Mobilizing Hope: A Review
Review by Matthew Bracey
Compassion. Love. Justice. Hope. These have become buzzwords in recent history for a brighter future and better tomorrow. Generational studies even reveal that the late Generation X and Millennial generations care in particular for the marginalized and the oppressed [1]. Yet as Christians, the question we must ask ourselves is where we fit into this growing trend.
In Mobilizing Hope, Adam Taylor offers an answer. He proposes that believers are called to extend radical, Christ-like love to the undesirables and sinful of society: the drug users, homeless, homosexuals, impoverished, low-income, marginalized, oppressed, outcasts, prostitutes, and sickly. And most believers would agree in principle that Christian ethics calls us to care for these.
The question believers must ask themselves is how it is accomplished. How should we fulfill this ethic? Though it’s a great point of contention among believers, Taylor proposes that we accomplish it through “faith-inspired activism” of social justice. However, Taylor’s proposition warrants several preliminary observations before proceeding further: (a) Our own predispositions of language; and (b) our philosophies of cultural and political engagement.
What Is Social Justice That We Should Be Mindful of It?
Some readers may dismiss Taylor and his proposals outright upon reading that he suggests “social justice,” believing such rhetoric “leftist”. However, as rational beings, this is the very thing we mustn’t do [2]. The Christian Right and Left ought not dismiss the other simply for their political association. Instead, we must engage one another’s positions honestly. Take the phrase “social justice,” for instance. All too often, we assume its meaning without first investigating it or its implications for ourselves. Taylor himself makes this point, stating that it is “often used rather loosely” and “a slippery concept to define” [3].
So what is social justice precisely? Is it Leftist politics run amuck; or, at its heart, a vision for a society in which all persons treat others with the proper dignity and respect they deserve as people made in God’s image? Taylor develops the concept from a biblical standpoint. In surveying Scripture, he notes that the “Bible defines a just society and world as one in which righteousness, steadfast love and right relationships reign supreme” [4]. Accordingly, social justice is “a description of an ideal reality in which every person’s dignity and rights are respected and a process by which we live into that ideal reality” [5]. To Taylor, far beyond mere social justice, it is biblical justice—instead of social justice, we may refer to it as human rights or mercy ministries [6].
Several observations are in order: Social justice as a concept does not necessitate the political process. Rather it is fundamentally (a) the vision for a rightly ordered society; and (b) the means to effectuate that society. While politics may be (and often is) a means, it is not the means—fundamentally the means is obscure. Note further that the object of social justice is people, especially those who receive unjust treatment from society.
“What is good, O man…but to do justice,” writes the prophet Micah (6:8). “Love your neighbor as yourself,” states Jesus just before sharing the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37).
As Christians we want to do our part to help make society the best it can be. We want a society fit for our children and grandchildren. On this, believers can agree. Where we disagree is how to realize this society. No matter one’s answer to the question, it must include justice to the marginalized and oppressed—those around whom we are often uncomfortable associating.
Political Engagement: Sector of Cultural Engagement
Taylor proposes that we meet these objectives by “faith-inspired activism.” The practical implications of this are civic and political engagement. Thus, while politics is not a necessary means of social justice, it is the means that Taylor proposes. Before proceeding to Taylor’s argument, let’s consider cultural and political engagement generally.
First, theories abound in Christian literature regarding how Christians should properly engage culture. Whether it’s Augustine’s City of God (c. 413-426), H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture (1951), Ken Myers’ All God’s Children in Blue Suede Shoes (1989), or most recently James Davison Hunter’s To Change the World (2010), Christians clearly have something to say about it [7]. While cultural engagement per se is not this essay’s focus, it is important to recognize that one’s philosophy of cultural engagement will have a direct impact on their beliefs regarding civic, governmental, and political engagement.
Second, is the political process a proper and valid means to pursue cultural change? After all, everyone has an opinion on the proper use of government, law, and politics—it would seem. How ought it to be used? Should it be used at all? Some say “yes,” others “no.” For Taylor, the political process is an appropriate means to pursue cultural change, or more particularly, to accomplish a Christian social ethic.
Faith-inspired Activism of Social Justice: Taylor’s Philosophy of Cultural and Political Engagement
Taylor’s primary thesis is as follows: To the extent that we’re called, we as Christians should pursue civic and political engagement to effectuate justice for the oppressed. Taylor writes, “While we may take this ‘sojourn’ differently through our respective denominations and Christian faith traditions, we are united by a shared commitment to be ‘in but not of this world,’ acting out our faith in ways that transform our communities and the world” [8].
His point is that “[o]ur faith is never meant to be [a] private possession but instead a contagious public good” [9]. How this public good manifests itself will look different for different people, depending upon their callings. For Taylor it is faith-inspired activism. For others it may be something as simple as voting. Thus, to the extent that we are called, we should engage the public sphere.
Chuck Colson comments similarly, “Christianity is a worldview, that all of us are called to carry out our Christian responsibility, and that we’re to do so in every area of life, whether it is the home, the school, the legislature, the arts, or, yes, politics” [10]. Despite Taylor’s basic thesis, some Christians are skeptical, if not suspicious, of political engagement. Some believe it’s corrupt, others just ineffective. Is this skepticism warranted?
In his recent book, To Change the World, James Davison Hunter offered a perspective on this question that satisfied some, while troubling others. As a philosophy of cultural engagement, he proposed that Christians should be “faithfully present” in their various “spheres of influence.” This means that believers should perform their salt and light activities within their respective callings.
What irritated some is that he went so far as to say that Christians should be “silent for a season,” especially in spheres of law, politics, and public policy. Is Hunter right? What would Taylor say to this? Hunter’s conclusion created a firestorm of controversy among those critics who believe (a) that political engagement is an appropriate means to achieve cultural change and (b) that he was being overly critical of political engagement.
However, on this point, an important distinction must be made: Hunter is not railing against politics per se, but against the way in which some commonly practice it. He explicitly states as much, “I am less concerned with the patterns of Christian political engagement than with the nature and character of that engagement” [11]. Thus, while some have mistakenly interpreted Hunter as being critical of politics, he is actually criticizing the way it’s often practiced.
Thus, Taylor is right to propose that a Christian social ethic will translate into civic and political engagement among certain Christians. And Hunter is right to offer criticism against those ungodly ways of engaging the civic and political spheres. What it comes down to is how we conduct ourselves in the public square. What are godly manifestations of political engagement, or ungodly manifestations [12]? These are the questions we must ask ourselves.
To the extent we are called, we should engage the political process. Yet we should be mindful to do it with Christian love and respect. Even Hunter, who many deem as otherwise skeptical, agrees with this basic sentiment: “Policy pursued and law practiced in light of the justice of God is a witness to the right ordering of human affairs” [13].
Conclusion
Is social justice something with which believers should be concerned? Clearly, yes, Christians should work to eliminate societal injustices, which includes those against the undesirables and sinful. This is scriptural. Is civic, governmental, and political engagement a proper means by which to accomplish this goal, as Taylor proposes?
While some conclude “no,” Taylor concludes “yes,” and I believe he is right [14]. To the extent that Christians are called, they should engage the political process as a means of cultural engagement. However, even those Christians that do not agree with this basic conclusion can agree (a) that societal injustices occur and (b) that we as Christians have an obligation to address them, especially as it relates to the marginalized and oppressed. This is the heart of social justice. And while we will not cure all of the world’s injustices, for God Himself will ultimately bring justice, we must do our parts [15].
_______________________________________
[1] See Thom Rainer and Jess Rainer, The Millennials: Connecting to America’s Largest Generation (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2011).
[2] C. S. Lewis writes that our ability as humans to think rationally, critically, and honestly about a given topic is one of those qualities that separate us from the animals.
He writes, “One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human.”
C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, “Man or Rabbit?” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), 108.
The tendency to toss aside a viewpoint for any reason other than having investigated the viewpoint itself is to forfeit some aspect of our humanity. Lewis’ primary point is intellectual honesty. And though his application is different, the basic point is the same.
Similarly, in consideration of ideologies, Russell Moore goes so far as to say that if Christians were to “cultivat[e] a Christian vision of justice and the common good, [it] would, by necessity … put us sometimes at odds with our political allies.” Russell Moore, “God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck,” available at http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/08/29/god-the-gospel-and-glenn-beck/, accessed on 11 August 2011.
[3] Adam Taylor, Mobilizing Hope (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2010), 54, 58.
Much may be said about the phrase “social justice”—its origin, its history, its current philosophical associations, its economic or political implications. I am not concerned with those aspects of the phrase for the purposes of this paper so much. Instead I am concerned with that aspect of social justice that gives attention to the marginalized and oppressed of society.
[4] Taylor, 61.
[5] Ibid., 60.
Taylor also describes this basic notion as “kingdom ethic”: “[W]e are called to create kingdom space here on earth, providing a foretaste of God’s kingdom come through our actions and witness” (77). While Taylor does note that a “perfectly just society will always be just out of reach until God’s kingdom is fully consummated” (60), he believes that “our constant strivings to create a better world are aligned with God’s purposes” since “Christ [has] inaugurated the inbreaking [sic] of the kingdom” (100).
[6] See Timothy Keller, Ministries of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road (P&R Publishing, 1997). See also Timothy Keller, Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just (Dutton Adult, 2010).
[7] Most famously, H. Richard Niebuhr presents five models of the Christian and cultural engagement in Christ and Culture (1951): (a) Christ against culture, (b) Christ of culture, (c) Christ above culture, (d) Christ and culture in paradox, and (e) Christ transforming culture.
[8] Taylor, 215.
[9] Ibid., 138.
[10] Charles Colson, “More Than Faithful Presence,” available at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/29-52.0.html, accessed on 11 August 2011.
[11] James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 110.
As stated, some critics interpreted Hunter to be criticizing politics per se. This is not correct. Fundamentally, Hunter is not criticizing politics per se, but the ungodly ways in which politics is practiced.
To be sure, Hunter is not altogether optimistic about modern forms of political engagement; he’s even a little suspicious. But that’s just the point, he is not altogether optimistic about its forms.
Thus, Hunter’s “silent for a season” conclusion is simply the solution that he proposes for the problem of modern politics—namely, that it is practiced in ungodly ways. As careful readers, we may disagree with his proposed solution (silence for a season), believing that it will result in quietism; but we cannot disagree with his basic diagnosis (that politics practiced in an ungodly way is a problem).
[12] Taylor offers several possibilities: God-honoring ways of campaigning, demonstrations, letter and postcard writing, lobbying, marches, op-eds, phone calls, protests, and visits to elected officials and leaders. Ungodly manifestations of political engagement may include certain types of political banter, hatred or hate speech, mobs, and riots.
[13] Hunter, 254.
[14] With this discussion of the Christian’s engagement in culture and politics, I must offer a concluding note: We mustn’t confuse political engagement with nationalism. Taylor comments:
One of the dangers of narrow nationalism from a U.S. perspective is that we can conflate America’s purposes with being the same as God’s purposes. But America is not a proxy for God. A belief that God favors American leadership devolves into hubris and a form of triumphalism. While our nation has been blessed with material riches, these blessings can’t come at the expenses of the rest of the world. As Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Commission on Ethics and Religious Liberty, writes,
Our ultimate allegiance belongs to God. But God is not an American. He may choose to bless America or judge America, but He is not an American. Many Americans worship Him, but He is not an American. And America’s purposes are not necessarily God’s purposes. We must never presume that America’s polices serve God’s purposes. The besetting sin of conservatives is to merge God and country as if they are virtually inseparable.
Richard Land, The Divided States of America (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 37; citied in Taylor, 180.
Similarly, W. Jackson Watts writes in “Rethinking Persecution”: “[P]roblems arise when a nation is mistaken for its citizens. In our American context, all too often we mistake our country for Christians who happen to live here … [T]he church functions as a counter-cultural community that models kingdom priorities, while simultaneously influencing society through its salt and light activities.”
[15] As Taylor puts it, a “perfectly just society will always be just out of reach until God’s kingdom is fully consummated” (60), nevertheless “our constant strivings to create a better world are aligned with God’s purposes” since “Christ [has] inaugurated the inbreaking [sic] of the kingdom” (100).
Further Reading
Ronald H. Nash, Social Justice and the Christian Church (New York: University of America Press, Inc., 1990).
Recent Comments