Posts
Reposted from Sept 22, 2010
#dmingml
In Hunter’s second essay titled, Rethinking Power (To Change the World), he reviews Christian history in the context of how Christians and the institutional church have used its power to transform culture. However, one of the biggest hurdles for believers to address and to overcome is the politicization of faith, where faith has become so enmeshed with politics as a way to find solutions to public problems that it has actually distorted the role of faith in society. Slowly, often imperceptively, there has been a turn toward the law and politics as the primary way of understanding all aspects of collective life (p.108). In Hunter’s view, this would apply to faith also. On the surface this may appear to be somewhat benign, but in essence what this means is that faith in society is now also viewed primarily through the lenses of law and politics. To counter this, there are those who would argue then, that for faith to have the power to change culture, it cannot be divorced from law and politics, but rather must engage them for leveraging purposes and even seek to change them so that biblical faith can take a more preeminent role is shaping culture. From this perspective, it becomes easier to understand why there are great sensitivities around the dual roles of politics and faith, and how they should or should not be entwined. Hunter looks at three specific groups of Christianity and describes how they have used power as a means to change culture or alternatively, not be influenced by it. The three groups are The Christian Right, The Christian Left and the Neo-Anabaptists. Before we briefly review these three groups, I believe it is important to understand that Hunter has taken a decidedly Western view of this, and that these three groups would not necessarily be reflected in all cultures. In fact, there is every probability that there are numerous variations of these groups where degrees of difference between them become somewhat ambiguous and difficult to define. In other words, applying only these three groups to our understanding of how Christian groups operate outside of the Western world may be far too simplistic. The Christian Right believes that the founding political documents reflected a profoundly Christian worldview, and that therefore, this once again should be at the foundation of culture reflected through our schools, hospitals, charity, laws, and so on. Anything that opposes this view is seen to be at odds with a Christian worldview, or even worse, at war with it: Thus someone coined the term, the culture wars. The conclusion is unavoidable: “nothing short of a great Civil War of values rages today throughout North America. Two sides with vastly differing and incompatible worldviews are locked in bitter conflict that permeates every level of society.”p.119 (Dobson and Bauer, Children at Risk). This has led to a desire by the Christian Right for dominance or controlling influence in American politics and culture (p.124). On the Left (Hunter describes them as politically progressive Christians, p.132), there exists a tension between two groups – the communitarian wing and the social libertarian wing. Individuals in the social libertarian group believe that every individual should have the autonomy and freedom to choose one’s own lifestyle. The Christian Left, tend to focus on the communitarian wing i.e. where liberty is understood more as liberation from poverty, usually caused by economic domination. They condemn the wealthy for their abuse of the poor, weak and marginalized. One of the criticisms of the Christian Left is that they have an extremely narrow focus that concentrates its efforts around the class warfare it believes is raging in our society and where the battle has shifted from a war on poverty to a war on the poor (p.138). The Christian Right however, appears to have virtually no interest in trying to challenge the powerful structures that maintain poverty in our culture. Hunter quotes Tom Sine as saying, “The pro-family folks need a wake-up call. The real threat to our Christian families isn’t some sinister elite living in Washington D.C. The real threat is Christian families unquestioningly buying into the secular aspirations and addictions of the American dream.” (p. 141). To the younger generation of believers this conflict and ‘abuse of power and irresponsibility’ leads many to abandon the institutional church. Like the Christian Left, The Neo-Anabaptists share a common dislike for the human and environmental consequences of an unrestrained market economy (p.150). It is different however in that its views play out more in theology and intellectual apologetics rather than in practice. Whereas the Christian Left are committed to a strong State to see its agenda realized in law and policy, the Ana-Baptists desire to keep their distance from the State, maintaining distrust towards their structure, action and use of power. The Neo-Anabaptists believe that the best way for the church to engage the culture is recognize the messianic identity and mission of Jesus. What does this look like? It is rejecting the temptation to use force or coercion and model an alternative relationship with the powers of the day. Their view is that if Jesus has “overcome the world” and has authority over “principalities and powers” then believers should simply ‘be’ the church, knowing and expecting that “it will suffer the condescension and hostility of the world for its social and political nonconformity.” (p. 158). In essence, the Anabaptists “accept powerlessness.” They view the politics of the Christian Right and the Christian Left as inappropriate intervention against the dominant powers of the State, rejecting the example set by Jesus and the way he chose to live in the context of Jewish Law under Roman Rule. If the public witness of the church is wrapped up in its political identity, reducing the Christian faith to a political ideology (at least in the West), then how do we move to a post-political witness in the world? This is the question that Hunter asks, and explores even deeper in his third essay that we will look at next week. Fundamentally though, because the Church is made up of individuals and communities, it collectively possesses power in the world. How can this power be used constructively? Hunter suggests that there are two things that must be done before this question can be addressed. Firstly, to disentangle the life and identity of the church from the life and identity of American society (p.184), and secondly, to decouple the “public” from the “political.” Politics is simply incapable of addressing every public issue. I must admit that Hunter’s essay on Rethinking Power has been both challenging and stimulating. After working with Focus on the Family (Dr. James Dobson was the Founder) for 17 years, the first 10 years outside of the U.S, I found it even more interesting reflecting on the emerging conflicts that arose from staff in their desire to be effective Christian witnesses to a new generation that is largely biblically illiterate, and how their views represented a sprinkling from the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo Anabaptists as described by Hunter. Without wanting to pre-empt Hunter’s conclusion in his Third Essay, perhaps rather than move to a centrist position, we can extract biblical characteristics from all three groups and coin a term to represent them…not Right or Left or Neo. How about simply, Christian? There’s a thought!
#dmingml
In Hunter’s second essay titled, Rethinking Power (To Change the World), he reviews Christian history in the context of how Christians and the institutional church have used its power to transform culture. However, one of the biggest hurdles for believers to address and to overcome is the politicization of faith, where faith has become so enmeshed with politics as a way to find solutions to public problems that it has actually distorted the role of faith in society. Slowly, often imperceptively, there has been a turn toward the law and politics as the primary way of understanding all aspects of collective life (p.108). In Hunter’s view, this would apply to faith also. On the surface this may appear to be somewhat benign, but in essence what this means is that faith in society is now also viewed primarily through the lenses of law and politics. To counter this, there are those who would argue then, that for faith to have the power to change culture, it cannot be divorced from law and politics, but rather must engage them for leveraging purposes and even seek to change them so that biblical faith can take a more preeminent role is shaping culture. From this perspective, it becomes easier to understand why there are great sensitivities around the dual roles of politics and faith, and how they should or should not be entwined. Hunter looks at three specific groups of Christianity and describes how they have used power as a means to change culture or alternatively, not be influenced by it. The three groups are The Christian Right, The Christian Left and the Neo-Anabaptists. Before we briefly review these three groups, I believe it is important to understand that Hunter has taken a decidedly Western view of this, and that these three groups would not necessarily be reflected in all cultures. In fact, there is every probability that there are numerous variations of these groups where degrees of difference between them become somewhat ambiguous and difficult to define. In other words, applying only these three groups to our understanding of how Christian groups operate outside of the Western world may be far too simplistic. The Christian Right believes that the founding political documents reflected a profoundly Christian worldview, and that therefore, this once again should be at the foundation of culture reflected through our schools, hospitals, charity, laws, and so on. Anything that opposes this view is seen to be at odds with a Christian worldview, or even worse, at war with it: Thus someone coined the term, the culture wars. The conclusion is unavoidable: “nothing short of a great Civil War of values rages today throughout North America. Two sides with vastly differing and incompatible worldviews are locked in bitter conflict that permeates every level of society.”p.119 (Dobson and Bauer, Children at Risk). This has led to a desire by the Christian Right for dominance or controlling influence in American politics and culture (p.124). On the Left (Hunter describes them as politically progressive Christians, p.132), there exists a tension between two groups – the communitarian wing and the social libertarian wing. Individuals in the social libertarian group believe that every individual should have the autonomy and freedom to choose one’s own lifestyle. The Christian Left, tend to focus on the communitarian wing i.e. where liberty is understood more as liberation from poverty, usually caused by economic domination. They condemn the wealthy for their abuse of the poor, weak and marginalized. One of the criticisms of the Christian Left is that they have an extremely narrow focus that concentrates its efforts around the class warfare it believes is raging in our society and where the battle has shifted from a war on poverty to a war on the poor (p.138). The Christian Right however, appears to have virtually no interest in trying to challenge the powerful structures that maintain poverty in our culture. Hunter quotes Tom Sine as saying, “The pro-family folks need a wake-up call. The real threat to our Christian families isn’t some sinister elite living in Washington D.C. The real threat is Christian families unquestioningly buying into the secular aspirations and addictions of the American dream.” (p. 141). To the younger generation of believers this conflict and ‘abuse of power and irresponsibility’ leads many to abandon the institutional church. Like the Christian Left, The Neo-Anabaptists share a common dislike for the human and environmental consequences of an unrestrained market economy (p.150). It is different however in that its views play out more in theology and intellectual apologetics rather than in practice. Whereas the Christian Left are committed to a strong State to see its agenda realized in law and policy, the Ana-Baptists desire to keep their distance from the State, maintaining distrust towards their structure, action and use of power. The Neo-Anabaptists believe that the best way for the church to engage the culture is recognize the messianic identity and mission of Jesus. What does this look like? It is rejecting the temptation to use force or coercion and model an alternative relationship with the powers of the day. Their view is that if Jesus has “overcome the world” and has authority over “principalities and powers” then believers should simply ‘be’ the church, knowing and expecting that “it will suffer the condescension and hostility of the world for its social and political nonconformity.” (p. 158). In essence, the Anabaptists “accept powerlessness.” They view the politics of the Christian Right and the Christian Left as inappropriate intervention against the dominant powers of the State, rejecting the example set by Jesus and the way he chose to live in the context of Jewish Law under Roman Rule. If the public witness of the church is wrapped up in its political identity, reducing the Christian faith to a political ideology (at least in the West), then how do we move to a post-political witness in the world? This is the question that Hunter asks, and explores even deeper in his third essay that we will look at next week. Fundamentally though, because the Church is made up of individuals and communities, it collectively possesses power in the world. How can this power be used constructively? Hunter suggests that there are two things that must be done before this question can be addressed. Firstly, to disentangle the life and identity of the church from the life and identity of American society (p.184), and secondly, to decouple the “public” from the “political.” Politics is simply incapable of addressing every public issue. I must admit that Hunter’s essay on Rethinking Power has been both challenging and stimulating. After working with Focus on the Family (Dr. James Dobson was the Founder) for 17 years, the first 10 years outside of the U.S, I found it even more interesting reflecting on the emerging conflicts that arose from staff in their desire to be effective Christian witnesses to a new generation that is largely biblically illiterate, and how their views represented a sprinkling from the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo Anabaptists as described by Hunter. Without wanting to pre-empt Hunter’s conclusion in his Third Essay, perhaps rather than move to a centrist position, we can extract biblical characteristics from all three groups and coin a term to represent them…not Right or Left or Neo. How about simply, Christian? There’s a thought!
No comments:
Post a Comment