Politics post-Christendom
Over at the Commonweal Yahoo discussion-group, its moderator John Borst has drawn attention to an interesting essay on post-Christendom politics as the UK prepares for a general election this year. With some mutatis mutandis, does this have any relevance to US discussions of religion and politics.
(A side-note: While the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, I think we should distinguish between “Christianity” and “Christendom.” The former refers to the religion as defined in terms of beliefs and practices, the latter to particular historical, social and cultural realizations of the religion, as, for example, when we refer to “medieval Christendom.” It is easy to become confused when reading historians writing in the Romance languages, e.g., French or Italian, where Christendom is chrétienté or cristianità and Christianity is christianisme or cristianesimo.)
The essay is by Jonathan Bartley, one of the co-directors of a web-forum called Ekklesia which has the following in its self-description:
Ekklesia is an independent, not-for-profit think-tank which examines the role of religion in public life and advocates transformative theological ideas and solutions.
A widely-referenced source of authoritative comment, policy ideas and news briefing on a range of contemporary issues related to religion and politics, Ekklesia has been listed among the UK’s top 20 think tanks by The Independent newspaper.
Ekklesia promotes post-Christendom approaches to social policy, nonviolence and conflict transformation, environmental action, the politics of forgiveness, economic sharing, support for migrants and displaced people, freedom of expression, restorative justice, a positive (relational) approach to sexuality, non-compulsion in religion and belief, the engagement of theology with science and culture, respectful engagement with those of other faith and non-religious convictions, and church as alternative community.
Very interesting stuff. The US doesn’t have an established church, so that may attenuate some of the contrasts that Bartley sketches in the essay. Still, I think a number of those trends are pertinent ot the US. For example, it’s interesting to look at the drama surrounding the Stupak amendment through the lens of some of these trends, e.g. from the center to the margins; from control to witness. (Think I am remembering them right: I’m not able to link to the story and post a comment simultaneously).
A very brief and far from full comment on the interesting essay Fr. Komonchak calls attention to. The issue-by-issue contrast between the “Christendom” and the “Post-Christendum” columns is helpful if read as a comment on two tendencies. It is not so helpful if read as some sort of platform or set of normative positions. I myself am inclined to the “post-Christendom” tendencies, but I do think that good political practice is always more complicated than is frequently acknowledged. Practical politics is always an exercise undertaken in circumstances that are never fully clear.
Bernard, like you I find myself more in the “Post-Christendom” camp.
I think Bartley would agree with your assessment of “good political practice is always more complicated than is frequently acknowledged.” when he writes:
….for many, post-Christendom offers the chance of liberation and a new opportunity to articulate a more authentically Christian vision. Equally however, it would be wrong to write off everything from Christendom as ‘bad’. The task of the churches must be to critically assess what is useful for the post-Christendom journey, and what should be discarded.
It seems to me the Church leadership is slipping dangerously towards the “Christendom” model as the Threads over the Catholic education of children of Lesbian moms and perhaps “Glenn Beck Urges Listeners To Leave Churches Preaching Social Justice” (http://crooksandliars.com) so vividly demonstrate.
I do think, however, that Bartley’s is a useful model to use when discussing the different forces within “Christendom” and those societies founded on such Christian ideals.
Just wanted to note the excellen tcommentys at NPR this morning on Right to Life advocates and the health care bill, especially Fr. Reese.
As with the matra of “truth” in the Chaput discussion above, I’m tired of semantics driving policy.