« Vatican, too | Main | Shamrocks »
March 03, 2005
Theologians
The theologian NT Wright has been on campus here at the University of Nottingham the past two days giving a series of lectures. I chose to attend them, seeing as they were free and I've heard people talk about, read from and listen to Wright. Entitled "Paul for the New Millenium," his lectures focused on two things: 1) Creation and Covenant 2) Gospel and Empire
Now, those are words I've heard before, which is more than I can say for most of what I heard during the lectures. I was able to comprehend words like PAUL, ISAIAH and NEW TESTAMENT. Phrases like "Second Temporal Judaism" sound like driving directions to me. And, as far as I'm concerned, Pauline Theology was a movie critic for the New Yorker.
Nevertheless, following the second lecture, there was a question-and-answer session. Another student bluntly asked about the Iraq War, and Wright had some particularly insightful thoughts. Initially, he questioned the cultural and religious implications of the two most overtly Christian leaders in the realm of major countries supporting a war that could easily be perceived as a crusade against Islam. Is it not just creating propaganda for the terrorist factions? Again, a strong argument, but nothing new.
He then mentioned how we, as religious individuals, should not be turning to the typical Enlightment-heavy left-wing protest elements to refine this problem. I'm not entirely sure what that means, and I think this could be due to a disjunction in American-British meanings. Wright contended that a leftist would be closer to an ignorant anarchist, someone who would just as soon get rid of government, without really considering the alternative. And, sure, I can see that. However, in American terminology, a left-leaner would be one in favor of big government, not no government. In fact, no government would be closer to a right-leaning libertarian alignment. Nevertheless, in England, big government is just assumed. That's why the kids here at uni only pay 1,100 pounds in tuition.
Back on subject. the last point Wright made was undeniably the most profound. Drawing this notion from his knowledge of ancient Judaic government, Wright pointed out how those of us who vote - if we even do - consider that the extent of our civic duty. We vote, and whoever wins is just assumed to have a mandate which frees them to do anything they wish. (You need look no further than Bush's rhetoric after the past election concerning political capital and mandates.) However, in Judaic times that was simply unacceptable. What was more important than choosing a society's leaders was keeping those leaders in line. (And, yes, it's worth noting that we are drawing off this from an ancient governing body with no concept of what modernity would call "equality" or "liberty.")
In a sense, our current state is nothing more than armchair citizenship. Voting is considered "enough." And, honestly, I may be going for too much with this, but I somehow feel this is mass culture induced. We have been programmed to consume, consume, consume. You put in the quarter and, in turn, get to ride the horsey. In a sense, we just want to vote, lay out on the couch and watch our mandate being spent. Rubbish. But, I'm in a quandary, because while I know that's wrong, I can't exactly offer some alternative, some revision, some course of action. I'm not advocating activism on everyone's behalf. But perhaps a bit less passivity. Perhaps some resistance. Perhaps something, anything.
Posted by houch at March 3, 2005 10:16 PM
Comments
I was about to say that I think you're underestimating the political involvement of people, but then I realized that my peer group and everyday setting more than slightly skews my perceptions.
Involvement is about more than politics. I will never be heavily involved with any national political organization, or donate money to any national political candidate. Why? Because I don't believe the national government can effectively do what people ask of it, and I don't believe I can keep those politicians "in line." We're doing takings stuff in Constitutional Law, and yesterday my professor asked me, in respect to a challenge to a municipal ordinance, who I trusted: the guys in Washington sitting on the bench, or the local city council. My response was that I don't trust either to any meaningful degree, because it's in the perceived self-interest of any government to acquire as much power over its citizens as it can. I feel more comfortable with localized power, though, because I can go up to the hardware store and tell my Alderman that he's screwing over his constituents and it will actually have an impact. I say all that to say that people don't get "involved" at the national level, because, unless they're super-rich, they just simply don't matter to the people with power.
That's why I think the definition of involvement needs to be tweaked. F*** national politics. How about the Chamber of Commerce? How about the local Poverty Legal Aid Clinic? How about the local Conservationist groups? That's where real changes happen, not in a committee meeting on the Hill. After all, what did Dennis Miller say once? "Congress is just a place where we send our marginally important, mediocre shells of men, and my esteemed colleague really just means this prick over here."
Posted by: Charles at March 4, 2005 05:55 PM
C-Bla, I totally agree.
I just don't think we can ignore national politics because of lack of controls, or distance, or whatever. We are only abetting the problem then.
Posted by: Houch at March 7, 2005 05:52 PM