Politics in the Church

Should there be politics in the church? Isn’t the idea of politics in the church something of an oxymoron (putting two things together that don’t fit together)? At its most basic, I define politics as the process of balancing competing interests in a social system. For example, in the island nation of Fiji you have two main ethnic groups, native Fijians and Asian Indians. The two ethnic groups have very little in common. Native Fijians are darker-skinned (Melanesian) and have lived in the Fijian islands since before being "discovered" by westerners. The Indians are lighter-skinned and arrived during the colonial period. The Fijians tend to farm and live in the countryside, the Indians tend to live in the cities and towns and to be involved in commercial businesses. The Fijians tend to be Christians, while the Indians are usually Muslim or Hindu. When it comes to dividing up the island nation’s resources, the interests of Fijians and Indians almost always diverge. So the political way to keep the peace is to make sure that the respective political interests of Fijians and Indians are kept in a rough sort of balance. Colonial rulers sometimes kept the balance out of a lack of interest in the concerns of either side. But now that Fiji is an independent country, the prime minister will naturally come from one group or the other. There is always potential for power plays and strife as the competing interests are sorted out.

Sometimes different regions within a country will have competing interests. In China, for example, the people who live on the coast have very different interests from those who live in the interior. Coastal people tend to be involved in business and trade, people in the interior tend to be involved in farming. Coastal people interact more with the outside world, people in the interior of China tend to be more inward-looking. The coastal areas of China have a larger proportion of Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group. Various parts of the interior have large numbers of other ethnic groups, such as the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Keeping the country together by distributing resources fairly is a major focus of Chinese government. But competing interests have made it hard to keep the country together throughout its history.

Whether we like it or not, there are competing interests in any religious organization. Growing up in New York City, I remember the tensions that arose in my own church conference (diocese) between Hispanics and Anglos. The power in the conference had historically been held by Anglos, but as the Spanish-speakers rose in numbers, they felt that they were often left out in the distribution of power and resources and demanded greater representation in the "halls of power" or they would secede and form their own conference. Today there are strong and continuing efforts to make sure the composition of leadership in that church organization roughly reflects the ethnic makeup of the membership. Should it be that way, or should the leadership be chosen by God through more "spiritual" processes?

Theological differences can also create competing interests. Among Seventh-day Adventists, for example, there has always been some tension between a healing and service focus, on the one hand, and a doctrinal focus based on the study of biblical apocalyptic, on the other. Both of these foci are grounded in Scripture, but tend to lead in somewhat different directions theologically. The healing side of Adventism tends toward an outward focus of engaging the world to make it a better place. The apocalyptic side of Adventism tends toward an inward focus of avoiding contamination from the world. Naturally, when Adventists from both sides get together, there can be tension, as it is always possible that each side will see a given issue from a somewhat different perspective. Theological discussions are easily politicized when the outcome of a theological discussion could favor the competing interests of one side or the other within the church.

Is the politicization of a theological discussion helpful or hurtful? Is there any way to avoid such politicization? Does God express his will through the outcome of political debate or does political discussion make it harder for people to hear the voice of God? Is it possible to balance competing interests in the church without conflict? Is "politics in the church" always a bad thing? Stay tuned.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
Page: 1 of 1
  • 10/16/2009 3:14 AM John Quin wrote:
    I guess after a fashion politics are always involved when you have a group of people together. We vote at the GC on certain issues and the shape of Adventism is determined by the most popular view. A lot of us like to think that our view is "THE" view and everyone else is mistaken or mislead. This is only compounded when the majority of those around us also hold these views. I think it would be healthier for the church members to recognise that there are a variety of valid view points and that a dynamic of politics does exist. Perhaps then we can deal the issues such as QOD and Des Ford without the pain, anguish and pious finger pointing. Alas I fear that the notion of being 100% correct is deeply rooted in the Adventist psyche. I do see a glimmer of hope on the horizon for Adventism however, it appears that many in the younger generations favour the notion of autonomous Bible study rather than seeking guidance from the Adventist pioneers or the current administration.
    It is possible that as these generations move through and potentially form the majority that some more friction will occur. To contradict this however, Adventisms recent change in position regarding when Atonement was complete seems to have barely raised an eyebrow. It causes one to wonders whether Adventists really understand the significance of this or whether we have become more tolerant of differing points of view.
    Lets be optimistic and choose the latter.
    Reply to this
  • 10/18/2009 3:24 PM Andre wrote:
    Dear Dr. Paulien,

    I'm touched by the fact that you take time off your busy schedule to blog and read reader comments!

    You may not remember this, but I was your student at Andrews in 1998 in the MDiv program but at the time I was "young and irresponsible" and couldn't quite grasp what you were trying to instill in us. I did not enjoy your classes at all and got a very low grade in your Revelation class because they were not what I expected theologically at that time in my journey.

    But listening to your audio files and videos online I remember the John Paulien I heard 12 years ago and today I couldn't agree more! Not only do I agree with the content but your Christian, honest and balanced approach represents the best in Adventist thought today.

    I'm proud of you and hope more and more ASD's get to hear, read and know you. I also take "literary license" to say that I'm proud you were my teacher, albeit I was a lousy student! Today I'm workin a PhD in Theology and you have been a major influence.

    God bless,
    André
    Reply to this
  • 3/19/2010 7:20 PM Abner Hernandez wrote:
    Dr. Paulin.

    Excelente comentario. Siento que no existe mucho deseo de abordar el tema en los círculos administrativos de la iglesia. Pero pienso que puede ser más de ayuda que dañino. Esperamos que en algún momento el tema pueda ser discutido abierta y francamente.

    Abner
    Reply to this
  • 6/30/2010 2:25 AM kevi wrote:
    how the the church should response to the political corruption in the society
    Reply to this

Page: 1 of 1
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.