#OWS and the Church Today
In our nation today, it is #OWS that calls our society back to a concern for social justice, for taking the side of the poor and oppressed and standing with them against the privileged, and who remind the church of its responsibility for faithful and active covenant relationship with God. Karl Barth, perhaps the greatest Reformed theologian since John Calvin, once wrote that “God may speak to [the church] through Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog. We do well to listen to [God] if [God] really does.”[10] Whether you prefer to think of #OWS as Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog, I believe that the Reformed tradition shoves us rudely toward the affirmation that #OWS is where God is speaking to the church in this time and place. This certainly does not mean that the church must now proclaim the gospel of #OWS. Indeed, that would be a very serious mistake. But #OWS reminds the church of something that it has forgotten, namely, that faithful and active shouldering of covenantal responsibility in relationship with God ineluctably involves love of neighbor by taking the side of the poor and oppressed and working in our society for justice.
One of Barth’s most significant students, Helmut Gollwitzer, helpfully casts all this in terms that fit well within the contemporary #OWS discussions of social and economic injustice when he writes:
The conversion to which the Christian community is called daily through God’s word also includes turning away from its bond in the dominant system of privileges and active engagement for more just social structures no longer determined by social privileges. Therefore the important primary question today is the question about the relation of Christian existence and capitalism. . . . Can one as a Christian affirm and defend the present social system together with its underlying economic order or must this system be intolerable for a Christian?[11]
It is precisely this question that #OWS puts to the church in the United States today. There is no room for neutrality on this point. As a truism often associated with Edmund Burke says, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” The truth buried here is that when it comes to issues like those #OWS brings to our attention, remaining neutral offers de facto support to the status quo. As a theologian and Christian in the Reformed tradition, I cannot remain neutral.[12]
Notes
[1] Here is one way that Wikipedia describes the term: “the term is used by people all across the political spectrum to refer to the journalists and political operatives who see themselves as the arbiters of conventional wisdom.”
[2] John H. Leith, An Introduction to the Reformed Tradition: A Way of Being the Christian Community, revised edition (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1981), 80. Emphasis added.
[3] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., Library of Christian Classics (Ford Lewis Battles; trans., John T. McNeill, ed.; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960), 2.7.12; 360.
[4] All scriptural quotations are taken from the NRSV.
[5] Or the marginalized, abused, tortured, etc. It is a testament to this world’s great evil that we require so many terms to adequately describe those ground beneath violent wheels of power.
[6] John W. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition: An Historical and Practical Theology, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 38.
[7] Auguste Lecerf, An Introduction to Reformed Dogmatics (André Schlemmer, trans.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), 385.
[8] PC(USA), The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): Part 1, Book of Confessions (Louisville, KY: Office of the General Assembly, 1999), xix.
[9] The ruler believes that he has observed the second table of the Law (which concerns love of neighbor and forbids stealing, bearing false witness, etc.) just as fully as the first table (which concerns rejecting idolatry, the worship of other gods, etc.). Indeed, Jesus only explicitly mentions, and the ruler only explicitly affirms observing, commandments from the second table. That Jesus points to the ruler’s wealth in response to the affirmation that he observed love of neighbor suggests that precisely that wealth stands as a witness against the ruler, implicating him in failing to observe the Law’s second table. Perhaps the ruler went away sad not primarily because he realized that he could not join Jesus unless he gave away his wealth, but because he realized even more fundamentally that he had not in fact “kept all these [commandments] since my youth” (v 21).
[10] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4 volumes in 13 part-volumes (Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. & ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956-75), 1.1, 55. For a technical theological discussion of how this works, cf. George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 234-80.
[11] Helmut Gollwitzer, “Why I Am A Christian Socialist.” <http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/04/62441.shtml>. December 2011.
[12] One ought interpret this discussion as a call for concrete actualization of the theological and ecclesial values promoted by the Accra Confession, promulgated by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (now merged with the Reformed Ecumenical Council to form the World Communion of Reformed Churches), in the contemporary social climate of the United States. This confession urges Reformed Christians throughout the world to “reject current world economic order imposed by global neoliberal capitalism and any other economic system…which defy God’s covenant by excluding the poor, the vulnerable and the whole of creation from the fullness of life” (§19). The confession’s full text is available for download on the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s website, <http://www.pcusa.org/resource/accra-confession-covenant-justice-economy-and-eart/>. December 2011.
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.