This topic has been going around and around in my head for the last two months, and despite numerous attempts I haven't managed to complete a blog post. This has mainly been because of the breadth of the topic. A topic I will continue to explore and expand on further as I work through my studies (in Psych, Socio, and Theo). Therefore it's not going disappear off my radar, nor is it going to be exhausted in this post. The topic is Christian involvement in politics.
This area is often met with responses including: great angst, anger, and apathy. The focus of my own angst and anger is toward the latter group. Before I explain why, I'll address some of the concerns of this group.
One of the main concerns is that there should be a separation of church and state. This maxim isn't often heard in New Zealand, although it is in the United States. In NZ it is expected we will never again see a Christian political party enter parliament for two main reasons. The first being the fall out after the Christian Heritage Party fell out of grace. The second being the reality that NZ is now a post-Christian nation. This however is not yet true of the US, where religion is still an embedded in politics. In fact one of the primary objections to Christian's in the States is that they are 'too political'. This point is raised in the research of David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons in 'Unchristian'. They note this as a legitimate concern, however they also note these judgments are based on observations of conservative Christian's, who are primarily more extreme evangelicals and fundamentalists. These individuals conflate their political leanings with their (botched) theology and consequently the public conflates the two as well. Although I have a myriad of reservations related to their beliefs (and their biblical basis), I do endorse the fact that they are political. However, as I will explore in a later post, I do not endorse they're current political involvement.
This takes me to my second concern, what Christian's - or in reality most citizens - understand by the word politics. The word, just like its subject matter, is contested. Most people associate politics with elections or political parties (and their disagreements) or with interference and injustice by authorities. I think a better definition is provided by the University of Auckland, Politics department: Political studies is about relationships that involve power, authority, influence, conflict, co-operation, selfishness and altruism. In other words it's the study of social relations - of people.
This point is precisely why politics is important. It's the ongoing story of our society. Politics is history in action. A history which impacts on us, but which also should be influenced by us. The word politics comes from the Greek word polis. The polis was the city and every citizen (excluding women, children, and slaves) participated in the running of the city in an active way. They made up the demos - we get democracy from this Greek word - the populace of that city. This was early democracy where all the citizens would all meet together and all have equal opportunity to have their say. But also with equal opportunity to fulfill their duty to be a good citizen, part of which meant potentially being called to manage the affairs of the city. Therefore in the polis, politics was not the high life of the few, but the everyday life of the many (albeit with many exclusions).
This no longer holds true for modern society, since we are in a post-democratic era. The term post-democratic is also contentious, however it generally means that contemporary participation in political life is limited or restrained. So for instance political participation for most people is limited to: voting every 3 years (and even then many opt not to); filling out Census forms every 5 years; occasionally signing a petition or referendum; watching or reading the news; and a bit of a debate at parties. Given this superficial participation the general populace can be forgiven for seeing politics as irrelevant or elitist, and believing it to be beyond their control.
The thing is they're right, as it often is out of their control. Recent examples of this have been the ignoring of referenda, such as the anti-smacking legislation or the sales of state assets, or in more recent times the passing of the 'GCSB Bill'. As a consequence for many politics seems fruitless; it has nothing to offer them and any resistance is routinely overlooked. This is part of the reason why voting turn outs are so poor, as many don't see the point - due to indifference or past disappointment. These past experiences are ever present and these concerns very real - however lack of political involvement achieves very little.
Some sociologists would disagree with me on this point, noting that refusal; that is defying the system has merits. I acknowledge where they're coming from, but I disagree. Despite being sick of slogans like be the change you want to see in the world or change comes from the inside out, I recognise the need for citizens to be proactive. To be active participants in society; to be a prosumers. That is I recognise our responsibility to be more than consumers.
There is a need be aware consumers. There is a need to produce culture, instead of being purely a product of culture. There is a need to be active in culture, instead of passive.
There is a need for culture making.
[Look out for Part 2 of this post in the near future]
