![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some thoughts I had the other day
a whole set of thoughts about 'the church' distancing itself from 'politics'
1. If we don't have a robust framework for discussing politics within our churches, then our framework will be defined by the world outside of our churches, or by the churches who involve themselves in politics.
2. Since evangelical (conservative) church policy about politics has been "don't talk about politics", they have nearly no framework for discussing politics except for pulpit and prayer focus one "single-issue-bandwagons".
3. This leaves the framework for discussing politics in the hands of the churches who did involve themselves in politics - sometimes focusing more on the politics than the gospel (although not always).
4. Those politics were usually issues around concepts that conservative churches set low involvement on (although perhaps high contribution) such as homelessness, poverty, refugees and immigrants, fair work and unions. If you are a conservative, middle-class church, then these issues do not touch directly on the lives of most of your congregants.
5. Western Evangelicalism has moved to a "fences and gates" model of the faith rather than a "clean water and harbouring oasis" model: that is - you are "in or out" of the faith by what you include/exclude rather than by what you are drawn to. For some groups in western Evangelicalism this has always been the model. For others, the switch to "gates and fences" from the "broad church" has been in the last twenty years.
6. Unfortunately, the 'fences and gates' sort of churches disdain the 'clean water and harbouring oasis' sort of churches, and the 'clean water and harbouring oasis' churches disdain the 'fences and gates' sorts of churches, but one has a framework for avoiding political discussion and therefore avoiding political dissension while the other has a framework for incorporating political discussion but not managing political dissension.
7. Neither is a very good way to manage discourse in a broader society where political dissension is also a "fences and gates" issue - you are 'in' or 'out' based on your politics.
--
How do other faiths do this? Or do they do the avoidance thing too?
a whole set of thoughts about 'the church' distancing itself from 'politics'
1. If we don't have a robust framework for discussing politics within our churches, then our framework will be defined by the world outside of our churches, or by the churches who involve themselves in politics.
2. Since evangelical (conservative) church policy about politics has been "don't talk about politics", they have nearly no framework for discussing politics except for pulpit and prayer focus one "single-issue-bandwagons".
3. This leaves the framework for discussing politics in the hands of the churches who did involve themselves in politics - sometimes focusing more on the politics than the gospel (although not always).
4. Those politics were usually issues around concepts that conservative churches set low involvement on (although perhaps high contribution) such as homelessness, poverty, refugees and immigrants, fair work and unions. If you are a conservative, middle-class church, then these issues do not touch directly on the lives of most of your congregants.
5. Western Evangelicalism has moved to a "fences and gates" model of the faith rather than a "clean water and harbouring oasis" model: that is - you are "in or out" of the faith by what you include/exclude rather than by what you are drawn to. For some groups in western Evangelicalism this has always been the model. For others, the switch to "gates and fences" from the "broad church" has been in the last twenty years.
6. Unfortunately, the 'fences and gates' sort of churches disdain the 'clean water and harbouring oasis' sort of churches, and the 'clean water and harbouring oasis' churches disdain the 'fences and gates' sorts of churches, but one has a framework for avoiding political discussion and therefore avoiding political dissension while the other has a framework for incorporating political discussion but not managing political dissension.
7. Neither is a very good way to manage discourse in a broader society where political dissension is also a "fences and gates" issue - you are 'in' or 'out' based on your politics.
--
How do other faiths do this? Or do they do the avoidance thing too?