Are we to blame?

There are some crazy things that take place in society and more-then-crazy things proposed in response. I seek to hesitate to comment on anything in the USA as I it is not a geography that I have been asked to take responsibility for, but Gayle and I are over here a few days, and the gun debate is of course in focus. Arming teachers? Once one starts with the good people can (and must) have control we are on a slippery slope. I can (almost) handle the kind of response to issues when it is phrased with ‘regrettably for now the best way forward is, but we want to be clear, this is only because at this stage we are unable to make a better response…’

Responses that involve an escalation of power never seem to bring a solution, and ironically of course reflect the view that many have of God’s government! Making a healthy response at a legislative level is never an easy one, but those who do that have to at least have one eye firmly fixed on the future, in the sense of where will this take us in 5 / 10 years time.

I wonder how we are to measure the health of the church in any given area? We could of course consider look internally and consider how the body is nourished, what level of care is shown one to another. However, if the church is to take responsibility for the health of the wider society we would also need to look at the what is taking place in wider society. I am sure that there is a principle laid out in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus moved from murder in society to the issue of anger among the disciples. There seems to be a correlation. Seeds in the body and fruit in society.

The terminology of the NT is highly political, the word ‘ekklesia’ being a common word already in use. The Hebrew background of ‘qahal’ is important, but the immediate context of the NT is of the city government. Paul did not, in one sense, plant an ekklesia in the cities he worked in, he planted ekklesias ‘in Christ’. The city already had an ekklesia, he planted a ‘Jesus’ version. I suggest the use of the word indicates, that just as the city ekklesia was there for the future of the city, so also the ekklesia in Christ.

We cannot control the outcome within a society, there are choices that are there to be made, and freedom indicates that the wrong choice can be made. However, I believe we can shift (bind = limit) powers that control. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but we have a battle.

If the church measures its health only by what is happening within the four walls we are going to miss it. We have to let the issues within society reflect back. We are not to blame for what happens, and if the church is marginalised in a setting survival might be the main focus… but where it is established we really have to step up to the plate.

Back home we take this seriously. We now have political prisoners (from Catalonia), none of whom have been involved in violence. We have corruption (named as the most corrupt government in Europe), control of the media and so on. Are we to blame? No. But we have to live in a different way and outwork our faith so that in 5 or 10 years time there is a change.

Any temporary responses that give more power to the ‘good'(!!!) people have to give way to shifts that are visibly reflected in society along the lines of care for the marginalised, co-habiting of space, peace and well-being.

We are not to blame, we cannot dictate the outcomes… but we need to take responsibility now to open up possibilities that look different in the future.

SHARE ON:

Post PermaLink

Perspectives