In this weekend’s “The Weekend Australian”, there was an article entitled “Church and State Reunited” with the tag line – “Muscular Christianity is making its presence felt in the nation’s parliament”.
“Muscular Christianity”… what an interesting term… I’ve never encountered it before. It immediately grabbed my attention and I read further to see what it was supposed to mean. Apparently, there has been a growth in the number of Christian politicians in the Western Australian parliament who are prepared to act primarily on the basis of their Christian faith, rather than along party lines. There are enough of them to be considered a “bloc” and a significant influence on political outcomes in Western Australian politics. I assume that this is what makes their Christianity "muscular", and their presence "felt", rather than welcome. They are potentially powerful and have the capacity to push through their Christian agendas, which are largely not shared by others.
The term "Muscular Christianity" seems full of meaning. To me, it conveys the popular perception that Christians want to push their agenda onto others, even if others don’t want a bar of it; and that the only way that Christians can get their agenda acknowledged by others these days is to “muscle” their way into people's lives. The shame of this perception is that it is in many cases true, and in many cases false. In this article's heading, church and state are reunited, and this harks back to a situation that was a reality for a long time in our history and that many are glad is now over. There are a lot of people out there who don't like the idea that the church should have access to the kind of political power that would promote its agenda.
But why? If we lived in a world where the church had the power to make decisions and control resources, wouldn't that bring about God's good purposes in the world? Well, apparently not. Many people who argue strongly for the separation between church and state, cite the terrible track record of the previous arrangements as their reasons for their objections.
It seems to me that we could look at "Muscular Christianity" from two points of view. The first comes from a "when bad Christians happen to good people" perspective with Christians muscling their way into the political arena with agendas that seem to support their own needs at the expense of desires of others. The ultimate top-down approach that says, "God is in charge and I'm with him!", which doesn't go down too well these days, if it ever did. This kind of "Muscular Christianity" makes its "presence felt" rather than its presence welcome, and those who welcome it have something to gain from it.
The second view is a result of "when good Christians happen to bad people" (not the best phrase but mildly poetic in its turning around of my previous one). Here, Christians use their "muscle" to make good things happen for those who don't have enough "muscle" to get their agenda promoted in the political arena. It is a bottom-up approach that journeys alongside with people and sees that the "weightier matters" of "justice, mercy and faithfullness" are put higher on the political agenda. I think that this is a good use of political "muscle". This approach may have to make its "presence felt" with the "the powers that be", but it will be welcome by those who don't normally get a "seat at the table".
So, maybe there is a place for a certain kind of "Muscular Christianity", that is welcome by the widows and orphans but makes its presence felt with the powers that be. Jesus said that his mission in life would be "good news to the poor" and he preached and lived a life that backed that up. He certainly butted heads with the religious and political leaders of his day and engaged in his fair share of "argy-bargy" with them. I guess his Father, referred to himself the "defender of the widows of orphans" and was known to engage in a bit of "argy-bargy" himself - with his own people from time to time. A chip off the ol' block, eh...
Wouldn't it be great to one day read an article with the tag line, "Muscular Christianity is making its presence welcome in the nation's parliament". That would say a lot about how the Christian agenda in politics was being equated with the good things of life and that the good things of life were being seen as coming from God.
Lord, let it one day be so...
The term "Muscular Christianity" seems full of meaning. To me, it conveys the popular perception that Christians want to push their agenda onto others, even if others don’t want a bar of it; and that the only way that Christians can get their agenda acknowledged by others these days is to “muscle” their way into people's lives. The shame of this perception is that it is in many cases true, and in many cases false. In this article's heading, church and state are reunited, and this harks back to a situation that was a reality for a long time in our history and that many are glad is now over. There are a lot of people out there who don't like the idea that the church should have access to the kind of political power that would promote its agenda.
But why? If we lived in a world where the church had the power to make decisions and control resources, wouldn't that bring about God's good purposes in the world? Well, apparently not. Many people who argue strongly for the separation between church and state, cite the terrible track record of the previous arrangements as their reasons for their objections.It seems to me that we could look at "Muscular Christianity" from two points of view. The first comes from a "when bad Christians happen to good people" perspective with Christians muscling their way into the political arena with agendas that seem to support their own needs at the expense of desires of others. The ultimate top-down approach that says, "God is in charge and I'm with him!", which doesn't go down too well these days, if it ever did. This kind of "Muscular Christianity" makes its "presence felt" rather than its presence welcome, and those who welcome it have something to gain from it.
The second view is a result of "when good Christians happen to bad people" (not the best phrase but mildly poetic in its turning around of my previous one). Here, Christians use their "muscle" to make good things happen for those who don't have enough "muscle" to get their agenda promoted in the political arena. It is a bottom-up approach that journeys alongside with people and sees that the "weightier matters" of "justice, mercy and faithfullness" are put higher on the political agenda. I think that this is a good use of political "muscle". This approach may have to make its "presence felt" with the "the powers that be", but it will be welcome by those who don't normally get a "seat at the table".
So, maybe there is a place for a certain kind of "Muscular Christianity", that is welcome by the widows and orphans but makes its presence felt with the powers that be. Jesus said that his mission in life would be "good news to the poor" and he preached and lived a life that backed that up. He certainly butted heads with the religious and political leaders of his day and engaged in his fair share of "argy-bargy" with them. I guess his Father, referred to himself the "defender of the widows of orphans" and was known to engage in a bit of "argy-bargy" himself - with his own people from time to time. A chip off the ol' block, eh...
Wouldn't it be great to one day read an article with the tag line, "Muscular Christianity is making its presence welcome in the nation's parliament". That would say a lot about how the Christian agenda in politics was being equated with the good things of life and that the good things of life were being seen as coming from God.
Lord, let it one day be so...
No comments:
Post a Comment