View and print as PDF
General Assembly meeting, from Wikimedia Commons, by David Shankbone
Recent months have witnessed a remarkable explosion of protest in the name of social and, specifically, economic justice. The Occupy Movement has raced to the forefront of our national consciousness by staking out two fundamentally democratic principles: (1) public space is for the public, and (2) free speech includes the freedom to criticize the prevailing social order. This movement began rather modestly in Manhattan with the Occupy Wall Street chapter, but quickly spread across the nation, fueled by increased media coverage and by misguided and unnecessary police violence. Because the movement began there, and because it is symbolically significant for the movement’s message, I will refer to the whole movement as “Occupy Wall Street” by means of its Twitter hashtag, #OWS.
What is #OWS’s message? The chattering class[1] has worn out many keyboards in the attempt to understand this phenomenon. Although understanding has increased, it remains common to find folks committed to the notion that #OWS has no message. That is false. #OWS’s message is remarkably simple: “capitalism is broken, and it has broken our politics as well.”
___________________________________________
#OWS constitutes a revolt against what any truly democratic system of government ought to reject, namely, the concentration of vast economic resources in the hands of the few and the consequential concentration of political influence in those same hands.
___________________________________________
The fuel that launched #OWS is the deeply held conviction, backed up by innumerable studies and statistical data points, that wealth distribution within the United States is increasingly unjust, and that this concentration of wealth in the hands of the few (in #OWS nomenclature, “the 1%”) has produced a breakdown in the political process, marginalizing the political voice and will of the many (in #OWS nomenclature, “the 99%”). In all this, #OWS’s motivation and message seems to echo that of Abraham Lincoln in his address at Gettysburg, when he called the nation to join him in his resolve “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
At the end of the day, #OWS constitutes a revolt against what any truly democratic system of government ought to reject, namely, the concentration of vast economic resources in the hands of the few and the consequential concentration of political influence in those same hands. #OWS is the conscience of our democracy, which has increasingly lapsed into an oligarchy of un-democratic privilege.
Reformed Theology and #OWS
Although there is much within the Christian tradition that would incline one toward support of #OWS, there are certain distinctives within the Reformed theological tradition that provide an extra push in this direction.
Ethics
Perhaps most pertinent is the tradition’s ethical emphasis. As John Leith once noted, the Reformed tradition insists “that the Christian is not only a forgiven person but an ethical person. This emphasis is reflected in the theology, worship, and polity” of Reformed churches.[2] Reformed Christianity’s ethical focus finds its clearest theological expression in what John Calvin called “the third and principle use” of the Law (specifically, the Ten Commandments or Decalogue).[3] Rather than serving simply to restrain evil or to drive non-Christians to despair and thus conversion, Reformed Christianity teaches that the Law also provides believers with instructions describing the sort of life that God wants God’s children to live.
This Reformed principle points to the close relationship between what theologians call the “two tables” of the Law, that is, the Decalogue’s early commandments concerning life with God and its latter commandments concerning life in community. Jesus built on this twofold aspect when he identified the two greatest commandments: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength . . . You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk 12.30-1).[4] This passage highlights the inextricable link between the two tables of the Law, between love of God and neighbor. Any activities (worship, prayer, etc.) or dispositions that express or profess love of God are mere resounding gongs when they are divorced from active love of neighbor. In this same vein, Matthew 25.34-40 teaches that active love for one’s poor and oppressed[5] neighbors is paradoxically identical with love of God. For my own part, I am convinced that the Reformed tradition’s ethical emphasis implies that a Reformed Christian ought to support a movement that aims to undermine the wealth and political privilege enjoyed by the few that keeps many in our nation poor and oppressed.
Covenant
Built into the tradition’s very fabric, this ethical emphasis finds its theological foundation in the deeply Reformed idea of covenant. Indeed, this idea is so significant in the Reformed tradition’s theological history that there are branches of that history described as “Covenant theology.” At the most basic level, “covenant” describes how God and humanity relate. God stands on the one side, a superior party, and enters into relationship with humanity on the other side, an inferior party. This relationship involves mutual responsibility, and is best encapsulated in God’s statement to the Israelites: “I will . . . walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people” (Lv 26.12). The covenant depends and is built on God’s saving activity, which gives God the right to demand obedience—and ethical action—from those whom God has saved.
___________________________________________
These are not recommendations for an individual’s pious attitudes and charitable activities. Justice must be established at the gate, where the elders sat in ancient towns and cities to hear disputes and render judgments.
___________________________________________
This covenantal relationship extends to all humanity. Although much of the Reformed tradition has either explicitly or implicitly limited covenant membership to those who actively share in the Christian faith, there is also a tendency within the tradition (e.g. Heinrich Bullinger) to understand the covenant as a relationship that God has with all of humanity, not just with believers. John Riggs helpfully explains Bullinger’s position as follows: “God is disposed kindly toward all humankind, wanting their salvation and thus wanting them to take up responsibly their side of the divine-human relationship.”[6] Reformed theology, therefore, pushes us to recognize that those who actively promote the love of neighbor have begun to assume covenantal responsibility before God, even if they have not yet awakened to faith and explicit love of God. Movements such as #OWS thus point Reformed Christians back to their own covenantal responsibility not only to practice love of God, but also and inescapably to practice love of neighbor.
Continue reading on the next page…
Links,
A Response to Travis McMaken’s “Why I Support #OWS as a Reformed Theologian”
Todd V. Cioffi
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, MI
Professor McMaken provides a helpful assessment of the recent “Occupy Movement” (hereafter cited as OWS). No doubt many of us are confused as to what exactly this movement is all about, and clarity is hard to find. And as is often the case, mainstream Christian voices are either unhelpfully predictable (affirmation of anything that seems like “social justice”) or uncharitably narrow (rejection of anything “liberal” or “progressive”). Consequently, McMaken’s analysis of OWS is most welcome.
I appreciate McMaken’s attempt to provide a justification of OWS. Wealth (mis)distribution in the U.S. is obscene and the inordinate influence wealth plays in our political processes is unconscionable. At its best, then, OWS is a movement with laudable motivation and cause. And McMaken is just right, in my mind, to claim that the Reformed tradition can support and develop the best of OWS.
As noted, shot through the Reformed tradition is moral concern for creation, society, and justice. And McMaken rightly highlights key aspects of this concern: a positive use of the Law, covenant, scripture, and a concentrated commitment to the oppressed. Any Reformed Christian who does not see and embrace this has shirked her vocation. McMaken, then, calls Reformed Christians to their better selves. Indeed, every (Reformed) Christian (and person of good will, no less) needs to pay attention to OWS and join in solidarity by addressing disparities of wealth and political standing in this country.
At the same time, however, if OWS is mostly, if not solely, targeting the assumed evils of capitalism, then there is more to be desired. And as to whether Professor McMaken is suggesting this is not clear. Near the end of his essay, McMaken quotes Helmut Gollwitzer, noted as one of Karl Barth’s “most significant students.” Gollwitzer asks about the relationship between “Christian existence and capitalism,” apparently contending that Christians cannot defend a social system that rests on capitalism. Such interpretation seems to follow given that Barth thought capitalism is an acid of society. For Barth, democratic socialism, which is as much a statement about economic order as it is about political life, should be more appealing from a Christian vantage point than other “systems.” Along this line, McMaken claims that Gollwitzer’s question is the question that OWS puts before the church. If indeed it is truly just a question, then the church, and especially Reformed Christians, would do well to consider carefully the question before us. Yet, not far below the surface of Gollwitzer’s contention, I suspect, is Barth’s denouncement of capitalism as, in Gollwitzer’s words, “intolerable.” Even if I’m right about this interpretation, why does this matter?
If the problem is capitalism, especially as represented by Wall Street, and the solution is the dismantling of Wall Street and capitalism, then I’m not sure we are significantly better off in the long run than where we are now. An “either-or” is rarely a good way to tackle a complex problem. Yet, such an “either-or” does seem to be in play at the national level when it comes to OSW and Wall Street. (Even if that isn’t a completely accurate description, it does seem to be the perception.) Going back and forth between either the virtue or the injustice of capitalism isn’t getting us anywhere, nor will it. Frankly, the question shouldn’t first and foremost be about capitalism, but, instead, what does a good society look like?
My concern is that as a society we are so often at a loss for how to have the conversation about what counts as a good society. In other words, I’m not convinced the problem is that of capitalism per se, but is one of moral capital. What moral resources do we have available in order to have the conversation, indeed debate, about what a good society looks like? What social practices can we point to as ones that will form and guide us in seeking the good life? How has the church been, or can be, a source for the good life in America?
I think OSW is a good thing for us as a society. But not necessarily because they’ve pointed out the evils of capitalism (surely we’ve known about the evils of American capitalism for some time). Rather, I think the opportunity that has been created is that of asking the hard questions about the moral content and direction of our society. I suspect that a Wall Street banker is not interested in hearing about the rampant evils of capitalism. But I wonder if we can get that banker to sit down and talk about the good life and a good society. It may even be the case that we could envision a good form of capitalism, Wall Street banking, and so forth. And here is where I think the church, and no doubt Reformed Christians, have an edge.
Our churches are often understood as moral communities, albeit imperfect ones, by many people in our society. Let’s cash in on that perception. Instead of taking predictable sides, what if Christians refused ideological agendas and sought to foster an atmosphere where we as a nation could entertain profound moral questions about our society? I’m reminded of an example, given the past month of February and Black History Month. Martin Luther King, Jr. was adept in the language of justice and the like. But, he was most challenging and most inspiring when he sought to see our society not simply as more just but more in line with the Beloved Community as given in John’s gospel. Better than justice is love, better than equity is mercy and care. The church is skilled in such language and ways of life. While not leaving justice and equity behind, let the church seek a more perfect way. OSW may just have given us our chance.
Hey Travis,
Great post. I’ve linked to it from The Occupy Church.
I affirm your position that Christians are to be in the movement but not of it, as it were. The Scriptures provide us with amazing resources for understanding wealth and I pray with you that we begin again to take them seriously.
Peace,
Jeremy (@glassdimlyfaith)
Todd,
YOu wrote: “No doubt many of us are confused as to what exactly this movement is all about, and clarity is hard to find”. What Travis has done here is to make plain what is indeed EASY to find if we just ask. There’s a bit of the “hands over ears saying LaLaLa” thing happening with this meme of OWS not having a clear message. It’s EASY to find. Just ask an Occupier. Also, Travis has done a great job here of tying together the theological issues at hand.
Dale, my opening paragraph is an attempt to support Travis’s help in providing clarity on the OW movement. Also, while acknowledging that Travis has helped in making things clearer and providing a helpful theological framework for us, I want to ask a few questions having to do with capitalism and what exactly churches should be doing. As to just how “easy” it is to be clear what the OW movement is all about, I have my doubts. Such movements are never “easy” to understand fully. It may be a matter of some putting their hands over their ears, but not completely. For instance, one thing does seem clear: folks want the greed of Wall Street to stop. But then what? What kind of society is actually envisioned by the Movement? That’s not clear, at least not to me. And here, as I note above, is where churches can play a substantial role in helping to create a moral vision for society.