Orthodoxy, politics, and activism.
Are these ideas contrary to one another? When do they become contrary? When are they compatible?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Menologion
Blog Archive
Links
Home
Contributors
- seth
- LifeSpark
- janotec
- Mimi
- Mark Christian
- Fr. David
- 1/153
- Genevieve
- Dawn
- A. Monk
- Kevin
- handmaidmary-leah
- Enthymemosis
- Eric
- americanorthodox
- Stacy
- Theron Mathis
- kt
- Mr. P
- Fr. A
- elizabeth
- UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH
- rowena
- Jodi
- seraphim/seattle
- Pistevo
- Robert
- Audrey
- Zakka
- Anton
- Eric John
- Hira Animfefte
- basil
- Cindy
- Alexios
- Kelly Jolley
- Jacob Aleksander
- Paige
- mamachurchmouse
- Джосина Ксения
- E Rica
- Gregory
- Sarah
Orthodorks Everywhere!!
Orthodoxy in the News
R U Orthodorky?
19 comments:
stacy - you sure know how to pick good topics. sheesh. i'll have to think about this one for a little while.
Matthew,
These are the things that roll around in the back of my mind. I just thought that if I threw them out there y'all might get further (farther?) with them than I do.
Well, I'm (nearly) Orthodox, political, and an activist, so I'm curious to see some of the responses...
I'll organize my own thoughts a little later, perhaps.
Good question, Stacy. I've thought a little bit about this, so I'll toss some ideas out, and you'll can do with them as you want.
1) I think that Orthodoxy, politics, and activism is compatible, but only if Christ comes first.
2) In the gospals, Christ seems to be constantly doing something, which is what we need to do if we are to be activists, politicians, etc... I think that this is particularly true today when there are so many words surrounding us telling us different things. To use a personal example, I am at an ultra-liberal, secular university, and the general consensus about truth I hear from my profs and classmates is that becaues everyone says something different, is it impossible to figure out what truth is. Therefore even pursuing truth is a useless endevour as a conclusion will never be reached. And if all we do is talk about the truth, or protest and talk about solving problems without taking action, I agree that nothing will be resolved, and everyone will be left empty and hurting. Which is why I want to emphesize that action is needed. For example, if you want to protest poverty, first move into the poorest neighborhood in your city, strive to be a godly neighbor, and then, once you have the credibility and the hands-on knowledge, then protest. Otherwise I think that your protest will be meaningless, and everyone will know it.
I hope this helps, and I look forward to hearing what you'll have to say on this subject. Peace.
Amen to that, Stephen! Action, but only with a deeper understanding.
Thanks for expressing the true nature of university: no matter how much we debate, write essays, we can never be completely right. erg. Deconstructionism at its finest.
I can't believe I'm about to say this because it's so often used as a cop-out, but is prayer "doing something?" Perhaps doing something means doing something about ourselves first and praying for mercy for ourselves and the world.
How do we know the difference between activity that honors God and activity that distracts from God? We are very good at fooling ourselves with rationalizations. Is it better to default into not doing something so as to not risk distracting ourselves from "the one thing that is needful" or is it better to do something so as to not miss helping another in need? Do we default into Mary or Martha as we pray to discern what is right?
More thoughts to come.
I guess if we are doing things where all that the world can see is the people and the consequences, then it is distracting from God. It would be to easy to fall into pride thinking "I am right!" and forgetting our true purpose...
Prayer is "doing something", but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to avoid directly dealing with an issue (if we are able to properly deal with that issue).
I agree with you, Pirate, about prayer being important, but it shouldn't become an excuse to avoid other needed work. I've still been thinking about this, particularly politics, and one of things that I really dislike about Christianity in America is the Religious Right. While it is necessary for Christians to be in politics because God calls us to be everywhere, I think the Religious Right has gone about it the wrong way. They made themselves extremely visible, which set them up for failure because 1) the standard people set them to was too high, and 2) It created an us vs. them mentality which makes it hard for love and understanding to happen. Thus, when it comes to politics, or activism alongside Christ, I am currently favoring a much more undercover approach in which we quietly do what God calls us to do, and hopefully the world will one day wake up and realize that Christians are running the world, and that the world is, God willing, running smoothly. This way fights are avoided, work is actually done, and hopefully we won't have these battlelines and parallel cultures between the christians and the seculars.
Granted, I am not American, though I grew up in an American international school, so maybe I don't have a clear picture of Christianity in the US. From what I do know, though, these are my tentative conclusions. Peace.
Here are my continued thoughts:
I do think that Orthodoxy, politics, and activism are compatible in their pure forms, but (wait for the obvious) not in their currently polemic states. Much of politics and activism today are about "being right" rather than about persons. This, too, brings me to another point. Politics and activism are often concerned with faithless masses... about ideals, and as Fr. Shmemann said, they all too willing to sacrifice the individual for the "common good." Life and Person are essential in Orthodox theology. Mimicking a bit of what Stephen said, if one is to be an activist Orthodox, in order to not sacrifice their theology on the ideological alter one must embrace a wholistic approach putting one at odds with most activists groups and certainly with politics as usual. Monasticism, one might say, is an activist/political movement par excellence. So, as those in the world, we must struggle with the degree and intensity which we can bring forth in our lives. I think that what Stephen suggested about moving into the poor neighborhoods is a good example of that. However, not all are called to that life. King David was wealthy and lived in a palace. His responsibility toward the poor was different. If we all moved into the poor neighborhoods we would most likely cause an inflation in the area causing the necessity for the poor to move to an even more degraded area engrossing the movement into a downward spiral.
What seems to be of essence is to understand who the "poor" are. No I'm not moving toward an existential definition of the word poor. I'm maintaining its economic thrust when I say this. What I mean to say is that helping the poor tangibly looks different than helping the addict (be it substance abuse or gambling or what have you), the criminal, the fool, etc. My point is that a blanket approach toward "the poor" misses the person. Some are poor simply because we are rich (understanding the word to be relative -- America's "poor" are rich compared to the poor of southwest India or eastern Africa in that America's poor have access to many resources that simply aren't even options in the least for others in other lands; and also understanding it to mean that our means of sustaining "wealth" are often anti-communal). Some are poor because they live chaotic internal lives. Some are poor because they are rich (yes, here I speak of an existential, spiritual poverty). My point is that aide offered to the poor widow without electricity (i.e. Rosa Parks who was given free rent for the remaining years of her life because she was living in poverty) or the poor orphan (both the widow and the orphan were powerless in the ancient times that saw life lived in realtionally and as patriarchal families as opposed to individualistic) or the cetrifugal family with pourous familial boundaries and structure that creates a climate of loss is different.
Of course, politics are the attempt to keep the government of a given people from being a cetrifugal family with pourous familial boundaries and structure which create a climate of loss (FYI: we call that type of climate oppression when seen on a national level... nuclear families can also be oppressive).
The idea that plagues me most when considering these ideas is that of Neitzsche's Will To Power that understands that almost all of the efforts of activists and politicians are either overtly or subvertly a struggle for power (he would have said all as opposed to adding the modifier almost). Power, in this instance, is to be understood as an always oppressive force being that it exists in this cosmos of death and does not seek to escape the ontological reality of our fallen binding. Given this, power, therefore, is either oppressive in its direct dominance or in its passivity. This understanding finds its way into many modern notions (evolution, liberation sociology, etc.). This understanding is diadic. And so, as Stephen said earlier, the thrust must be triadic. An imbalance (i.e. illness) only perpetuates the original problem in one form or another. What I mean to say is that giving all power (i.e. our will) over to He who is beyond our cosmological binding (free!) to death is our only means of helping the other. Without will, though, we cease to be human and so it is a perpetual, giving away.... it is a rebirth to have our being in Him.
And so, how do I live in the world and make decisions to help those in need knowing that I, too, remain ill. Well, I suppose first, the very real reality of my own shared illness must be kept before me and second, we do what we can when we can knowing that all our activism and politics are never enough and so we pray for mercy at our helplessness to help anyone or ourselves and we thank Him for grace to take the good of our will and to perfect it for the sake our others and ourselves.
Those are my continued thoughts. I'm sure they'll continue to shift here and there so I welcome your disagreements and your probes.
What are your thoughts?
~~~~~
Stephen, you grew up in American Internation Schools? Where? My cousins grew up in them, too.
I stayed in Taiwan, first at Morrison Academy in Kouhsiung, then for HS in the dorms at the Morrison campus in Taichung. It is a pretty small school and there are a lot of Int'l schools scattered around, so I probably don't know your cousins. Its cool though that your cousins where at int'l schools-they can be a lot of fun, though the downfall is that we tend to be very elitist and look down on those who never leave North America. I have to admit I at times am guilty of this. I hope your cousins aren't. Where did they go to school?
Back to the main topic - I totally agree that not everyone is called to the serve the poor. That was just an example I was using. Though when it comes to reaching out to the affluent, do you think it is okay for us to also be affluent? Or should we set an example of living modestly even if we have the means to live a much more extravagant lifestyle?
I'd also like to mention that while this discussion is very interesting, it is hard to put this into practice. Today I was downtown buying groceries at Chinatown, and saw a lady who was coming in my direction begging. I have to admit my first response was to flee, which I did, even though I did have some change left on me which I didn't particularly need. I regretted what I did, though I didn't turn back. But God was persistant, and I guess he really wanted to teach me a lesson, and I ran into this lady again at another intersection several blocks down, and she was still begging, so I approached her and gave her the money. It was a very humbling experience, particularly seeing my reluctanct to practice even a fraction of what I preached. This also highlighted for me how easy it is to discuss, and not act. So I guess I really shouldn't be speaking on this here until I actually know what I am talking about. Please forgive me, and please pray for me, a sinner. God bless.
Taiwan? Nope. Here are the countries I have covere: Thailand, Korea (friend), Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Italy, Venezuela, Angola (cousins). And about that elitist thing... I concur. My friends and cousins all confess to the same thing. However, what they have in elitism they make up for in open mindedness and eclecticness. I've known them all to be very understanding... just unsympathetic toward Americans who think they know it all because they watched the Discovery Channel and saw a PBS special.
With regards to the beggar in Chinatown. We've ALL done that. My priest and I talk about that sort of thing often.
Do we need to be wealthy to reach out the to the wealthy? I don't think there's a formula to it.
Stephen
How about this for a dilemma? I have been approached by a older fellow for change and I have given it - and I continue to see him at least once a week; and he continues to ask for my change. Sometimes I give him it; sometimes I don't have any change on me. I have purposefully not made eye contact so I would not have to make a decision. And I feel pathetic after the fact. What kind of responsibility do I have to this man that God has placed in my path, and continues to place in my path.
RW,
that is a great delimma, and honestly I'm glad I'm not in your shoes (though I suppose now having said this something similar will happen to me). While I'm definately not an expert on this, have you ever talked to this guy, and perhaps asked why he needs the money, and why he is on the streets, and whether or not he wants to leave the streets, or what ever. Perhaps if you know these answers, it would help define what you should or should not be doing. I mention this because a friend of mine as recently started talking to a panhandler nearby, and has found out that this guy panhandles to support his drug habit. Consequently my friend now doesn't give him any money, though I suppose giving food would be different. I hope this helps somewhat, and if anyone else has ideas, please chime in. Peace
Thanks Stephen.
Your words humbled me. Engage the man beyond the initial exchange of asking for change... why does that challenge me so?
sometimes people just want to be acknowledged as fellow humans.
it is challenging to stop, and engage with them. I've never done it, though I've had great visions of it. What are we afraid of? Mother Theresa did it, even Lady Diana did it. Why am I so incapable?
I don't think it's our responsibility to make a judgement call on what they are going to spend the money on. It's just our responsibility to give. And many addicts on the street are just self-medicating. (please don't jump on me for this one, it's true, and that's all I'm going to say about it). Many of them don't know any other life, and I've heard of many who have been given a chance at a life off of the streets, and either turned it down flat, or tried it but were lured back to the life of the street.
Christ said, we will always have the poor with us.
I cannot cure any of the social ills that plague our time (and have always plagued us), but, like St.Theresa of Calcutta has said, I can "love the person in front of you, while they are in front of you, and then give them to God".
always easier said than done.
I don't know if it's too late to add a comment that will be read, but here goes...
I appreciate this dialogue so much, and especially, Stephen, your comment about living with the poor; Stacy, your addressing the issues of power and a diadic approach--the need to recognize our own "will to power" and constantly seek to replace it with the "will to love"; and Victoria, your suggestion to look beyond the drug habit to the reason for the drug habit, and the significance of simply acknowledging someone as a fellow human.
I know this to be true from many experiences. Even giving someone change can be an act which perpetuates the imbalance of power between myself (who has much in his world) and the asker (who has little in worldly terms). Sometimes the most important gift you can give someone is their dignity, by changing that imbalance. There are some different ways of doing this. Here are some things I have gotten into the habit of doing:
When someone asks me for change, (after giving them change, usually) I will tell them my name and hold out my hand the way I would if I were introducing myself to a visitor at church or a new co-worker. "My name's Cheryl, what's yours?" "It's good to meet you."
Until I spent a summer working at the Sally Ann Men's Hostel in Winnipeg, I never thought small talk could be so powerful. Making small talk about the weather, the dangerous move that car just made as it went past us, etc, distracts from the fact that you just gave them money (which lowers them, and raises you, on the see-saw of power); making small talk lets them know you see them as a fellow human being, and puts you in a shared perspective (this raises their end of the see-saw and creates more symmetry): we are noticing something together, that makes us somehow equal at this moment.
I rarely ask for their name first, because that can be threatening. Offering my name first is a way of kind of matching the vulnerability they have put themselves in by asking for something.
Sometimes the person has been so desperate for a fix that they don't connect with me, and they take off. But often the person has stopped to chat, and sometimes told me some of their story. For me the pocket change is sometimes just a ticket to being able to give a better gift: a listening ear, and a sign that I see them as a fellow human. Sometimes I tell a little bit of my story--share a struggle I have, but often I have found myself talking about something good together: music, or beauty, or animals. I have found a lot of people on the street to be very sensitive spiritually and aesthetically--their harsh existence has made them raw, and separated them also from some of the numbing aspects of participating in modern western society. There are things we can learn from them.
Of course i haven't always been able to do this--working at the Sally Ann got me comfortable talking to homeless people and people with addictions and mental health problems. But just starting somewhere and finding out that someone is just grateful to take a break from degrading themselves to have a dignified chat with a fellow human being, can change how you feel about approaching someone.
I know some people struggle with fear that the homeless will lash out at them or do something disgusting or make them feel guilty. Most homeless people have more to be afraid of than you do. You have power, they don't. You have power to yell at them and confirm the accusation that they are scum, because that is what so many already believe. You have power to call the cops to have them removed. you have power to accuse them of crime (falsely), and you would be believed in court, not them. You have immense power to increase their feeling of being degraded in the eyes of society by how you talk to them.
If you are conscious of your body language (how you stand, your tone of voice, the expression on your face, and how you use your eye-contact) and approach them in a non-threatening way (avoiding any signs that would make them feel physically cornered, judged, looked down upon, or challenged), you will often--I assure you--be pleasantly surprised at the response that you get.
I still will avoid people on the street sometimes, I still sometimes dread it when I see someone and know they're going to ask me for something. I have found that when I do make a human connection with someone--exchange names, small talk, a smile, I personally come away feeling much less ambiguous about what has happened, less guilty, less awkward, less embarrassed, with less misgivings.
And I take joy in being able to walk down the street, see a person I've spoken with before, and greet them by name: "Hi Jordan, how's it going? Listen, I'm going to get some coffee, can I bring back a cup for you too?"
P.S. Holding out your hand to shake hands is really significant. If you have to, promise yourself you'll wash your hands as soon as you get home, but letting that person know that you're not afraid to touch them, that you do not recoil from them, and making that brief physical contact has changed the dynamic from uncomfortable, nervous, suspicious, to friendly, open, happy.
I love the story where Jesus heals the leper by touching him. He could have healed him from a distance with words. But he touches him too.
that was so good to read.
thanks churchmouse.
yeah, thanks churchmouse.
Post a Comment