Saving The Prophetic From Bureaucracy
(NOTE: I should be clear from the beginning that, when I reference the prophetic in the title, I am speaking of in the sense of the role of the prophet to be a voice against the abuses of power by the rulers and systems of the world. I know this does not encompass all that prophecy and the prophetic express, but it is the heart of what I will be exploring here.)
Living and serving in the inner city, I find myself confronted daily with the systemic injustices of the world, especially towards the marginalized (i.e. the poor, the racial minority, women, etc.). It is a discipline, at times, not to allow righteous anger to turn to bitter cynicism. So deeply are these injustices engrained into the fabic of our cultures, systems and wordlviews that it can seem hopeless. How can you bring change into such situations?
While this is a challenge to all believers, I think it is particularly difficult to those who are stirred in their calling/gifitng of the prophetic. We are called to be a voice against injustice, as well as a community who lives lives against the grain of injustice whenever we can. However, some are called and gifted to be a “louder voice” against the leaders and systems that perpetuate these failures. From what I have experienced and seen, it can often be a lonely place for those women and men.
Specifically, I have begun to realize some of the dangers that go along with that role in our current society. One such challenge is relating to advocacy groups and organizations that are seeking to bring the same kinds of change. These groups do essential and valuable work, with Christians being too often from their ranks. These groups can often be a source of experience, resources and community for Christians wanting to address injustice, especially the prophetic voices.
However, there are some challenges and dangers that come with this. The more I interact with such groups myself, the more I realize that the means by which things get done raise some difficult questions for Christians. For example, a great deal of the work of these groups is aimed at acquiring finances to further their goals, often getting entangled in the bueracratic systems to do so. Further, their posture is often so angry and combative, that their message seems more important than the people involved.
Therefore, I have begun to realize that to engage issues of injustice, the Church needs to respond as community (or communities) itself. I am not suggesting we have NO involvement- by no means! I do not want to suggest that we set up a “sacred vs. secular” dichotomy againt. Rather, I think Christians needs to recognize that the reasons and means by which we are called to address injustice is different (and often incompatible) with the other common approaches.
So what does this look like? How does the Church address systemtic injustice in its role as a prophetic agent in the world?
Your question is one I am considering in detail for our community in Surrey. Our mission groups have been organized around engaging activity, but have in some ways failed to explore what I call ‘deep mission’. Deep mission engages the systemic injustices that we first need to learn how to name through a process of discernment. I am chronicling this on my blog here: http://towardshope.typepad.com/towards_hope/2007/07/loving-a-neighb.html
To engage your post further…one of the ways to express a prophetic stance is to embrace pathos. Walter Brueggemann talks about this in his “Prophetic Imagination” book. Compassion serves as prophetic criticism to the powers that be.
I agree with your sentiments that many organizations that lobby against social injustice end up placing more importance on resistance to current political policy and therefore lack the resurrection component to their work. This in no way for me means Christians can not walk alongside and incarnate the missing element or perspective with existing groups. But to see the church as community as agent of resurrection and voice for the marginalized is I think truest to the biblical mandate and vision.
For the question of how, I am landing more and more at the embracing of pathos as a start simply because it is aligning and weeping with the God who weeps . This serves to fund an imagination that can envision an alternative future of hope. responding to that vision is the heart of faithfulness. But can we be broken enough to dream?
Jamie, do you get Soujourners magazine? There’s an article in this month’s issue about the passage in Mark where Jesus instructs us to take up our cross and follow him. The author talks about the idea that in Jesus’ time and immediately following the visual that came with that instruction was a powerful negative much like the visual we might have of Tienenmen Square.
I don’t have any answers, and I’m not saying that the solutions proposed in this article are necessarily correct. But I also wonder if we don’t try to work things out too much ahead of ourselves sometimes. I think we help a few people and then make a “business” of it, when we were just given a dream to help a few people. In other words, some people do far too much and others not enough at all because we’re using broken models … does that make any sense?
John,
Great input, thanks! I agree that we should not abandon these advocacy groups, but rather that they shouldn’t become alternatives to what the church does as a community. Thanks for the great thoughts.
Peace,
Jamie
Sonja,
You have hit on one my internal battles: trying to be primarily relational in my engagement of injustice (grassroots, etc.) while not ignoring the larger systemic injustices. Thanks for the link. Great addition, thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
That’s just it … I’m not so sure there isn’t a balance to be struck (like my double negative?). I think that sometimes it might too easy to tilt at windmills (go after the larger systemic injustices) and ignore the homeless guy on our daily walk to work (for example). Or to say, “I give to XYZ Group and they do that kind of work.” But if all of us did just a little bit in our own backyards, it might strike that right balance of allowing the church to “be” God’s hands in the world. It would allow us to be relational (which I think is important) and it would engage the powers that be more intimately.
On the other hand, I could just be too idealistic for my own good. And on a lighter note … after this post and conversation, I think you’d like Evan Almighty if you get a chance to see it
Sonja,
I don’t think you are being idealistic. In fact, I think this is a tension that is something we must learn to navigate. For myself, living and working where I do, I see more Christians getting involved in serving the poor (not always in the best ways, but that’s another topic). This is promising.
However, unless we begin to see that there is a direct connection between the systems/cultures we participate in and the injustices in the world, all the grassroots work will be a form of hypocrisy. If we help the poor, but perpetuate (even unwittingly) the systems that keep them poor, we are deceive ourselves into thinking we are doing good, but actually contribute to the problem.
I think I see another post coming from this… That said, we did see Evan Almighty and were surprisingly pleased with it.
Peace,
Jamie
I agree with you, Jamie, about the connection between serving the poor while all the while participating in keeping a boot on their neck (so to speak). I’ll look forward to your post that’s germinating
.
My daughter (13) and I were also pleasantly surprised by Evan Almighty … I almost want to see it again. There were a couple of scenes that I want to remember better.
Sonja,
I’ll probably post on it next week. You should blog about the movie. Gives you a good reason to see it again.
Peace,
Jamie
The problem for me is not knowing all the ways i do, in ignorance, participate in pepetuating poverty.
here’s an example. i went to walmart today, although we have a “no wal mart” policy at our house because of the effect the company has on small business and the unethical treatment of employees. there is one item that we need and cannot find anywhere else, so every couple of months we go in for that one thing and i, inevitably, go ahead and pick up whatever we need while i’m there to save a stop and time.
While there I’m struck by several things. 1)Things are a LOT cheaper at walmart. 2)Most of the people I see there are folks who have a very tight budget and may not have a choice 3)many of the folks i see working there are also less educated and likely “working poor”.
So, going to wal mart helps the folks who find much needed work there. Shopping there allows the company to profit and thereby open more stores which offer necessities at a lower price for folks who would otherwise do without. AND, shopping there, in my opinion, is bad for the overall economy which keeps the minimum wage low and allows the big conglomerates to treat their employees badly, deepening the socioeconomic and cultural boundaries between people.
Which option is doing good and which option is perpetuating the problem?
Cindy,
Great questions. The first thing to do would be to consider that you measured your options as though you were faced with a choice between only two options: to shop at Wal-Mart or not to shop at Wal-Mart.
There are two things that are problematic with that perspective. First, I think we have far more options beyond this binary approach. Second, and more importantly it still seeks the solution within the context of individual choices. Now, don’t get me wrong, we do need to make individual choices in such situations. However, the larger issues you raise may require a collective response.
For example, a guy is mowing his lawn one day. He stops and looks around and sees 6 other neighbours doing the same thing. He has an idea: what if the neighbourhood started a lawn mower co-op? He convinces a group of neighbours to join in. They all sell their mowers and buy a single, more efficient unit. They share the cost of maintenance and work out time sharing. Sure, it isn’t convenient, but they decide that is one consumerist “right” they are willing to sacrifice.
Before long, they decide to use the same idea for other things, like tools. Some even begin carpooling and car sharing. Of course, some don’t know how to use the tools, so they start helping each other out. Hmmm, a skills co-op?
As they get to know each other better, they also learn about other neighbours who aren’t involved, but who have real needs. What if we helped the neighbours out for free? And so on…
I know, I know, it sound idealistic, but I really think that individualism and our culture of entitlement robs us of the opportunity to think creatively about these issues.
Another problem is that people like money. When I talk to groups about being environmentally conscious about their choices, most people say it is too expensive. They are right that some eco-friendly choices are more costly. However, if they make the right choices in some areas, they will save a fair bit of money that they could then spend on the most responsible choices. Here’s the thing: once people DO save the money through better choices, rather than spending those savings on the right choices, they simply increase their cost of living, then complain that they can’t afford to make those right choices. Make sense?
Ok, I know I am rambling here, but my point is that the solutions will generally require three things: First, that we work together, rather than (falsely) believe that the problems will be solved by individual changes alone. Second, it will require us to think creatively, push the boundaries of what we are “able” to do. Third, we have to be willing to give up our “rights”. This is where we see that true community is demanding, not just a relational warm and fuzzy, but with huge benefits, both to us and those we seek to embrace into our communities.
Ok, did that help at all? Sorry it is so long.
Peace,
Jamie
hi Jamie,
i was struck by your sentance on advocacy grps “their posture is often so angry and combative, that their message seems more important than the people involved” which reminded me a little of some of the more angry sections of the prophets who see the need NOW and don’t really care about social nicities…
I wondered whether these grp are not then already speaking/acting prophetically in some sense and the christian response is to encourage that voice and participate in it but not sucombe to the cynical – to offer hope and encouragement as well?
Jamie-
My point was that it is often very difficult to know how to help because the issue of systemic injustice rarely shows itself in black and white. My example about wal mart was just an example–certainly not the sum total of what I think i can do. However, it seems to me that even the carrying out of your ideals involves a series of choices. Yesterday I did not have the choice to form a co-op, but i did in fact have a choice of where to shop. If we belittle the small individual choices that people have, how can we expect anyone to grab hold of an ideal and make systemic changes at the community level?
Paul,
I think you are right that these groups are often already speaking prophetically, but I wonder if it might be dangerous for us to justify the posture with this argument. That said, I think you have a good point.
My bigger issue is with the ends that these groups often pursue to achieve their goals, which are often (but not always) inconsistent with what the prophet typically is trying to accomplish.
Peace,
Jamie
Cindy,
It seems my answer has offended you, which was not my intention. I apologize for not understanding your question. I did not mean to belittle small choices (as I thought I reaffirmed them time and again), but rather to suggest that too often we seem them as the primary means by which change is made. I was trying to be helpful, but I seem to have gotten off track. Sorry.
As to your question, I guess I would say that there are rarely situation that are black and white. Either choice you were faced with had positive and negative consequences. I think the positives you mentioned are valid, but some of them might ultimately exact too high a price, like the reality that drug/prostitution legalizations would have some genuinely positive effects in my neighbourhood, but ultimately cost too much.
So, I guess it comes down to discernment and Holy Spirit. Again, sorry for offending.
Peace,
Jamie
Jmaie-
I wouldn’t say offended as much as, perhaps, taken aback
Thank you- appreciate your tone and the personal note you sent. I agree with your 3 points:
“First, that we work together, rather than (falsely) believe that the problems will be solved by individual changes alone. Second, it will require us to think creatively, push the boundaries of what we are “able” to do. Third, we have to be willing to give up our rights,”
but I would add that I think we also should encourage individual choices, as those are the things that will lead many (like me) into broader realation/community type changes. Which may be what you said in words I didn’t fully grasp.
thanks, again.
Cindy,
Yeah, it was what I meant, but I was probably over-reacting to the often binary approach people seem to take, which wasn’t fair to you. Ah projection.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie … I am with you on your general sentiment here … and to call for Christain comunnity to embody justice of Christ and engage the world out of that virtue, in no way negates coming alongside, making tactical alliances, or partnering and entering in to justice efforts outside the church.Thanks for the post ..
David,
I am glad that you saw that I was not calling for an abandonment of these groups. Thanks for the kind words.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie:
Well said as always and vert timely…thank to you!
Thanks Elle! I appreciate that.
Peace,
Jamie