How long does it take to turn an
aircraft carrier at sea?
The question is proverbial, for the
time and difficulty involved in changing an institutional culture.
One of those behemoths at sea, under full power, will take for ever
to turn round.
The contemporary springtime in
Christianity has to struggle mightily with the
question. True, you could hardly say of mainline churches they are
"under full power," but the point is precisely the
institutional culture, not current morale and size of congregations.
A key part of that culture is the
inherited theology, something which comes with the stones and the
bells: as unquestionable as cake at a birthday party! And no theme
perhaps has been more unquestionable than the necessary violence of
an all-powerful and pure God dealing with human sin. An enormous part
of institutional change today is the effective questioning of this
thought. Gathering force over the latter part of the twentieth
century, it has been applying the rudder surely and steadily to the
mighty craft of Christianity.
But the ship has only shifted one or
two degrees.
The reason is that institutional culture
is at least as much anthropological as it is theological. That sounds
complicated, but really it is the most practical and down-to-earth
part of the issue. Changing Christianity is both a change in God and
a change in human beings as believers. They go hand in hand, and you
cannot have one without the other. If we change the character of God
in people's minds, and at the same time God's followers are not
visibly different, then we incur the runaway risk an average person
will conclude there really is no point in 'church'. They will
say, "We can be just as good outside a church as inside one, and
God is cool with everyone anyway!"
So what may a different "anthropology"
look like? There are two parts to the answer, looking in, and looking
out.
On the inside, at the very least,
Christians are challenged to believe they are on a transformative
human pathway, and the path has an urgent character. In
other words, change in the fundamental ways we relate to the world
around us is actually more important than ensuring we "get to
heaven when we die." "Nonviolence"
may be a good shorthand term for this change, but it vital to realize
this is not a new ethical code (although it may perhaps be given
ethical expression.) The key is relationship, a living, journeying
relationship which molds individuals one-with-another as they
continue walking together in community. Very little of this can be
accomplished in the idealized formal setting of Sunday worship,
redolent with sixteen hundred years of vertical theology. There has
to be a multiplying cell-system, of small groups committed to this
common journey, knowing each other and changing each other through
prayer, study, and some measure of service and common life.
On the outside, we must think about
Christianity and the U.S. In the U.S. there is an extraordinary
relationship between the state and religion. The first amendment
says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion..." Of the three basic options, a state religion, a
state atheism, and the "separation of church and state,"
the third obviously seems preferable. But it should never be
forgotten that the state never does anything disinterestedly. To
legislate originally against the establishment of religion is also to
legislate for religion. The Constitution gives religion its assigned
place alongside the state and requires, reciprocally, that religion
grants the state a place alongside itself. And as religion
constitutes an organization speaking on behalf of God, granting the
state its independent space amounts to a kind of permanent blessing
on the state.
Christians in the U.S. have become used
to this comfortable relationship and as a general rule have a
dewy-eyed, sentimental attitude toward the state. The situation is
complex at the practical political level, but there can be no doubt
that an anthropologically renewed Christianity will also have a
radically prophetic attitude toward the state as war-fighting
machine. Indeed this is part of the argument for cellular
Christianity. Not having tax-exempt conditions (plant, endowments
etc.) small-group Christianity can stand experientially on a humanly-renewed ground, beyond
any collusion and blessing on war.
Jesus is a new form of humanity, and
the state is the old form. As Jesus said to Pilate, "You would
have no power over me unless it had been given you from above."
Far from reading this as a generalized backing by God of the Roman
Empire, it means that the Father permitted this apparent power in
order to reveal one much greater: the power of nonviolent love.
It is the concrete anthropological
enactment of this love--viz. single cell Christianity--which has the
power to turn the wheel of a ship two-thousand years big, toward a new human horizon.
Note. In point of fact how long it
takes to turn a modern aircraft carrier is a military secret. But
rumors are they may be surprisingly nimble these days, due to all
sorts of advanced technology. It's possible that the advanced crisis
of our times, so part and parcel of the Christian message, may make
the church equally nimble. Maybe in less than twenty five years it
really will be pointed in another direction entirely!
Tony Bartlett
A thought I keep mulling over is: the more weapons one has, the harder it is to believe in the Sermon on the Mount.
ReplyDelete