Political discourse is so polarized that I become less convinced with each passing day that our civic institutions have the ability or will to tackle serious issues. For years I have argued that most of our problems are more spiritual in nature rather than political anyway. Sadly, the truth is that unfortunately our religious institutions are just as polarized as the political world and as ill-equipped to deal with major problems. Conservative evangelicals and progressive Christians are often just as guilty of distorting the “other” into something monstrous or evil. There have times that people have accused me of doing that on my blog and I admit there have been occasions where that is true. Fostering division instead of offering hope is something everyone with strongly held positions needs to be careful of.
Last night I was reading an essay in The Social Gospel Today called Social Salvation: The Social Gospel as Theology and Economics by Gary Dorrien. Dorrien is the Ann V. and Donald R. Parfet Distinguished Professor at Kalamazoo College. Part of his essay discusses tension in the Progressive Era between Christians who were strongly supportive of the labor movement and those who wanted to create better living conditions for those living in poverty by appealing to the morality of corporate leaders. Both positions had merits (though most Social Gospel followers finally sided in total with the unions as worker conditions continued to deteriorate).
Dorrien argues that in today’s market economy Christians ought to support:
…work that explores the politics and economics of cooperative ownership, the mixed forms of decentralized worker and community ownership, and especially, the possibilities of mutual fund ownership strategies.
Through these efforts he believes that more people can be lifted out of poverty and poor living conditions. A more equitable society could be created utilizing the principles of the Social Gospel movement of the last century.
Set all that aside for a moment and concentrate on this (because it is actually the most important part of his essay):
…no single scheme should be universalized or enshrined as the next object of faith.
This is something rare. Dorrien is making an argument for a certain economic philosophy based on his understanding of Scripture but allowing for the possibility that other alternatives that achieve the same goals could exist or might exist later. You might not think what he has written is as radical as I do. But how often can you think of anyone making spiritual or political arguments these days without speaking in absolutes and ending dialog? His example is something I’m going to have to try and remember the next time I’m sure that I’m right and everyone else is wrong.
