Plainly, Blumhardt does not want to be understood as retracting what he
said in the Ragaz quotation; we are not called upon to choose one
Blumhardt
over the other, the earlier over later or vice versa. What the later
Blumhardt did was to introduce a corrective (which may even have been
implicit in the earlier statement). The truth, then, is to be found by
holding the two positions in tension—letting each correct the other. Thus,
Christians must be open to perceive the hand of God even in those purely
secular sociopolitical movements whose goals are compatible with the
gospel
picture of the kingdom of God. And once perceiving God’s hand, we are, of
course, under some obligation openly to welcome and sup****t it. However,
the later Blumhardt tells us, we dare never give ourselves to any
sociopolitical movement as though it were the coming of the kingdom or an
equivalent of that kingdom. No, Christian sup****t of any and all such
movements must ever include an element of “eschatological reserve,” the
freedom to criticize and even withdraw when, inevitably, anti-kingdom
aspects of the movement show themselves. But it is quite possible to see
Blumhardt as being right, as making a true Christian witness, both in
joining and, later, in withdrawing from Democratic Socialism. His total
position, then, offers an essential corrective both to those Christians
who
want to forego all participation in the socio-political world and to
those—such as certain proponents of liberation Theology—who commit
themselves so completely to particular party programs that, in the name of
the gospel, they are willing even to give their blessing to revolutionary
violence. — V.E.
|
