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.
Tim, thanks for this excellent entry from my favorite book of the year. I agree with Hunter entirely, and a lot of these thoughts can also be found in Newbegin’s “Truth to Tell.” It certainly is true that the Christian Right and Left have defined values in terms of politics and thus politicized the gospel and its virtues. This is terribly unfortunate.
But we also must remember whence we came as evangelicals and apolitical Restorationists. Prior to Reagan, few of us were involved in the realm of politics at all. It was Reagan’s coalition along with preacher/politicians such as C0lson, Falwell and Robertson that led us down the path of embracing politics as a vehicle for cultural and spiritual change, and many of us in the Churches of Christ came to embrace this kind of view of politics after 9/11 and with the rise of an evangelical talking president, George W. Bush. Once “we” had power, we seemed trust it more and engaged fully.
I only bring this up because I think that I don’t wish to see us make the mistakes of either past. Total withdrawal from politics in hopes for some more utopian spiritual kingdom leaves the gospel without any significance for a significant force in our lives, namely politics, and thus we segment a part of our reality from gospel influence. I don’t wish to see our churches become silent on issues of the day, even when we disagree. On the other hand, we also must reject an understanding of politics as sheer power understood as domination. This is a kind of power that is contrary to the cross and to every spiritual principle of Jesus about how Jesus followers make impact in the world.
It seems to me that one solution is to view power as influence and not as domination. We all know that those who sometimes most influence institutions are those without titles but with real power (the church secretary, for example). These persons gain functional power (as influence) through service and through earned respect, not through quests for titles or position. Thus, Christians become influencers in politics, media and all other spheres that impact our lives, but they do not “seek” position in order to influence. There’s a fine line there, I agree — but it seems to me the fine line between “yeast” and thrones.
Todd, thanks for the thoughtful comment.
I don’t agree with your assessment as to what would happen should Christians withdraw from politics, though I think Hunter does. Part of it comes down to what such a withdrawal would look like. I envision a rejection of partisanship, a refusal to align ourselves with any party or political movement. I do think the church should speak “prophetically” on the issues of the day, addressing them from a kingdom standpoint, rather than joining in the win/lose aspects of party politics.
I also think that we analyze much of this merely from the standpoint of modern democracies, failing to see that God’s kingdom has never been dependent on having an inside voice in governments of this world. We address the governments of this world as ambassadors of another kingdom, unapologetically speaking out for the interests of our kingdom, rather than the kingdom we are addressing. When the two interests coincide, great. But that’s not our goal.
I would move beyond Hunter’s “faithful presence” to imagery involving our being emissaries of God’s kingdom. As you said, we seek to influence the kingdoms of this world, all of them equally, speaking not as insiders but sympathetic outsiders.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I don’t think I would use the word withdrawal. That word already assumes that there is something to withdrawal from. I would simply say our engagement should have other priorities, goals and objectives which would make withdrawal unnecessary since we have better things to do and be about.
I would say a better way with a better focus might look like withdrawal but it wouldn’t be and in fact would be more in line with our calling. Also, I would say deciding not to engage under current terms doesn’t mean you desire some Utopian experience at all but instead would be driven by a desire to have only one Lord, Jesus Christ.
I think Colossians 1:15-20 says it all.
P.S. This was my response to Todd’s thoughts.
Tim and Darin, Thank you for your very thoughtful responses. Believe me, even if just 90 percent of Christians took your call to be witnesses and prophetic voices of the kingdom seriously, I’d rejoice. I don’t see my point or your points as mutually exclusive. There is still room for the 10 percent of Christians who do wish to engage politics in their local communities, states and nation as a faithful presence — and I don’t see why why we lop off that sphere of society and say that we have no responsibility to it other than to stand outside it — and push comes to shove, to criticize it rather than work for its betterment. As an old friend of mine says, “You can’t clean up a sewage dump standing outside of it.”
I guess my concern is that we make false assumptions about the political realm that associates it with some evil form of power when the same behaviors and the same kind of power plays can take place in any human institution, even the church. Should we abandon all of those to just stand outside as faithful witnesses to them? Why shouldn’t Christians be inspired by their kingdom vision to serve on the City Council, to lead churches and to serve as teachers in public schools? I fear, as Hunter does, that we Christians have some kind of latent fear of institutions — as if kingdom work only happens outside of them and not from within them.
There are as many temptations as President of ACU, or as senior minister of a church, as there is as a member of Congress. They all involve broken people and structures, but as I understand it, that’s where we are called to bring light and life. In politics, that will require some partisan affiliations (otherwise you won’t be trusted and won’t have a job) without that partisanship dictating our policies and our every move.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I am slightly reacting here to the “Worldly Church”/Lipscomb model of engagement through nonparticipation. I applaud that kind of engagement, but I also applaud the good public servant who is inspired by a vision larger than power so that policy that impacts the lives of real people is not left to those without Kingdom vision.
Todd, thanks again for a thoughtful reply. You’ve raised some deep issues that aren’t easily addressed in a few paragraphs. I’ll admit to having developed a great sympathy for Lipscomb’s point of view, so I don’t know that you are misunderstanding me. I don’t condemn any Christian who chooses to participate in politics, yet I must admit that I see more potential for harm than potential for good in such endeavors.
While your analysis of how every human group takes on a life of its own (becomes a “power”) is very true, there are characteristics that human governments have that the church, for example, does not typically have (except when it allies itself with the State). Few would feel compelled to kill for ACU nor to die for ACU, yet many regularly offer to do those very things for the State. Many Christians justify violence, lying, oppression of others, etc. in the name of country. Anytime a human organization reaches the point to where people will compromise their morals to support it, it goes beyond being just another human organization.
As for being a faithful witness from within the political system, let me use an analogy (with all the limitations that analogies have). When you are at a sporting event, who is able to judge and evaluate the event? Who is able to provide faithful arbitrage? Who is able to provide disinterested analysis? The players? The coaches? The fans? No, they are all seen as biased and are frequently biased beyond what even they are aware. It takes an outsider, like a referee or an announcer, one who has no preference as to the outcome, the winning and losing, but just wants to see things done well and done fairly.
You can’t step into the political arena and then be perceived as an impartial voice. You can’t be a player and a prophet at the same time. You can’t align yourself with a candidate or a party and be heard as a “faithful witness” for another kingdom. (It’s an ironic term, since faithful witnesses in Revelation are consistently killed by the State). Did you ever notice that sewage doesn’t clean up sewage dumps? The outsider may step in, but he doesn’t become what he’s stepping into.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer