You know, posts like this are almost enough to make me want to take up blogging again...almost!

Nice job!

I still don't really know what "Christian" values are... but as far as proselytizing is concerned, I am all over Bonhoeffer's ideas!

I would like to see Christians simply going about trying to live their lives as close as possible to the standards and wishes of Christ.

I have seriously been considering starting a new church myself. It would NOT be based on morals or rewards or anything of the sort. Rather it would be based soley on trying to ACT like Jesus - just for the sake of quietly making the world a little bit better of a place to be in while we're here!

This is a very good post. But I think that I must disagree. Your claim that one really can't "push Christian values without pushing Christianity itself" leaves us without a theologically grounded humanism. We are left finally incapable of expressing our beliefs that all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God and that human reason and understanding are themselves analogous to the wisdom of the Triune God.

You do make a very good point when you write that we simply can't preach "works without faith" without inadvertently distorting our faith into Pelagianism and alienating others with "finger-wagging." But there are other grounds for humanism.

David Hollenbach, SJ, has noted that one such ground is the Cross. "(The cross) unveils the mystery at the heart of the world as One who has utter compassion for all who suffer. The cross is the revelation of divine solidarity with every human whose experience is that of forsakeness and abandonment ... The sign of the cross, therefore, is an invitation to interpret the ultimate mystery surrounding the fragments and pieces of human history as the reality of compassionate friendship."

As an example of this sort of humanism, Hollenbach offer his martyred fellow Jesuit, Ignacio Ellacuria:

"Ellacuria was a philosopher and social thinkier of considerable sophistication. His humanistic commitment called him to use all the tools of reasoned reflection and social analysis at his disposal as a professor and university president. But at the same time his theologia crucis demanded that he use all these resources to enable him both to see the reality of human suffering more clearly and to respond to it effectively. In such a humanism, he wrote, 'Reason and faith merge, in confronting the reality of the poor. Reason must open its eyes to the fact of suffering. Faith, which is sometimes scandal to those without it, sees in the weak of this world the triumph of God, for we see in the poor what salvation must mean and the conversion to which we are called.' But Ellacuria was under no illusion that these intellectual resources put him and his fellow intellectuals at the University of Central America in a position to control events in El Salvador. Indeed he predicted that solidarity with the suffering of the world could lead to a fate like that of Jesus. Such a fate could be the outcome for anyone engaged in action that seeks to take the crucified people down from the cross. The prediction was brutally fulfilled in his own bloody death and the deaths of his companions. An ethic under the sign of the cross, therefore, calls us to open our eyes to the suffering of the world today, draws us into solidarity with those who suffer, and leads to action to alleviate this suffering and overcome its causes. It is the radicalization of the social ethical stance hinted at by Hume's sympathy, Rawls's difference principle, and Habermas's call for the inclusion of the voices of the marginalized in social discourse. It is prepared to take the risk of this kind of solidarity in action because, for those with eyes to see, the cross reveals the ultimate mystery surrounding life to be one of saving Friendship."

Thus, we can have a humanism based on the the "most particularistic of all Christian symbols." Through the cross, we can find common ground with non-Christians subject - like us - to affliction, even as we confront them with further questions and the full "shock of recognition."

Thanks.

Neil

Suppose that you interrupt whatever you have been doing in order to help a person whom you can see is in some way afflicted. As you are rendering the necessary help, the person asks, "Why are you doing this for me, a stranger?"
Do you say, "I am doing this because you are weak and our mutual enemy, who has done this to you is strong, and together we must prevail";
Do you say, "I am doing this because I love you";
Do you say, "I am doing this because our common humanity compels me to do so";
Do you say, "I am doing this in the reasoned expectation that if our situations were reversed, you would do the same for me";
Do you say, "I am doing this because I am a Christian"?
Or does the very fact of your act say all of these things--with the exception of the last? Is it important that the last thing, the profession of Christianity, be made explicit?

Regarding justification as a social-political event, there is a nice chapter in John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus that argues that justification was never about the individual's standing with God in regard to her own sin, but rather the social reconciliation of the community. Barth suggests much the same thing, though in a roundabout way, in the Dogmatics (mostly IV/1). To see all this summarized, and to read about twenty pages that should change your Christian life, look at Ch. 1 of Douglas Harink's Paul among the Postliberals.

With Telford down, somebody has to take up the religion professor slack, I suppose...

Dear Rob,

I suppose that your question(s) were directed towards me. I would say that we must acknowledge that the second, third, and fourth answers you give to "Why are you doing this for me, a stranger?" are positive insofar as they recognize that those suffering do have an authority that calls us to responsibility. They don't take part in the usual mythological evasions that "justify" suffering (as Girard writes, "The Dionysiac myths regard even the most horrible lynchings as legitimate") or the even more crass political evasions (the "I didn't really know," "I was only following orders," or "I tried to mitigate the worst" of Nuremberg).

But only the Christian explanation, it must be said, is a truly sufficient answer. Thus, the Christian can embrace the previous answers (e.g., "common humanity") as related to the eschatological vision of peace, while still attempting to radicalize them to a true theologia crucis.

I suspect that we can do this by walking alongside those who would give the previous answers while still questioning them - How do you remain honest before a concrete reality when it is so easy to fall prey before injustice (Rom 1.18)? How do you remain committed to mercy as the primary and ultimate human reaction (Lk 10.33ff)? How do you retain hope that there will be indeed be a deliverance from captivity (Is 45)? and so on.

Neil

Neil:
Thank you. My questions were actually not addressed specifically to you, but to any person who was thinking about the issue of the Christian response to the call of citizenship to participate in politics. To the extent that we participate in politics, how does our Christian orientation (which, it seems to me, must take precedence in any decision to act) enhance, or perhaps limit, that participation?
I think that the answers to the questions I asked above make it clear that one can act morally and charitably towards one's neighbors without professing Christ. A Buddhist might have given any of the answers I propose, as might the practitioner of most religious faiths. This would seem to weight justification in the direction of faith, as opposed to works.
My question then is: should a Christian, as his social, civic morality is informed by his Christianity, make his Christianity explicit as he acts, thus becoming, as a political agent, a de facto proselytizer within the political arena? Or should "church" and "state" be kept publicly discrete? Further, then, given that politics is always a game of compromise, is it possible to participate in politics-as-we-know-it without compromising faith, or it is a Christian duty to strive first to conform politics to faith?

I think that the Christian participates in acts of grace from different motivations than the secularists. And, as a Christian, I think those differences are important.

Christians are not motivated by the Pelagian idea that humanity can save itself. We feed the hungry, clothe the poor and visit those who are sick or in prison because Jesus told us to do so. Christians face the brokeness of humanity, and seek a higher power for healing.

Christians do not think that performing acts of mercy makes them "good people." They understand that altruism is impossible unless done in the name of a greater cause. The cause that drives them is the reconcilation of all people with God and one another. The acts of mercy are signs of this reconciliation; that my salvation is integrally wrapped up in yours.

Christians are not against war for political reasons. Christians are against war because Jesus taught us through his life that the way to break the cycle of violence in this world is the way of non-violent resistance.

Christians can certainly work with secularists towards common goals, but, personally, I think it is appropriate to speak up when it is assumed that they are driven by the same motives as their secular political allies. If that is seen as prostelyzing, so be it. If it is seen as being politically active, then let it be seen that way. A case can certainly be made that Jesus did not hesitate to wade into the realm of politics when necessary. As I've mentioned before, some, like Hauewas, suggest that Jesus was all about politics.

The current dilemma, at least from my perspective, is what the Christian response should be when a political leader wraps himself in the mantle of Christianity in order to justify acts that many Christians consider downright evil. I think we have a duty to speak out, and align ourselves with any force that will help us remove such a leader, not only for the sake of the world, but for the sake of Christendom.

Excuse the long windedness...maybe I should us my own place for "preaching"?

Will my personal information be public if I post here?