Category Archives: Politics

What is politics? (Some initial thoughts)

19 Replies

OK, got some interesting input last week on how we might define politics. It’s an interestingly difficult animal to pin down. Here are some initial thoughts I have. Not well organized, nor deeply analyzed, just initial thoughts. I’ll need your further input to steer me in the right direction.

Merriam-Webster tells us that the principal definition is “the art or science of government.” I’ll confess, that’s not really what I’m talking about when I’m discussing Christians and politics, although there is some attraction in this definition. My principal focus is on M-W’s third definition:

3. a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)

My focus is on the obtention and preservation of an elected office, the struggle for control. At times, this comes out as a struggle over a specific issue, yet the question behind that is typically one of control. As the dictionary says, it’s about power and leadership, not mere governing. When I’m thinking about politics, I’m thinking about campaigns and parties, or more importantly, partisanship.

Is that a reasonable limitation or should I focus on M-W’s primary definition?

How would you define politics?

3 Replies

(Due to a computer error, which was me trying to use a computer, this didn’t run on Tuesday. I’ll run it again on Wednesday, because I’m interested in the discussion)
I guess it’s about that time of year, so a discussion of politics should be well in season. I’d like to hear what you consider to be “politics.”

In the book To Change The World (which we studied in recent weeks), Hunter warns against the mistake of confusing all things public with politics. At the same time, I hear people snidely remark that it’s impossible to completely escape participating in politics. We can define all things public as politics, or we can set some limits to the word.

All of that leads me to ask how you would define politics. What is included? What sort of public activity is excluded?

Looking forward to your comments.

Essay 2, Chapter 6: Illusion, Irony and Tragedy

6 Replies

The sixth chapter of the second part of Hunter’s book (To Change The World) is “Illusion, Irony and Tragedy.” Here’s the abstract from www.jamesdavisonhunter.com:

Politics has become a “social imaginary” that defines the horizon of understanding and the parameters for action. What is never challenged is the proclivity to think of the Christian faith and its engagements with culture in political terms. For all, the public has been conflated with the political. But the ressentiment that marks the way they operate makes it clear that a crucial part of what motivates politics is a will to dominate. However, for politics to be about more than power, it depends upon a realm that is independent of the political process. The deepest irony is that the Christian faith has the possibility of autonomous institutions and practices that could be a source of ideals and values that could elevate politics to more than a quest for power. Instead, by nurturing its resentments, they become functional Nietzcheans, participating in the very cultural breakdown they so ardently strive to resist.

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

“It is not an exaggeration to conclude that the public witness of the church today has become a political witness…” (p. 169) Hunter starts with this assertion, then quickly moves to “So what?”

The first problem is the fact that the state can’t solve all human problems. Laws reflect values, but, as Hunter explains, they “cannot generate values, or instill values, or settle the conflict over values.” (p. 171) The belief that the state can truly address the principal concerns of society is an illusion.

The second problem is a series of ironies:

  • Politics is only about power unless it can depend on a sphere that is independent. Values have to be more than political slogans, but Christians have done more to politicize values over the last half century than any other group in society.
  • The political activity of Christians has been counterproductive to the goals they seek to obtain. Hunter says, “But the consequence of the whole-hearted and uncritical embrace of politics by Christians has been… to reduce Christian faith to a political ideology…” (p. 172)
  • Political participation often becomes an avoidance of responsibility. In Hunter’s words, “It is… much easier to vote for a politician who champions child welfare than to adopt a baby born in poverty…” (p. 172)

The final problem is the conformity of the church to “the spirt of the age,” the making of politics the church’s principal witness to the world. Christians did not create the present political culture, but they have become full participants in it. When Christians build their identity on the resentment and hostility that is today’s political arena, they are accentuating the things that separate them from non-Christians. They are contributing to the very cultural breakdown they are protesting against.

Chapter 7: For and Against the Mandate of Creation

4 Replies

Largely for my own personal benefit, I’m going through James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World chapter by chapter over the next few weeks. Here’s the abstract of chapter 7 “For and Against the Mandate of Creation” from Hunter’s website:

Populism is organic to American Christianity, yet on the other hand, populism is, in some ways, at odds with what we know about the most historically significant dynamics of world-changing. In other words, there is an unavoidable tension between pursuing excellence and the social consequences of its achievement; between leadership and elitism that all too often comes from it. The antidotes to “seizing power” in a new way is a better understanding of “faithful presence.”

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

Yes, Hunter does like to use big words, something I’m not a fan of. I still argue that the true scholar is the one who can express deep thoughts in simple terms. Still, Hunter has some things to say, if you dig through the excess syllables.

In this chapter, which closes the first of the three essays that make up this book, Hunter returns to the concept of the creation mandate, which he discussed in chapter one. He maintains that a proper understanding of the creation mandate leads us to see that Christianity isn’t about changing the world at all. He says that

contemporary Christian understandings of power and politics are a large part of what has made contemporary Christianity in America appalling, irrelevant, and ineffective—part and parcel of the worst elements of our late modern culture today… (p.95)

(Yeah, I stood up and applauded at that one.) Christians are to reject the entire idea of “seizing power,” focusing on what Hunter calls “a faithful presence” (topic to be explained more fully in the third essay). Social theory, which explains how the world is changed, goes in the opposite direction of good theology.
What the church needs to seek, rather than power, is “faithful presence in all areas of life.” Again, that will be explained more fully in the third essay.

So that’s the gist of Essay #1. Hunter describes how the world is changed, then explains that Christians can’t be about changing the world without changing their mission first. Faithfulness to the cause of Christ means rejecting the idea of “winning the culture war,” “taking our nation back,” or any of the other slogans so popular over the last few decades.

What do you think? Take some time to read the summary of all seven chapters, then tell me if you agree with Hunter’s conclusions.

The idolatry of religious freedom, revisited

8 Replies

A while back, I wrote about the idolatry of religious freedom. The subtle seduction of this standard is hard to overstate, especially for those of us who grew up in the United States. It only seems logical that this freedom would be one of the most important freedoms that Christians should seek to protect.

Logical, maybe, but hardly biblical. I’m not saying that we should seek to lose this freedom that we enjoy, but like all of our rights, it must never stand in the way of the good of the Kingdom. (See Paul’s discussion about this in 1 Corinthians 9)

I spent last week in Cuba, part of the time in Matanzas, part of the time in Havana. I heard the “party line” straight from the mouth of Communist officials and was reminded of the limits placed on the church there. I also saw a healthy, vibrant church that is growing by leaps and bounds.

I was struck yesterday by the contrast between what goes on in Cuba and what goes on in the United States. I see Christians here in the States spending endless time debating politics, while Christians in Cuba are about the business of spreading the gospel.

The church here is stagnated. The church in Cuba, in a Communist country with limits on their religious freedom, is growing and growing.

Which scenario do you think is more pleasing to God? While we spend our time protecting our economy, our democracy and our religious freedom, we leave the business of God’s Kingdom untended. Of course, it’s not the Kingdom that is worse off for that. It’s us, our children and this country.