Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
faith and politics pt2
In the first part of writing on faith and politics, I have tried to mention why it is important to talk about faith and politics today. I have also made some attempt to give some grocery look at the historical development of the issue in question. In this 2nd part, I do intend to carry on from where I stopped with the movement of the centre of Christianity from East to West.
The significance of this moving meant also an ideological shift. By paradigm I mean like in the words of
The significance of this moving meant also an ideological shift. By paradigm I mean like in the words of
Monday, November 10, 2008
What ever happen to theological reflections
After my first degree in theology, I left the walls of the seminary both satisfied and with a deep hunger. I left satisfied because the act of theological process and reflections gave me some apparatus for further reflections and-some forms of engaging with the Bible in a way that further enlightens me on the truth of God´s word. My hunger conversely was intensified by the seemingly deep gap I realized between the extensive and inexhaustible work within the walls of the theological academia and the shallow approach to nourishing of faith from the pulpit to the pew. To my great dismay, it seemed our efforts in much of our theological training seem to fall flat at the threshold of both the seminary and local church doors, because little is left as to how much our theological researches, deep reflections of theologies we have can be said to have penetrated the immediate local church and society we have been called to serve, for heaven´s sake. It is with this deep hunger that I have tried to make both a personal commitment and make pleas with gifted people to join in raising awareness and a charge for a reconsideration of the efficacy of our theology in this time and age. Just walking around the shelves of my undergraduate Seminary brings me to great number of theses written at both the undergraduate and graduate levels that have been students’ attempts to address some of the issues the church needs to address. But having worked in the church for a period of three years, observing the style of leadership in the church and also the challenges faced at the local church, I am always asking the question: where have all those researches gone? (Have we asked the right questions? Have we found the right answers, and have we applied them in the right way?).
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Faith and politcs (pt 1)
The nature of the relationship between faith and society has been a matter of debate for centuries. Since the reformers of the 15-16 centuries tried to put the marriage between state and church asunder, subsequent generations have made attempt to tap into that idea and try to articulate it into their particular situations in an attempt to create social harmony. Despite this long time debate, there is no clear consensus to weather these two are mutually exclusive or mutually dependent.
Today we are still at the same place asking the same question: what is the relationship between state and Church or more broadly speaking, faith and politics? For Islam this is not much of a strong debate as it has never had a long history of attempting to separate politics and faith hitherto the usual reference to some countries as "Islamic state". However, there is an upsurge of new movements within Islam, like the "liberal Muslim" or "the progressive Muslims" who seem to embrace and promote the idea of the separation of state and religion. In the meantime, we will consider them a minority group within Islam. The conservative view in Islam has always been to see all things through Islam and thus Islam defines every sphere of society. The concept of separating Islam from the state would be viewed an act of sacrilege,thus the constant fight for a sharia controlled state.
Conversely, the idea of the separation of state and religion has mostly been a Christian idea. From the decisive years of the early church, Christians have had to define their place in a multi religious context. In most cases, it was clear how the state viewed its relationship with religion. To take the Roman concept of "pax Romana" (the Latin meaning of Roman Peace), the roman empire sort to keep peace at all levels of society and did that by giving for some forms of "inclusiveness" and degree of religious tolerance by accommodating and assimilating all religions into some "pool of polytheism" though ebbed by the worship of the emperor as pivotal in the keeping of peace. The church in such context was often targeted, falsely, as the enemy of the state. It was clear that the Church's refusal to any form syncretism was considered antithetical to a peaceful Rome and an act of subversion to the emperor. It is at this point that the church recorded its high number of mat yrs. They were persecuted in all forms.
However, before the collapse of the Roman empire in the hands of the Goths, Christianity had not only enjoyed acceptance under emperor Constantine but had been made the state religion. All though this was not greeted by all the citizens as a great idea, it made the role of the state and church quite blurred. For the church, its primary role, that of worship, evangelism and services of mercy and justice in the society was in some fashion turned political. With the fall of Rome in 410 some were quick to blame the church for its collapse. However, we see for the first time, in the midst of the confusion that followed the fall, an attempt to redefine the church. Augustine´s work: the city if God was the attempt to try to re-claim the identity of the church and by so, clarify its relationship with the state. One could conclude that Augustine's thesis was not a synthesis for the relationship between the church and state but an antithesis between the church and state. He defined the church as a mystic entity, an organic rather than an organisational being. one saddle with a responsibility that has a vertical bearing towards heaven and not much with a horizontal relevance to earthly affairs.
But before we hastily reach any conclusion of assuming that Augustine was the father of the separation of state and religion, we need to examine the shift that occurred in the centre of Christianity from East to West. The effort of Augustine did not practically change the state of affairs but clarified the fundamentals of Christianity. The movement of the strength of the church from east to west was a move from a Greek influenced church to a Latin influenced Church. However, the marriage between the state and church as officiated by Constantine was never dissolved. As David Bosch puts it: the church strive to articulate her role profusely in this "alter and throne" era.
Today we are still at the same place asking the same question: what is the relationship between state and Church or more broadly speaking, faith and politics? For Islam this is not much of a strong debate as it has never had a long history of attempting to separate politics and faith hitherto the usual reference to some countries as "Islamic state". However, there is an upsurge of new movements within Islam, like the "liberal Muslim" or "the progressive Muslims" who seem to embrace and promote the idea of the separation of state and religion. In the meantime, we will consider them a minority group within Islam. The conservative view in Islam has always been to see all things through Islam and thus Islam defines every sphere of society. The concept of separating Islam from the state would be viewed an act of sacrilege,thus the constant fight for a sharia controlled state.
Conversely, the idea of the separation of state and religion has mostly been a Christian idea. From the decisive years of the early church, Christians have had to define their place in a multi religious context. In most cases, it was clear how the state viewed its relationship with religion. To take the Roman concept of "pax Romana" (the Latin meaning of Roman Peace), the roman empire sort to keep peace at all levels of society and did that by giving for some forms of "inclusiveness" and degree of religious tolerance by accommodating and assimilating all religions into some "pool of polytheism" though ebbed by the worship of the emperor as pivotal in the keeping of peace. The church in such context was often targeted, falsely, as the enemy of the state. It was clear that the Church's refusal to any form syncretism was considered antithetical to a peaceful Rome and an act of subversion to the emperor. It is at this point that the church recorded its high number of mat yrs. They were persecuted in all forms.
However, before the collapse of the Roman empire in the hands of the Goths, Christianity had not only enjoyed acceptance under emperor Constantine but had been made the state religion. All though this was not greeted by all the citizens as a great idea, it made the role of the state and church quite blurred. For the church, its primary role, that of worship, evangelism and services of mercy and justice in the society was in some fashion turned political. With the fall of Rome in 410 some were quick to blame the church for its collapse. However, we see for the first time, in the midst of the confusion that followed the fall, an attempt to redefine the church. Augustine´s work: the city if God was the attempt to try to re-claim the identity of the church and by so, clarify its relationship with the state. One could conclude that Augustine's thesis was not a synthesis for the relationship between the church and state but an antithesis between the church and state. He defined the church as a mystic entity, an organic rather than an organisational being. one saddle with a responsibility that has a vertical bearing towards heaven and not much with a horizontal relevance to earthly affairs.
But before we hastily reach any conclusion of assuming that Augustine was the father of the separation of state and religion, we need to examine the shift that occurred in the centre of Christianity from East to West. The effort of Augustine did not practically change the state of affairs but clarified the fundamentals of Christianity. The movement of the strength of the church from east to west was a move from a Greek influenced church to a Latin influenced Church. However, the marriage between the state and church as officiated by Constantine was never dissolved. As David Bosch puts it: the church strive to articulate her role profusely in this "alter and throne" era.
Faith in a pluralistic society
We live in a world that is so closely knitted together than any time in history. The homogeneous nature of many societies has fast been replaced by a multi-diverse era. The abundant flow of information, the increasing migration of people for: business, jobs, marriage, the seeking of social and political asylum have all in some untamed manner made this change in most societies possible.
It is of note to say that this change has not left things as the were some two to three decades back. With the moving of people and the easy access to communicate across boarders and cultures, ideas have also found a way to travel. These ideas have come from different cultural and religious beliefs. We could say that moving people have moved with their cultures, values and of course religions.
For most societies that have been very homogeneous in their form, this change in the social fabric poses a perplexing situation of defining itself as a people, culture and religion. This perplexity has led to some degree of frustration in some quarters while in others it is a mixed blessing. Depending on how every concerned individual sees the situation, I think both sides are legitimate in their reaction. There is nothing that can be more human than these reactions. I am of the opinion that man is made a preserving being. The desire to preserve long held values, beliefs and cultures are part of what defined us as human. On the other hand we are progressive beings. The ability to innovate is a deeply seated gift in our human culture. While we may seek to preserve, we always embrace the sense of progress in our total culture.
At this time however, the tension will be what is the dividing line between preserving heritage and progress in any society. I believe it is not the question of "either or". It is the question of every society being able to adapt and define itself in a changing time without losing its core values. This is not the contest for cultural supremacy but that of cultural accommodation and the exchanges of cultures in the arena of cultural dialogue.
To this end I think that the question of faith is crucially important. I do believe that faith is an essential part of our society. All societies have been known to have a consciousness of faith, some degree of believe in the existence of the supernatural. Well, someone may say "there are those who do not believe in the supernatural". But that is only so because of the premise that there is such. So, whether you believe or don't believe in the existence of the supernatural only underscore the argument that there is a possible consciousness of the supernatural that has made the debate possible.
However we define our individual or communal Faith it will always be a fact that it will affect the general nature of the being of any society as an entity. Faith and society are not opponents. Faith is a crucially necessary part of the society. It has to a large part been the conscience of the society in the formation of a morally conscious society. To try to organise a society without it will be like playing a soccer match without a referee. Many people assume faith or as we call it "religion": the enemy of the society. Well, like every good thing among people, they can have both positive use and negative. We can count, with our fingers all the problems that have been associated to the question of faith, but when we wait to ponder for a moment we can see myriads of benefits that faith has brought to societies.
With our societies being religiously plural, we have a duty, like with every sphere of the society to find a square of meaningful dialogue: call it a market square of ideas or city centre for religious dialogue, the important thing is that we must learn to open for faith conversation in how we organise society. Some of the religions of the world have been spread by the use of sword, we know the outcomes and the historical stigma that has left, but they have also been spread by the use of debate and dialogue. Rather than hate and kill those who do not share our faith we must use the most of other abilities we have been created with, that of reasonable debate and dialogue.
It is of note to say that this change has not left things as the were some two to three decades back. With the moving of people and the easy access to communicate across boarders and cultures, ideas have also found a way to travel. These ideas have come from different cultural and religious beliefs. We could say that moving people have moved with their cultures, values and of course religions.
For most societies that have been very homogeneous in their form, this change in the social fabric poses a perplexing situation of defining itself as a people, culture and religion. This perplexity has led to some degree of frustration in some quarters while in others it is a mixed blessing. Depending on how every concerned individual sees the situation, I think both sides are legitimate in their reaction. There is nothing that can be more human than these reactions. I am of the opinion that man is made a preserving being. The desire to preserve long held values, beliefs and cultures are part of what defined us as human. On the other hand we are progressive beings. The ability to innovate is a deeply seated gift in our human culture. While we may seek to preserve, we always embrace the sense of progress in our total culture.
At this time however, the tension will be what is the dividing line between preserving heritage and progress in any society. I believe it is not the question of "either or". It is the question of every society being able to adapt and define itself in a changing time without losing its core values. This is not the contest for cultural supremacy but that of cultural accommodation and the exchanges of cultures in the arena of cultural dialogue.
To this end I think that the question of faith is crucially important. I do believe that faith is an essential part of our society. All societies have been known to have a consciousness of faith, some degree of believe in the existence of the supernatural. Well, someone may say "there are those who do not believe in the supernatural". But that is only so because of the premise that there is such. So, whether you believe or don't believe in the existence of the supernatural only underscore the argument that there is a possible consciousness of the supernatural that has made the debate possible.
However we define our individual or communal Faith it will always be a fact that it will affect the general nature of the being of any society as an entity. Faith and society are not opponents. Faith is a crucially necessary part of the society. It has to a large part been the conscience of the society in the formation of a morally conscious society. To try to organise a society without it will be like playing a soccer match without a referee. Many people assume faith or as we call it "religion": the enemy of the society. Well, like every good thing among people, they can have both positive use and negative. We can count, with our fingers all the problems that have been associated to the question of faith, but when we wait to ponder for a moment we can see myriads of benefits that faith has brought to societies.
With our societies being religiously plural, we have a duty, like with every sphere of the society to find a square of meaningful dialogue: call it a market square of ideas or city centre for religious dialogue, the important thing is that we must learn to open for faith conversation in how we organise society. Some of the religions of the world have been spread by the use of sword, we know the outcomes and the historical stigma that has left, but they have also been spread by the use of debate and dialogue. Rather than hate and kill those who do not share our faith we must use the most of other abilities we have been created with, that of reasonable debate and dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)