« The Scariest Monster is the One You Can’t See
Music Meme »
10 06 2008

Toward a Political Theology of the Neighbor

Posted by: chris_layton in Political Musing, Theology

Carl Schmitt asserted that the most basic political distinction is that which divides friend from enemy.  This distinction, Schmitt was quick to point out, does not entail any animosity, but merely points to the boundary of our community:  Friends are part of the Us, whereas enemies are the Other, strangers, those who our outside our boundaries.

The Bar-Bar peoples.

This friend-enemy distinction has been leveraged by the church in a couple of related ways to establish the realm of the Other.  For one, it is sometimes used to draw lines across the category of those who call themselves “Christian:”  dividing between Protestants and Catholics, for example, in order to claim that one or the other is not properly “Christian.”

This distinction, or something analogous to it, also typically governs  how churches choose who to partner with for “ministry.”  We draw a line across groups doing humanitarian endeavors:  we consider partnering with christian organizations and typically don’t consider partnering with organizations who are not Christian.  Which is to say, we tend to apply the “do not be unequally yoked” language when deciding on ministry partners.  THese are not the only terms Christians have at their disposal, however:  we have another, “Neighbor.”  

Can we insert into this friend-enemy distinction the concept of “neighbor” such that we can conceptualize partnering with organizations who aren’t Christian - affirming and supporting their humanitarian mission without giving up our identity as Christians? 

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 at 9:55 pm and is filed under Political Musing, Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “Toward a Political Theology of the Neighbor”

  1. John says:
    July 11th, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    “Where there is an other fear spontaneously arises”. A phrase from one of the Upanishads

    All others are thus your enemy and you are thus always at war with all others including Real God, The Divine Conscious Light

    Christianity is based on the “other” at three levels, and is thus saturated with fear and inevitable conflict.

    God as comletely other. God is thus your enemy and not your refuge.
    The world process as completely other. Hence the Western/Christian project to conquer nature.
    All sentient beings, including humans as other. Western his-story (in particular) is saturated with violence which has always been justified with appeals to the collective tribal or ethnic deity

    Also any “religion” that claims to possess the one “true” faith/way/revelaton has effectively declared war wth all other religions and cultures. And will use whatever means it can to “convert” everyone else. Both Islam & Christianity specialise in his would be would be essentially totalitarian world conquering power seeking meme.

  2. d. w. horstkoetter says:
    July 17th, 2008 at 12:13 am

    John, Christianity is a bit more complex and ambiguous than you give it credit for.

    The world process as completely integrated, after all, is part of creation. All sentient beings (particularly human beings), while may be part other, are also a part of creation, if not made in the image of God. And God as completely other? Well there’s a bad reading of Barth (assuming you’ve read Barth), because while God is other, God is continually in love with her creation and he continually acts in her creation’s history out of a steadfast love.

    I don’t think wrapping up theological statements in a sectarian jargon is going to help your case if you don’t have an accurate reading of theology.

Leave a Reply