arguments in favor of order and government). Why would my friend argue that we set up governments in the first place? Probably the anthropological reason: groups realized that it was easier to bunch up and live together, and when they started doing that they discovered that some members of the group were cheating, and foreigners entering the group couldn't just bring rules with them that no one in the group recognized. In fact, it might just be easier to keep foreigners out. Tower of Babel, anyone...? In my mind, living together isn't the issue. If God wants His children to live together because in community we are the most glad of heart, then living in communities can't be the issue. The issue comes when we seek to control the group, and in so controlling we hope to accomplish great things that the rest of the world will gawk at. That's not the point. The point is simply to live in community with one another. You might argue that the 613 Jewish laws seems like an extensive form of government control, but those are optional. You are Jewish by choice. You take up the 613 laws by choice, knowing that with God's help those 613 laws will make you a better person and more in relation with the Heavenly Father and His blessed children.

Furthermore, setting up governments flatly eliminates any hope of reaching our full potential. There's a reason God didn't mention to Moses that maybe he should get some ballots and elect a king when he came down off the mountain. God is the only pure leader we can or ever will have. The second we elevate an imperfect human to such high standards we lose the chance of full relationship with God and His children, because everyone who has power over is cannot match God's wisdom and love. Sure, the United States' Founding Fathers were really intelligent when they set up the system of checks and balances. They knew that one or two branches of government would lead to corruption. Good job to them. Even with checks and balances, though, we are putting at least half our hope in human beings that are clearly not The Most High. In our world today I think that we put a good deal more than half our hope in human beings. Yes, by setting up governments we eliminate distress associated with potential criminals who choose not to follow the 613 laws or the "new" law of Christ, but we also throw away hope of ever finding the joy and peace that God intends for His children.

And, how can we put faith in governments when an essential element in any government's set of resources is the might of war. Think of the third story. Did Jesus say, "Ok, lads, love is the answer. Violence is never the answer, except when it is"? And did he say, "Remember, mis hermanos, it's ok to compromise if you think it might lead to ending an injustice"? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure Jesus told us what to do and set us an example. And if His example is not enough, or the words of the Bible too confusing, we can remember that loving our brothers and sisters is the greatest commandment (according to John... the two great commandments of the other gospels equal the same thing). When violence, compromise, misinformation, back-stabbing insults and the like are the inevitable tools and consequences of a way of life that we are supposed to think will save us, I don't know how we can possibly choose that over God.

Should we not hope in God's politics? A politics that allows each individual to choose how to love God, and allows us to love one another freely. A politics that says we are indeed made in the likeness of the Holy One and we can do great things together if only we have faith in Him and in one another. Rules of society, rules of business, rules of the economy, and the laws of government all tell us not to have faith in one another or in the redemptive power of God.

Tolstoy, Tolkien, and Dorothy Day all believed in a world of Christian anarchy, a world where, at the least, Christians put their faith in God rather than in systems of government. A world where Christians do not get involved in politics but instead seek only to embrace others in the holiest of ways, and in so doing may perhaps influence the political decisions of one country or another. Tolkien believed in The Shire of his famous Lord of the Rings. He didn't just write it, he believed in it. A world where individuals live in peaceful community, and the only official is an official in title only. A world where, when encroached by evil, as Lord Elrond says, those who will do good are called together to save it.

May we rest our faith in God, and in so doing rest our faith and our love in one another, so that we can be free to see Christ the way we are meant to without the human-made restrictions. And if are scared, let us once again have faith in the Judges from the Bible. God will save us, if not our bodies then our souls. But God will save our bodies if we love rather than fight and control. May we eradicate control, for it leads only to divisiveness, fear, apathy, and hatred. May we not follow Jim Wallis's call to put our faith into politics, rather may we put our faith into as complete action as possible, which means out of politics. I will close with the words of Tolkien.

To the Fellowship of the Ring called to destroy the ring that endangers the world, after explaining their task, Lord Elrond says, "That is the purpose for which you are called hither. Called, I say, though I have not called you to me, strangers from distant lands. You have come and are here met, in this very nick of time, by chance as it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must now find counsel for the peril of the world."

To those who despair of how foolish it is to rely on a small handful of men against a massive, armed force, Gandalf replies, "Despair, or follow? It is not despair, for despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt. We do not. It is wisdom to recognize necessity, when all other courses have been weighed, though as folly it may appear to those who cling to false hope. Well, let folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy! For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it. If we seek this, we shall put him out of reckoning."