Politico ex religio
So as the presidential primary candidates continue to bombard America with their lack of patience, a thought struck me about what it takes to be a president. This thought comes about due a combination of some of the issues discussed at Fight Club last year: a Christian's ability to be a government officer and Mormonism. What if Mitt Romney is the best candidate precisely because he is not a Christian though he has (many of) the values of Christianity. Yeah, yeah, the war, the death penalty, but he is against stem cells and gave massachusetts insurance: this is just a hypothetical. Could it actually be an assett in looking for presidential candidates if the person is quasi-Christian? Part of the problem with Stanley, RBH, et al and their lambasting of Bush is the implicit challenge to his faith. If there isn't a challenge to the persons faith, how would the Duke Christian (this is a caricature, not a real person) react politically?
posted by Unknown at 8:56 PM
19 Comments:
Interesting.
Excellent question. I do not think that the "Duke Christian" can actually comment with intellectual integrity. SH often quotes Dorothy Day via Baxter, I think, something along these lines, "Don't vote, it only encourages them." Then, SH goes on to explain that he is from Texas, that his dad was a bricklayer, and that he is therefore a deeply habituated Democratic who just can't help himself. That is very interesting, but it certainly is not consistent with his theology. I don't want to get it into it right now, because I've already spent half the morning writing to Craig about atonement, but I would say, without defending the claim at the moment, that I don't see how SH's theo-political thought, if consistently applied, can lead to anything but something like what the Amish have done. So, I don't think the "Duke Christian" can answer your question, because I don't think the Duke Christian can vote, or have a savings account, or investments, or electricity, cars, Food Lion groceries, university professorships, etc., nor do I see how he or she can, with intellectual integrity, live a life that is anything short of the example set for us by St. Francis.
This is difficult for me, not simply intellectually but spiritually, because I've realized that I do not, nor do I think I can, live like St. Francis.
Lord have mercy on me, a poor sinner.
My two favorite Romney quotes are the "double Guantanamo" line and, when asked what he does not like about America, "Gosh, I love America."
But the ability to change due to dialog an interesting virtue because in politics intention is always hidden by the elections. Everyone always wants to paint themselves as sincere but changing due to dialog is flip-flopping. I think it was Tancredo who said that he believes in conversions on the road to Damascus, not to Des Moines (a pretty good line). Thus, dialog seems to be an empty virtue in politics because self-interest must be assumed beyond any others and dialog is an activity which restricts self-interest.
Because of this, I think we are left with platforms because that has at least some accountability, especially with the internet.
And Phil, I have to defend Stanley real quick because I think all of his polemic has a valuable place and it can be seen in the distinction he makes between himself and Milbank (I think it is in the preface to the second edition of Theology and Social Theory) where he says Milbank thinks Christians should try and win while Stanley thinks Christians should try and survive. Stanley isn't trying to consistently apply it, that's not the point. The point is to use rhetorical bravura to lead Christians into greater discipleship. That is why he is such a model protestant.
I think this is the first time I have actually defended Stanley since I came to Duke. The "Duke Christian" is a caricature of people who misread Stanley into thinking that he has a rigorous system. I love the irony surrounding all of this concerning the ever-present misreadings of the great misreader.
All Y'All,
It's good to back in the discussion. Several thoughts.
Robert Kaplan's WARRIOR POLITICS is a must read on this count. He makes a compelling case for why Liberal (representative democracy not lefty donkies) political leadership requires a pagan ethos. So, Wilson's point is interesting in relation to Kaplan. Maybe a Mormon is the via media between the distinctive politics of the Church and the realpolitik of the state.
To Phil regarding Hauerwas: Yoder and New bigin (i.e. Barth) are much better on this. As my friend Rick Quinn (a Wilson-esque massive intellect) always says, "Fast talking doesn't always make for forceful argumentation." So two or three things here.
First, Hauerwas (perhaps rightly) thinks we live in dangerous times for the Church. Any putatively Christian political engagement (from Ron Sider and Jim Wallis to Jesse Jackson and Jim Forbes) runs the risk of being transmuted into divine right democracy. Christian political speech that isn't "aggressive, if not ornery" is too easily recuperated into civil religion and American exceptionalism. This being the case, it is perhaps better not to speak at all. We are in an era of detox or quarantine so as not to go back to the Constantinian heroin, so to speak.
Second, Yoder is far better and far different on this point (and more faithful to Barth). Yoder thinks we canand ought to speak to the state, culture, society on expresssly pagan terms. That is, not pretend that what we are doing is "building the kingdom" or "transforming society." Instead, we're trying to minimize the damage. Since pagan (un and otherwise believing folks) cannot know or do Christian ethics, we don't expect them to. Instead we, on their own grounds (immanent critique - cf. Stout) ask them to do the LEAST (not just the lesser) evil. Thus we avoid the Constantinian heroin altogether.
Third, these seem to be the options available today: 1) Foreswearing the public - either temporarily or in principle, 2) Yoderian (Stout, Barth, Newbigin) immanent critique, mainly in secular idioms without the illusion of kingdom building, 3) Speech and action which is either intentionally or inevitably civil religion for lack of taking into account the factors mentioned above.
I lean toward number two, but certainly respect number one. The Church in general, it seems, is mired in number three. So maybe Hauerwas is right to suggest the necessity and prudence of number one. In which case Romney is an interesting choice.
I don't see quite as large a gap between Yoder and SH and Newbigin on this as is suggested here, although I acknowledge the distinctions made. It seems to me that they all agree that our role as Christians is to be the community in whose reality all the nations encounter the triune God. As I appreciate it, every engagement we have is to be - can only be - as Christians, which means it can only be as those whose identity is entirely as witness to and incarnation of that new reality. I believe all three say something similar to this.
Given this identity, our purpose is neither to transform society nor build the kingdom. We are to live faithfully in the midst of culture so that all the nations encounter God's gift of the Easter identity in the reality of our community.
Seems to me this is a close approximation of the "Duke Christian." I am sad for those here who feel disdain for such teaching. I believe it with every fiber of my being. I hear it as gospel.
I find it hard to imagine how to compartmentalize my life so that there is a politics by which I live called church and another politics I engage as other in the hope of minimizing its damage. If my life is to have integrity there can only be one politics that orders my life. I can only engage the world as Christian, and thus my engagement with non-Christians must be as witness to the new reality. That means my engagement in the domestic “political process” has the exclusive purpose of witness and not creation of a better society.
So the question of political process is, I think, a question of evangelism: how do we exist in the midst of a pluralist culture, striving for excellence in the tangibles of our lives (such as education and health care), such that the world encounters the gospel in our existence? The answer, it seems to me, cannot be #1 or #3. My mission is to incarnate the gospel, so I cannot refrain from public speech temporarily or in principle unless I can show that is the best way to shed love abroad. And I cannot step briefly into the civil religion without sacrificing integrity. I am left with a set of tactical decisions. When and how do I engage on political issues such that the abundant love of the triune God is proclaimed in my engagement?
I think this set of tactical decisions leads us most often to a critique of ideas from the unique perspective of the Bible-storied community. We have much to contribute right now, for example, by framing the immigration problem theologically. So too with the environment, healthcare, and the encounters with Islam or Mormonism. Yet our purpose in contributing is not to transform society but to express in the content of our speech and the manner of our engagement the truth that the world does not know.
I think the same is true when it comes to particular candidates. We can frame our criteria for evaluating them theologically. That means, contra Wilson, that our concerns are not necessarily limited to platform. By way of example, I’ll mention one concern I have with Romney. His Mormonism concerns me greatly, but not because I see it as pagan. My concern is that I view Mormonism as a particularly nationalistic form of paganism, and thus I fear his leadership will reinforce the nationalism that I believe to be the great demonic element of our culture. For me, the tendency towards nationalism is one criterion by which I will filter candidates because I believe that form of idolatry to be so great a threat to our own witness. (For Wilson: word count = 586).
The distinction is formal not substantive. There is but one ecclesial politics, though it has, of course, variegated expressions. Or better, it is padagogical. The standard and expression of politics to which one holds oneself and other Christians must be different than that to which one holds one's unbelieving and otherwise believing neighbors. As Yoder puts it, those "outside the perfection of Christ" cannot be held to the standard of redemptive suffering.
But they can, on their own (pagan) grounds be held to be less violent, less ruthless, less arbitrarily discriminatory. This is witness and service, but not the ultimate witness and service that is the life (politics) of the ecclesia itself. This is Yoder's famous "middle axiom."
Hauerwas does not flat out contradict this, but he's not a big fan. He's more interested in "aggressive Christian speech." And, regrettably, Newbigin often relapses into Constantinian notions of politics and witness.
See "The Christian Case for Democracy" in The Priestly Kingdom and The Christian Witness to the State
I had a discussion last week with someone about how I thought that constantinianism is incoherent in a democracy, and so, in fact, is the church. (I contrast this with a monarchy or fascism, I know how loaded those words are and I smile)A late capitalist democracy is a system about compartments and compartmentalizing politics.
And though you have the best of intentions, by saying you are not transforming or building by witnessing, I feel like you are compartmentalizing the gospel. I mean, following is not just witnessing. I don't know what it means and maybe "witness" is a broad enough phrase to cover everything, but then it would be transforming and building and a hundred other different things.
And concerning nationalism, I have yet to hear one politician claim she or he is not a patriot, a word which Dr. Johnson defined as the last refuge of a scoundrel. Is a pagan nationalism inherently worse than a Christian nationalism?
When it comes down to it, I feel like politics is the realm of society which tells us we should not forget Reinhold Niebuhr.
I am mostly addressing craig
Wilson,
You are using witnessing in a narrow sense and I am not. I am not in any way compartmentalizing the gospel in the way I am using the word. I use it in the sense that Carter uses it. Our identity and vocation, received as gift through the Easter events, is to receive the gift of all creatures in thanksgiving and thereby witness to the Giver. That is, the identity we receive as gift is that of gift - we are given as gift to “other” so that “other” might receive the Easter identity. Our life as a community who lives in thanksgiving to God is our witness. Thus witness is inseparable from our identity.
The distinction I am making is not between the nature of our activities (transforming society, building the kingdom, and “a hundred other different things“), but between our purpose and that which is not our purpose. Our purpose is neither to transform society nor build the kingdom. God may work through us to those ends, but they are not our purpose. When we live with integrity to our purpose of being those who live faithfully and thereby act as agents through whom God gives the gift of Easter to ”other“, we necessarily participate in the political process, and we necessarily do that in a particular way that points to God.
With regard to your question: you present is a false choice. ”Christian nationalism“ is an oxymoron, synonymous with ”Christian idolatry.“
Newbigin is helpful here, but I;ll rely on Guder's exposition thereof. Mind that this is attempting to map onto Yoder (middle axiom) and Hauerwas (aggressive Christian speech).
Guder explicates Newbigin (and there are Yoderian cognates in For the Nations) as offering a three-fold (Trinitarian?) pattern of witness: Being the witness (internal life and politics of the ecclesia itself), Doing the witness (external life of service without necessarily explicit confessional narration - e.g. feeding the hungry, visiting prisoners, holiday food baskets), and Saying the witness (public confessional proclamation).
Now what is interesting in both Newbigin and Yoder is that the public proclamation is ALWAYS in response to questions asked externally. And these questions are conceived as being prompted by the life and actions of the Church/Christians. That is, our aggressive Christian speech is a secondary moment of witness in response to questions to which the gospel is the only answer. This amps up the need for lived witness inasmuch as our "right" (for lack of a better word) to proclaim is only earned after/by the integrity of our actions.
For instance, the Amish folks showing up at the gunman's funeral and forgiving him and his family would earn them the right to preach a gospel of reconciliation, because that action is unintelligible apart from the story they would tell about Jesus and their community. Moreover, that particular action is only intelligible within the history/tradition of the Amish community.
A former professor cum friend has referred to this as "public piety" by which life and act (being and doing) are offered humbly and unassumingly to the world without any expectation of conversion. And in so doing, a space is opened up in which a question might be asked, and a sincere confessional answer offered. Rather than leading with the apologetic or proslytizing speech.
Thus this is not a "compromise" of Christian particularity, but a different rendering of its logic and the priority of different modes of witness. Hauerwas leads with speech that is backed by action. Which, again, may be an appropriate tactic in our historical moment and setting. Yoder and Newbigin lead with action that is followed by speech, if and only if the action is suitably strange enough to provoke a question from the watching world to which the gospel is the only answer.
BTW- WILSON: I think I have some thoughts on what I am coming to call postcolonial constantinianism. But before I get onto that tip, I'd like to hear/read some more specifics on your objection/reticence thereto. Perhaps you could post that as a new thread?
Yes, this (the Newbigin/Yoder example) captures precisely what I meant.
I think in terms of Christ being formed in the community (Gal 4:19). To the extent that the new reality/new creation is present and encountered by the world, that presence will stimulate the questions for which proclamation contains the answers (Newbigin).
There is no compartmentalization of the gospel here.
I just want to say-- I'm reading the socratic blog and plan on contributing at some point! Peace to you all!
just checking in from Jerusalem. No time to write.
craig, what I am seeing is a distinction between following (what Jesus commands of his disciples) and witnessing (an identity and way of life which points others to the Easter Love of the Triune God). I understand Stanley's tactics/strategy distinction but I think purpose is not enough to follow. I think purpose is important but that faithfulness means more than the ambigious "acting as agents": there are specific calls that Jesus has upon those who follow him and purpose is not enough in that. If you push this a little it could get to a scary place, but i will let you take care of that.
And saying christian nationalism is an oxymoron denies the validity of faith found in those who expound it, something I am hesitent to do. Even though I agree with you in principle, there is a way that this must be an issue between me and my brothers and sisters in Christ whom I commune with who espouse Christian nationalism, not between us denigrating them.
And I will develop my constantitinian thoughts after I memorize the qal imperfect paradigm.
No, Wilson, I have no doubt there is faith present in Christian nationalism. Faith is present in all of our idolatries and psuedo-religions. The problem is not an absence of faith. The problem is that nationalism makes the flag the object (or at least a co-equal object) of faith and sanctifies boundaries that are torn down by the cross. "In Christ" is a logical status variable: either one is “in Christ” or one is not. Either one participates through the Spirit in the eschatological reality of the new creation that transcends ethic, social, and gender distinctions, or one does not. Either one lives in Christ or in Adam. There is no room for compromise here, as Paul makes clear to the Galatians. To summon people to participate in the destiny of Israel is necessarily to summon them into a new reality in which nationalism has no place.
This does not mean we cannnot or do not retain our association with nation-states or cultures. The Christian community after all embodies the gospel within a particular culture and so we do not escape that reality. But that reality cannot be ultimate for us. It cannot provide the point of intersection through which we relate to others, for our status, "in Christ," is that intersection. Our ethnic or nation-state location cannot be a boundary that determines our relation to others.
There is correspondence here with the issue of Torah observance in Galatia. If the Galatians were “in Christ,” Torah observance reflected a denial of the reality of the new creation their baptism denotes. It was a denial of their baptism. So, too, does nationalism reflect a denial of the new creation. Nationalism cuts the umbilical cord (“in Christ”) through which those baptized into the new creation are nurtured so that Christ is formed in them. “In Christ” is the necessary precondition to the relational matrices through which Christ is birthed in communities. Nationalism, which is “in Adam,” aborts this new birth. Therefore, just as Paul did not hesitate in recognizing what was at stake for the Galatians, we must not hesitate in recognizing what is at stake for our sisters and brothers who think their conflation of Cross and Flag is innocent. “in Christ” presents us with an “either/or” decision - which is where your “following“ comes in.
So why is a pagan nationalist worse than a Christian idolater? I agree with your denouncement of nationalism, Craig, I am just wondering why the nationalism of Mitt Romney is worse than the nationalism of Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton: all parties who would espouse the patriot moniker.
Can't answer that one, Wilson, except hypothetically, since I pay absolutely no attention to either Obama or Hillary. I know very little about Obama and have never heard him speak or even a sound bite from him. I have heard Hillary speak but I have not associated her with Christian nationalism, so if she fits in that category, I need to pay more attention if she gets nominated. I don't see an appreciable difference between a Mormon Christian Nationalist and a secular humanist Christian nationalist, so perhaps Hillary, Obama, and Romney are equally worthy of concern.
Craig, your response time is astounding. Maybe I should give others admin status so that they can get emails about posts and be as responsive as you. Though even with emails, that would be a challenge.
Post a Comment
<< Home