Justice and Consensus
August 15, 2006 · Print This Article
I’ve been inspired and challenged by some of the recent dialog to look again at the tension between justice and consensus. Do we need to have a unified position on specific issues in order to be effective agents of biblical justice? Or can we act as individuals for the common good and not have to worry about any official church/community position? Does this individualism limit the effectiveness of just causes or does waiting on a consensus in the community do more harm than good?
I ponder these questions as someone who believes strongly in community standards, authority, and unity — but also as someone who sees this concept as possibly the most abused aspect of church polity in history.
I’m drawn to the words of Miroslov Volf: “What happens before we have acquired ‘a common language,’ however? …those caught in the midst of personal and social struggles cannot (acquire a common language). They must act — As we must act before we have resolved a contradiction and sorted out between multiple opinions, so too we must act before we have come to a “œcommon human understanding”‘
Langdon Gilkey observes rather academically: Praxis begins with it forced option, one that cannot be avoided. When praxis is called for, puzzled immobility before contradiction or indifferent acceptance of plurality of options must both cease — for to exist humanly we must wager, and must enact our wager.
“We must wager and must enact on our wager.” I like that. What do you think? Does justice require consensus?
We can provide leadership to try and create consensus. Some issues are ahead of their time. Bans on smoking, for example, were unthinkable a few short years ago. Now most towns in NW Cook are considering complete bans in restaurants.
If we define individualism as one person attempting to effect social change solely on their own, then yes, that will likely limit the effectiveness of any cause unless that one person has an extremely charismatic personality. But when each individual comes to their own convictions about a certain issue, they will inevitably be in line with many other people’s convictions (both inside and outside the church). But here again, those who share common personal convictions would probably limit their effectiveness by going off on their own rather than by working together in some capacity.
Certainly there are circumstances in which a group needs to arrive at a consensus and move forward. In times of national crisis, the government needs to react quickly. Businesses as well as individuals must occasionally act before they have “resolved a contradiction and sorted out between multiple opinions†or “come to a ‘common human understanding.’ †They must, in fact, “wager†and then act. But as with any wager, sometimes you lose.
Consensus means “An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.†If by this we mean that the entire group needs to agree on the position, then yes, waiting on a consensus may do more harm than good in some cases. Of course it depends on the rules of the consensus. Our election system allows candidates to be elected with less than 50% of the vote. And yet, a jury is required to come to a unanimous verdict. So, in this discussion, how are we defining consensus?
In any case, does this approach even apply when we ask if The Church needs to have an “official stance†on a given political issue? Does The Church need to proclaim a consensus view on something in order for Christians to act? Asked another way, should Christians only act if The Church has made an official stance? I don’t think so. And at the risk of beating a dead horse, I think there’s a big difference between me saying that I’m a Christian and this is what I believe versus a church, denomination, or Christian organization saying that we are Christians and this is what WE ALL believe. We have to be very careful if we as a group say that we all agree on a political stance. At that point, we speak for the church, which in our case is a whole lot of people. I hope everyone doesn’t agree when certain prominent Christians suggest assassinating other world leaders or declaring that a hurricane was sent by God as the result of sinful behavior.
But let me be clear on one thing. Mr. Anonymous stated that “collectively we must agree on the foundations of Christian faith†and that “the core of what it means to be a Christian is not open for debate.†Agreed. Unfortunately, we don’t always agree on what issues fall into the category of foundational or core issues. I’d say we must at least agree that Jesus is the Messiah, that He died as payment for our sin, and that if we believe in Him, we will spend eternity with Him. Of course we can add to that list. But the Church’s stance on stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, etc. etc. etc. are the political hot button issues that, in my opinion, are not foundational core issues. Does anyone think that they are?
I would not label abortion, gay marriage, or stem cell research as ‘core’ issues. However, belief that the Bible is the unfailing word of God IS Core.
Are they debatable? Sure….but only within the confines of scripture.
These shouldn’t receive as much attention as they do, they are all sin or symptoms of sin, same as any other sin. None are what God intended.
The church should not focus on these topics, but have a clear message of truth based on scripture. The above debates are distractions.
While I dont think the Church should side with a particular candidate, it should certainly encourage its members to vote for moral values.
Truth does not require concensus. It should be the goal however of any change maker to achieve concensous.
Consensus does not mean unanimity. It means general agreement, recognizing there may be a passionate minority view in opposition.
The lack of unanimity ought not prevent action. Consensus means a general agreement. The democratic process provides a way to determine what policies garner strong majority support. Once the issue is debated, with both sides given ample time to air their opinions, then a vote decides the matter.
Consensus is an illusion. The only real consensus is in the womb of the Trinity, and from there the call for justice issues. Those who act, even against the world, for justice blow through the stifling erudition of ecclesia and academy and help create a world wherein the ‘tsadiq’ of the Triune God begins to fill the earth. If there is consensus, it is critical reflection after the fact of justice. In 2006 it is beyond doubt in the church that MLK Jr.s’ stand was an act of great justice. While it was taking place, there was no consensus.
Good point about MLK. I remember during his lifetime how controversial he was and how unpopular among many whites. Someone said it’s too bad conservatives are only in favor of the previous generation’s reforms.