The Bishop on the Game Board
Essays, Featured — By Larry Shallenberger on April 20, 2010 at 2:00 pmI was driving Nathan to an appointment yesterday. Along the way, we passed a Catholic church with a large sign in the yard thanking a local bishop for serving the parish. This confused Nathan.
“What war did he serve in?”
“Bishops don’t fight in wars, Nathan. They oversee priests.”
“Then why are there bishops on the chess board?”
I explained to Nathan that there was a time when the church and the government had a closer relationship than it does now. I described Constantine and how that after his rule, it was natural for rulers to align themselves with Christianity as a way to legitimize their power. I told him of a time in Europe where bishops had their own armies to enforce the will of the church and how bishops and kings often brokered alliances between themselves to make sure that each party’s agendas were advanced.
I’d never thought to ask Nate’s question. I grew up with a bishop on the chess board and never 
thought twice about it. But it’s a big question that reminds me there was a time in the evolution of the game of chess that including clergy in a game of combat was an inevitable decision. Adding bishops, and making their position on the game board closest to royalty, made perfect sense to everyone in the culture.
We’ve made the same choice in how we fight our political battles in American politics. The phrase has lost some luster now that we’re fighting two literal wars—but the term “cultural wars” seems to accurately describe the “Us” versus “Them,” win/lose struggle between the political left and the political right.
And we’ve positioned our clergy right next to the politicians on the game board. The “Bishops” are convinced that it’s their job to mobilize the faithful to pick the correct political party and that their vote isn’t just a vote for a candidate, but Good over Evil.
The “Kings” welcome their influence and promise the right moral legislation in exchange for the votes.
Of course, by taking their place on the game board, the “Bishops” lose the prophetic voice that comes from critiquing outside of the game board. They lose the ability to question if the right game is being played, or if the rules are just.
The Church loses the ability to say that politics shouldn’t be configured in a way that rewards gamesmanship and power plays over understanding the issues over constructive dialogue. The church, being a combatant itself, can’t question if viewing the other side of the aisle as the enemy and not the loyal opposition is the best choice.
The biggest loss is that the Church loses the credibility to insist that there’s a bigger Kingdom coming, one to which all the pieces on the board must bow their knee.
But that’s just the price of placing the bishop on the game board.
12 Comments
Wow! Great thoughts!
Love it!
I have concidered what you are saying for some time, just was not able to put it so well. I remember when I first came to Christ, I was VERY politically involved, but the one thing I recognized was that the message of Christ was far and away more important than who was “winning” politically. Billy Graham found that out the hard way. I still believe that, but it is hard to not want to fight for things that you believe are important, and I am not sure I always draw my lines correctly. Seems as if we all draw our lines in different places, that is what makes it difficult for Christian to get along sometimes. Like Bob Seger sang in “Against the Wind” we get older and it becomes a decision as to “what to leave in, and what to leave out, but I am older now and still running against the wind”. The battle rages on and there are many casualities, thanks for your post.
Just to clarify, I’m not saying that Christians– even pastors– don’t have the right to engage the political process. I think it’s irresponsible NOT to. I’m am saying that we blindly accept the rules of the game as presented to us.
Nor was I, just observing how difficult it can be to try to decide what hills are important enough to fight on.
Just a minor disagrement. I would say that it is not necessarily “irresponsible” to not be involved in the political process. Several of my fellow pastors do not feel lead to be involved for the reason you partially stated, they feel as if they would loose their “prophetic voice” to be involved.
Greg,
Using a prophetic voice is involvement. So is voting. I think we’re on the same page. I’ve got friends at my church actively working for both parties. Gratefully, both are Christians first.
I would agree. And I dont want my “quible” to be misunderstood as a slight on your article, because I enjoyed it and thought is was very insightful.
Well said, Larry.
Larry, I’ve been meaning to thank you for your nice comments on my record reviews. So… THANKS! And I enjoyed your essay above–it’s a thought-provoking metaphor. It reminds me of Richard John Neuhaus’s “The Naked Public Square”, written almost 30 years ago in the wake of the Moral Majority’s emergence. Neuhaus’s argument concerning church/state relations is very subtle and nuanced, so much so that I won’t try to summarize it for fear of saying something stupid. Maybe later… Anyway, have you read that? It’s good. For preview:
http://books.google.com/books?id=U_ElkFKLNAcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Great article. Whenever Christianity gets aligned with the political system or power of the day, it seems like something always goes wrong.
Great post you possess here! Would like to return and browse more of the articles. Continue posting great stuff. Hehe.. Seriously love this site of yours !. w00t ^^