Chandra is reading...The Irresistible Revolution Part II

Last week, I looked at the challenge posed by The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an ordinary Radical to embrace faith in a radical but simple way by loving our neighbours in concrete actions, including intentional community.

Shane Claiborne notes – rightly – that “this is essentially a political act.” But unfortunately, this seems to be the only kind of political engagement Claiborne can envisage for Christians.

I found this rejection of political institutions and structures to be the most frustrating aspect of The Irresistible Revolution.

I appreciate the grassroots intentionality, but it doesn’t seem to be accompanied by a recognition of larger structures and context and how they can be both agents for good and bad in the lives of the poor whom Claiborne embraces.

I can certainly understand that in the American context, Claiborne might be more reluctant than a Canadian to engage in the political system. But surely 8 years of George W. Bush convinced Claiborne that voting for Jesus rather than one of the candidates on the ballot in the 2004 election had unintended consequences for many of the poor around him?

Our politicians and decision makers have the ability to enact both justice and injustice. Refusing to make voting decisions ends up being a refusal to hold our governments accountable for their actions. Abstaining from all political engagement also fails to support those who will promote justice, challenge those who will not, and encourage all decision makers to embrace justice.

While Claiborne focuses on redistribution to the poor through churches, he ignore the many policies and public practices that make them poor and keep them poor (except for protesting by-laws in the courts and through civil disobedience). One doesn’t need to be a politician – or even approve whole-heartedly of the political system – to engage with it to the end of promoting justice.

One of the results is that Claiborne seems to be able to offer only charity to the poor. He asks good, challenging questions about the values that perpetuate wealth imbalances and poverty, but has nothing to say about the structures that enforce these values.

Another consequence is that he seems to dismiss entirely the power of government to do good, while advocating for parallel systems run by Christians (almost like the mafia). Rather than focus on taxes, Claiborne argues for redistribution via tithing and churches. Instead of universal public health care, Claiborne supports Christians banding together to share their money and look after one another’s needs. (Once again, seeming to offer no hope to those who are not part of such a collective).

This aspect of Claiborne’s book made me appreciate my own tradition of public justice. I believe that government – while capable of abusing power – is also a source for good, and can be the means of our collective desire to enact public justice. This offers us the opportunity for hopeful, active citizenship and the ability to change structures and systems of injustice and disempowerment. While organizations and social institutions can also practice justice, a significant actor in the struggle for justice is sidelined as soon as one dismisses government.