Zizek, Obama and the Emerging Church
Saturday, February 23, 2008
One of the key pieces of Slavoj Zizek's political theory in his foundational book The Sublime Object is his notion of "ideological cynicism." Subjects of the first world, Zizek says, are too smart to become duped by the political ideologies of Western states. After all, we know it's just more political spin. Instead, ideology for Zizek, takes on a different form in the so-called "first world." Here, we are offered ideologies to appease us, to make us feel better about ourselves, so that those in privilege can keep on conserving what it is they really desire. So now, we look at the political ideologies spinning across the political process, and instead of politically observing "they do not know it, but they are doing it," we observe "they know it, but they are doing it anyway." In essence, we listen to all the new political speeches and new political options given the electorate and we know nothing will really change. Yet we participate in it anyway, because in essence subconsciously this is what we really want: we wish to protect our own specific pieces of the economic social pie yet feel good about doing it (there's the classic Freudian split in the subjective consciousness). Political ideology serves a cynical function now, giving us a Big Other to participate in, making us feel better about ourselves (morally), all the while we hope for keeping the status quo in place protecting our own personal pieces of the pie.
When it comes to Christians of my evangelical tradition, I would suggest this "ideological cynicism" could work another way. We participate in National politics, its political ideologies of a more just society, even though we deeply suspect the corporate national machine insures nothing will change. We do this because it is much harder to think of the church itself as a legitimate social political force for God's justice in the world. It is simply a lot less work to support Barak Obama for president than it is to lead our churches into being living communities of righteousness, justice and God's Mission in the world.
I know Zizek might appear way too skeptical here for most of us. And there is always the cry "why can we not do both - vote for Obama and be missional communities for justice in our neighborhoods." Yet (at the risk of being over provocative) I think the question is worth considering: "Are we supporting Obama because it's easier than being God's justice in the world ourselves?" Is our participation over here in electoral politics sapping our energy (or worse even assuaging us) from participation in the work of justice as an extension of the church?
Senator Obama is putting out a pleasing message of "Change." "I'm asking you to believe in Change," "the Audacity of Hope," and "A Unified America." Yet Zizek would call these ideas "signifiers without the signified." Words that in the end no one knows what they mean or refer to. Zizek would say it is these "words" which allow us to consent to what we know is a lie so that we can avoid the Real: that true justice of God demands we change fundamentally the way we live in relation to each other and the world. I fear these Obama "words" take the place of pres. Bush's words "Freedom" and "No child left behind," words that few knew what they actually meant but morphed into a politics of multinational corporate politics the horror of which is hard to believe 8 years later. In a Zizekian way, I have often asked, did we consent to all this (vote for George Bush) as Christians 8 years ago (who by and large elected him) in order to assuage ourselves that we (through our country's national politics) are contributing to a better world all the while staying comfortable within our protected enclaves.
Final Words: I know some expect me to get on the Obama bandwagon, especially those who know of my criticisms of the current president. Yet I continue to want to press for the church to be the primary political instrument of true justice in the world. The church must be FIRST as initiator for social justice, from which we can then push for governmental cooperation. I have always been concerned about the marginal status given the church as the foundational center for justice in society by my various spokesmen/women/friends of the Emerging Church (I hope to review Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change in this light). I know many fear fundamentalist sectarianism. I fear the democratic capitalist Symbolic Order (ala Foucault) shall subsume us all. More and more however, people like Jim Wallis are seeing the insights of a tempered vision of what is possible in national politics (see The Great Awakening). More and more, people are understanding a new possibility for a Hauerwas radical politics (see for example Mark Van Steenwyk here and here). SO GO AHEAD AND BY ALL MEANS VOTE FOR OBAMA, but do not allow false ideology to sap our energy or distract us from the task of being God's people, his embodied Kingdom in submission to His Lordship, birthing forth His justice amidst the world that was made possible in His death and resurrection until He comes.
What do you think? Is there a work of "ideological cynicism" at work in Christians supporting Obama? Is the Obama bandwagon a positive or a negative (or neutral) for the church's role in bringing justice to the nations? Is energy by Christians spent on Obama politics misguided, too hopeful, and misdirected? Is it too easy to just say "you should be doing both, voting for Obama and working for social justice in your local church"?
BTW I shall post a second post on the Bridge Illustration next week.
Posted by David Fitch | 9:18 AM
COMMENTS:
Thanks for this post. Being at a seminary that is Obama crazy is difficult, but I agree with you (and Hauerwas) that we need to view the church as a means to justice more than the nation state. Thanks
11:05 AM
Great peace. You've got my heart racing. And thank you for the link-love!
You've taken the approach that I often take with people (go ahead and vote if you'd like, but keep first-things-first). But this raises the question: How does one know if they're keeping first-things-first?
Every time I have a conversation with someone about these things they end up agreeing with me that, of course, the church needs to do its job. And they agree that, of course, MANY people are focusing too much energy on politics and not enough of being the church. But they don't ever really think that THEY fall into that category.
And so you end up with tons of energy and focus going into Obama's ride to glory, and many many many Christian supporters of Obama all assuming they have the right priorities. And maybe they all do...but it sure doesn't seem like it.
11:26 AM
oops. i meant "great piece" in that first sentence
11:27 AM
David and Mark: You accuse any of us who have hope that a US president might actually be an ally in overcoming the disparities in society of being blinded by our love for him. But I wonder: Is your ecclesiophila blinding you to the fact that the church has rarely been the counter-cultural force that you want it to be? I hope you'll see in my book, David, that I think the church's role in society is unique and important, but I'm also a realist that it's always going to be just as screwed up as it is now. The church is great. I love it. But it's just not the end-all-be-all. We also have to be engaged in society in myriad other ways: jobs, politics, hospitals, volunteerism, athletics, etc. All sphere's are God's.
1:27 PM
Tony
I think I agree with you on one thing. I also would hesitate to argue that the church has a better track record than the State in delivering God's justice.
Some of us however, see this failure of the church to be the result of past Constantinian-style alignments with majority powers in society that continually compromise the Lordship of Christ over the church. The reign of Christ is compromised among His people and the church lies powerless amidst society's injustice. So instead of saying that the church sucks, let's call for a new faithfulness in the churches. Let us challenge each other to be the church in all its integrity as the prolepsis of Christ's Kingdom.
Zizek, Foucault and others illuminate how the dominant Symbolic Order always subsumes the minority for its own aims unless there is a way of resistance. This is another way to say that the church always loses when it makes Constantinian arrangements with the State to achieve power. My own church, (i.e. the evangelical church) is way too enamored with capitalism and democracy as social systems friendly to Christianity. We need forms of resistance that create spaces of lived integrity that thereby open the way for authentic engagement with government that can call it into account for a more truthful justice. We can cooperate with government surely, we can engage it absolutely, we can join it when it aligns itself with Christ, but not without a grounding space that displays justice as it is under the Lordship of Christ.
Thanks for checking in and I look forward to more conversation over Jesus and political theory in the future!
2:12 PM
This promises to be a very interesting conversation!
Tony, I wonder...is it really the job of the church to "overcome the disparities in society?" I'm not saying that this isn't something we should care about...and maybe it should a huge focus, but it seems to me that this has only become part of our self-understanding as the Church after we gained political power. I think there may be a better way of framing the issue.
I think we, the Church, have given up so much of who we are that we lack any real power to embody a counter-cultural witness. Certain, we once had that sort of power early on. Is it naive to desire to move beyond the chaplaining of society that we have now?
From my perspective, there has been precious-little meaningful talk about what David is suggesting: creating forms of resistance. And there is SO much talk about politics and Great Awakenings and change, etc.
We know what it looks like for people to utilize American party politics to achieve their religious goals...but what does it look like to really embody resistance?
I'm not sure I can add much to what David is saying here. We pretty much see eye to eye and he is smarter than I am...at least for now ;)
4:05 PM
The only trump the church has is in it's unique source and identity and it's power drawn from Christ.
To approach it as an institution to be allied or defended against others is to demean it's power and purpose and ultimately surrender it to others with more power, strategy or 'vision'.
The LAST thing the world needs is an American church that is now patting itself on the back for having not-quite-as-awful politicians and potentially less catastrophic legislation and feeling content.
In a sense, the church has a healthier idea of itself when the government is very clearly opposed to its goals. I recommend a dictator-for-life, with a side of some minor persecution, just long enough to reset focus properly.
:P Hopefully that extreme remedy doesn't become necessary.
5:17 PM
It's great that this dialog is happening on these issues. Although I'm a theopolitical newbie, I feel compelled to respond to Tony's comment with words from some folks who have - in my view (and in the view of many, many others) - truly been the counter-cultural force which Tony so quickly rejects.
"I loved the Church for Christ made visible. Not for itself, because it was so often a scandal to me...[T]he Church is the Cross on which Christ was crucified; one could not separate Christ from His Cross, and one must live in a state of permanent dissatisfaction with the Church."
~ Dorothy Day
"Moreover, the gospel and its adherents are not to be protected by the sword, nor are they thus to protect themselves, which, as we learn from our brothers, is thy opinion and practice. True Christian believers are sheep among wolves, sheep for the slaughter; they must be baptized in anguish and affliction, tribulation, persecution, suffering and death; they must be tried with fire, and must reach the fatherland of eternal rest, not by killing their bodily, but my mortifying their spiritual, enemies."
~ Conrad Grebel (in a letter to Thomas Muntzer in Zurich)
As I said, I'm no expert in these matters, but it just seems to me that the reality of "taking up one's cross" cannot simply mean giving of one's time and money. And it most certainly cannot mean voting. This is not to say that voting is wrong, but that it isn't a "Christian" practice. To say that it is the "duty" of a Christian to vote or to participate in the political process, I think, misses the point of what the church has the potential to be. And although, with Dorothy Day, we face constant dissatisfaction with the church I think it shows a dramatic lack of faith in God's spirit and an amazing lack of reverence for the faithfulness of the martyrs to say that the church cannot in any way be an alternative community to a community of violence and oppression (i.e. the American political system).
I don't mean to sound overly critical but is it so wrong to believe that God's Spirit can actually do something through the church rather than through the existing world political system?
6:53 PM
What a provocative post, David.
I suspect no leader would meet your Zizekian test - words are words are words (as evidenced by this being a blog post about a book, a politician and People of the Word).
3 observations:
* I am having a hard time understanding a basis in Jesus's Way of this sentiment:
In essence, we listen to all the new political speeches and new political options given the electorate and we know nothing will really change.
* Hauerwas always has struck me as awfully forgiving of ecclesia as church, but not as government.
* there is a big thread in what you are saying that resonates with me (an avid Obama supporter). I wish the church were proclaiming some of the threads Obama is giving voice to - the transformative promise of hope, the post-post world people are leaning into, the looming death of the Boomer frame.
I do find this as sensational advice:
do not allow false ideology to sap our energy or distract us from the task of being God's people, his embodied Kingdom in submission to His Lordship, birthing forth His justice amidst the world that was made possible in His death and resurrection until He comes.
More simply, I think it is ישראל - our call to re-member ourselves to a liberating King.
P.S. I suspect you will find EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE very consistent with a role for the assembly of Jesus followers.
7:09 PM
Church organizations that I have seen seem to me to be stretched quite a bit just to meet the goals of having times of corporate prayer, worship, ministry, teaching of the word, and the celebration of the body. Sometimes they are able to reach out in a couple of avenues, but the work of social justice is something that is largely left to other para-church organizations. This allows the doing not to take precedence over sitting at Jesus’ feet.
While I like the idea of self-sufficiency, I don’t think God has called church organizations to self-sufficiency embodiment of the Church. It seems that the Church body is comprised of many organ(ization)s. And each of these organ(ization)s are comprised of individual(cell)s. As far as I know, Senators Mc Cain, Clinton, and Obama are all Christians. They are each apart of the Church body. I think it is quite appropriate that we delegate to them, through our votes, a certain part of the responsibility for social justice.
Collectively through government we are able to do things that individually we are not able to do. The converse is also true. The government cannot do things that we as individuals can do. This is where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It is so much easier to see what somebody else’s part is rather than our own. The beauty of sitting at Jesus’ feet is that we measure ourselves next to him instead of someone else.
I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding you.
8:09 PM
brief thoughts.
You might find interesting a letter I wrote for ESA a while back.
Mark and I have gone back and forth along the same lines in this regard for a while. He liked it but didn't think it addressed his concerns. I have since then wrote an outline/abstract of Project Democratic Renewal for a presentation I hope to be able to give for my university.
Let me explain my views.
I see Obama as continuing a change in political culture that Jim Wallis and others have spearheaded since the 2004 election. I see Hill as being problematic inasmuch as her experience cd be easily used to serve her country/party as a senator and political celebrity but she does not have as much "value-added" as Obama in the role of president. Obama has the potential of being the Dems "Ronald Reagan" in moving the political center of our country, thru his great speaking ability. He also will have unprecedented soft power to improve the US's image in muslim and foreign countries that have been tarnished by our int'l manipulations of the past half century plus.
What does this have to do with the Church and the kingship of God? Well, the location of the political center matters in getting the "status quo" operations of the state to serve more groups. In my experience, I went to Ukraine after their Orange Revolution, and while their politics has been rather disappointing, it still is quite apparent that political reforms will be needed for Christians there to help reach the FSU with the spiritual/holistic renewal that is sorely needed to deal with the severe damage to so many lives caused by Communism/ Totalitarianism.
So I guess I'd say I don't care for the dualism between Church and State implicit here. I see the State as an object of capture and that inevitably the Church impacts it and we are just deliberating on matters of strategy. I believe we can make democracy work without letting ourselves get captured or too much of our energies/time sapped from the more central local emphs of our ministry.
dlw
3:59 PM
Seems to me that anytime time in history where God's people depended on a government or state to care for their needs and advance their point of view, they, and the world they were trying to reach/serve/evangelize, were sorely disappointed.
The church is God's tool to forward His Kingdom, not the kingdoms of this earth.
A pro-choice president doesn't forward the Kingdom of God, and neither does a socialist one.
5:30 PM
I don't see this as dualistic. This isn't, in my perspective, a "two kingdoms" approach. Instead, it is a rejection of the real authority the US government has over my life since I, a follower of Jesus, pledge my allegiance to him.
So, to radically simplify my perspective: Why would I try to use a fallen political system to bring real change when I am already located within a true political system: the Kingdom of God. The two operate under such radically different assumptions that to use one to promote the other is strange to me.
5:59 PM
Mark it is dualistic if you don't recognize that the US gov't you must submit to does inevitably practically impact your missions work, a part of which is your need to ongoingly deliberate in community about what exactly you shd render unto it.
Dualism subverts the whole and neglects a critical part of what is needed for advancing the kingship of God. Anabaptist theology bears the theological scars of the 30 yrs war and its aftermath in a way that will eventually give way...
MVS:So, to radically simplify my perspective: Why would I try to use a fallen political system to bring real change when I am already located within a true political system: the Kingdom of God. The two operate under such radically different assumptions that to use one to promote the other is strange to me.
Why wd this question make any sense, where one cd "locate" oneself in the one and not the other, if it weren't for the dualistic heresy pointed out above?
The apostles didn't stop taking into account their context, or seek to transcend using the existing political-economic system, in planning the many ways they wd advance the kingship of God.
6:35 PM
I quite agree with Mark,
I don't see this as a dualism either. For we recognize one Lord. The church, as prolepsis of the Kingdom,is on its way towards consummation in the Parousia, the state on the other hand can never be anything more than provisional. It makes no sense then to see the State (or any other social institution) as the primary agent of justice, only as something which at times can assist us along the way. We can push for justice in its workings, we can call it into account to the Lordship of Christ, but we cannot expect it to be an instrument of Christ's righetouessness apart from colaboration with the church. Such colaboration is not possile without the church first being the church, the Body of Christ in the world.
There's still room to get involved with government and other agencies for justice, it's just that it must be as a derivative of the church and the Singular Lordship of Christ.
Peace ...
6:39 PM
When faced with systems made inefficient or unjust by the influence of privilege, all too often the response is to extend the franchise, rather than destroy it. It is never politically expedient to eliminate a privilege. People are always more protective of their privileges than they are of their rights. Tell a ghetto citizen you are taking away his right to bear arms, not such a big deal. Tell him you are taking away his welfare check and subsidized housing, and watch what happens. He suddenly has an interest in bearing arms!
And as for being “easier than” you are right on. Obama will extend the franchise, just as Bush did. Bread and circuses is all they have left.
The only thing that a president could really do help overcome disparities is to eliminate legal privileges, and then get out of the way.
David,
I am a spokesperson for capitalism among the submergent, being an economics student. Capitalism isn’t the problem, completely voluntary markets absent legal privilege work wonderfully to generate new wealth and opportunity. The trick is to make the law impenetrable to influence by power or money.
Maria,
Ask yourself whether the state is a legitimate collective. What is it about the state that allows us to stop pursuing individual self-interest for the sake of a collective interest? A gun. What is it about the church that allows us to stop pursuing self-interest for the sake of a collective interest? Regeneration. The cross. Which of these is legitimate?
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
7:01 PM
DF:I quite agree with Mark,
dlw: surprise, surprise...
DF:I don't see this as a dualism either. For we recognize one Lord.
dlw:The issue isn't one Lord, but one "reality" within which we seek to advance the kingship of our Lord.
DF:The church, as prolepsis of the Kingdom,is on its way towards consummation in the Parousia, the state on the other hand can never be anything more than provisional.
dlw:so what? The state provisionally abets the Church on its way...
DF: It makes no sense then to see the State (or any other social institution) as the primary agent of justice, only as something which at times can assist us along the way.
dlw: If you see anything in my writings that suggests the State is an "agent", please let me know, as I will have miswritten. The state is more matter of fact seen as an object that is continually in play for being captured by various groups.
DF: We can push for justice in its workings, we can call it into account to the Lordship of Christ, but we cannot expect it to be an instrument of Christ's righetouessness apart from collaboration with the church.
dlw: Well, I believe that the seeds of the Gospel have been scattered widely and so many nonXtns are still drawing sustenance from fragments of the Truth, as has traditional USAmerican Xty to an extent.
DF: Such colaboration is not possile without the church first being the church, the Body of Christ in the world.
There's still room to get involved with government and other agencies for justice, it's just that it must be as a derivative of the church and the Singular Lordship of Christ.
Peace ...
dlw: Well, I agree that the issue is the nature of what it means to be the Church. I basically view the Church as having three parts: Local Churches, Dynamic Institutions whereby we display our love for each other and others, and Parachurch orgs that help us cooperate in missional activities. I see Sojos and ESA and CPJ as examples of parachurch orgs that specialize in helping to improve our shared witness as Christians in how we participate in working out new solutions to our political-economic conflicts in the US.
dlw
7:36 PM
David Fitch,
please forgive my unique sense of humor and how I sometimes can be egotistical in expressing political theological differences.
You gotta see that the more I think about Xtn Anarchism/Anabaptist political theology, the more I see it as wishful thinking for the apolitical, stemming from a time when a very low view of the state made a great deal of sense empirically. Not that today is that radically different, but it pays to make distinctions and to clarify what's going on wrt "politics".
We have a duopoly sit and there are good and bad things about that, but it wd be better if we had a contested duopoly sit, where the tilt is away from economic conservatism.
dlw
8:08 PM
I don't want to disrupt your conversation, I just wanted to let you know it's reassuring to see a discussion of government and religion from the viewpoint of the religious that doesn't terrify me.
I would say this: Ultimately, you need to be concerned with the state of governance in order to preserve your freedom of religion. If a sect or group of sects were to capture the power of the state, it would be only a matter of time before that power was turned to enforcing orthodoxy. There is only so much you can do to be in the world, but not of it.
3:10 AM
Juris - regarding the capitalism comment.
Capitalism at its most basic is designed to operate on base human nature; greed, selfishness and self-serving above serving others. I think you'll find that it operates 'best' because people are still very much people, largely untransformed.
But it's a difficult system to integrate into the kingdom because the value differences are miles apart.
5:17 AM
hewho,
Oh, you are absolutely right. Capitalism operates on the assumption of self-interestedness. It has no place in the Church. But it is the only workable system outside of the Church. It is the only system that does not assume altruism of unregenerate human beings.
I believe that only Christians (I'm sorry but it is distracting to try to decipher Xians, etc. typing the whole word out has the benefit of being more readable to those of us over 25) have the ability to perform charity out of motivations that are not self-interested.
So, I advocate Anarcho-Capitalism among the pagans, and assumption of full and exclusive responsibility for the least of these for the Church. Not that it is important to fight for Anarcho-Capitalism in the public sphere, but it is important for Christians to renounce manipulation of the political mechanism for Kingdom purposes. That means purification of the Church first, which is God's secondary aim, after Glorifying Himself.
The best way to preserve liberty and to act towards the state is to encourage limited government in the extreme. The Church can work toward this end by supplanting the role of the state especially in caring for the least of these. If we can take better care of the poor than the state, than the state can get out of the taking care o the poor business. That would be a good thing. If the church can do a better job at educating (my God, not schooling, but educating!) children and workers displaced by progress than the state, then the state can get out of the education business, which they have performed horrendously at.
The primary means for achieving liberty and justice is for the church to be the church despite the state and in full voluntarism.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
5:41 AM
If I have learned anything from this post, it's that I need to get my hands on some readable Zizek. That which I have attempted in the past was not so clear to me. Thanks for the break down David!
I too have been concerned with the "Church of Obama" that seems to have come to age in evangelicalism as much as in Congress. College girls fainting after laying eyes on him, adults crying after his speeches, Christians who long ago gave up hope in politics as a force of salvation gladly jumping back on the train--it is just plain scary to me.
Being 24 and not supporting Obama (or any political candidate) makes me a heretic in young adult circles. You would think I was denying the divinity of Jesus. It's just that at the end of the day, I don't see any politician, who has to be responsible to the "crowd" (Kierkegaard) mentality that exists in the U.S. making a dent in the status quo.
My problem stems from Christian supporters identifying the "hope" that you alluded to (and all the other lofty concepts you mention) as somehow congruent to Christian hope. We all talk about his foreign relation policies and what a diplomat he would be, but am I missing something--did everyone overlook the fact that EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE (except for one that has now dropped out) refused to take nuclear war off the table as a legitimate response?
Hope? Change? Maybe...but not Christian hope or Christian change properly defined by our Master.
8:55 AM
I think there also has to be a discussion in the relationship between political action as defined by the State versus the action of the Church when all candidates are pushing an agenda that touts America as needing to desperately change course to hold on to its "superpower" status. With the Church being trans-national, how do we operate in this system? Is this political concern our concern? Are we functioning as the "yes man" of this mentality by cooperating in the political process?
8:59 AM
This conversation is great! A bit beyond what the post was focusing on. Nonethless encouraging. I'm buried for the next two days teaching three classes at Northern. So all I'll be able to do is check in and read the comments. But please don't stop now.
PS ... If someone put a gun to my head, and told me I had to vote, and as long as the one holding the gun allowed me to give my allegience to Jesus Christ, His One Lordship solely, I'd vote for Obama, and feel some initial relief that the current administration has been put out of office.
Peace!
9:07 AM
Hmm. If the gun was to my head, I would have voted for Ron Paul. Why? Because he is the only candidate who would truly truly have sought to reign in American imperialism.
11:49 AM
For something close to what I was trying to say click here http://www.chuckp3.com/2008/02/why-im-not-voting-for-obama.php
4:44 PM
As Mark knows in our past conversations, I would also go for Ron Paul is a was forced to vote. In many ways, I think the Libertarian vote could be a friend of the Church more so than any other. It allows the State to do its job while leaving the Church to fill its own particular place. The less the government controls, the more room there is for the Church to maintain its mission without trading on the same ground and getting tied into all the mess that can go with it.
4:52 PM
dlw take notice ... I am disagreeing (warmly) with Mark and Michael ... for if I am going to vote ... it seems I would have to choose ways to allign myself with policies I can best cooperate with as a Christian, for me Obama is closer to a Christian sociality than Ron Paul. My fears with Ron Paul is that the market (the invisible hand) remains another false god. And although I agree with his stance against the Iraq war, I don't see the freedom of the autonomous property owning less-tax paying individual he envisions as being that free ... it's seems to be an enhanced form of the same violence which sets one against another in America.
8:33 PM
I guess my Paul vote comes on the heels of what I fear will happen once Obama (or any other big government candidate, which is pretty much everyone at this point) gets in office. For decades, the Church went missing on the issues of social justice in the world. Agencies were trying to get out attention, but the Church was stuck in its own fights about inerrancy and the atonement. Now, we've woken up from our theological slumber to a more holistic gospel including a missional church concerned with the poor, the oppressed, the orphans, etc...
The problem is, many are still counting on the government to not only partner with us in this endeavor, but to continue to show the way. So what happens when, once again, the government starts doing all this for us through social programs? The church can once again sit back on its heels and fight about penal substitutionary atonement while the government plays savior in Africa. Paul wouldn't play savior...which would allow the Church to do its job, because if it didn't, no one would.
It kind of reminds me of the 1st and 2nd century documents we have where pagan philosophers and emperors write how crazy the Christians are because "they not only take care of their own, but of our diseased..." With the government doing that for us, why would we? We haven't in the past decades.
6:44 AM
David (Fitch): I agree with your concerns about Paul. His take on global consumer capitalism is troubling. This is one reason I don't vote: I'd be forced to calculate, from my own limited perspective and lack of foreknowledge, which candidate is the lesser of evils.
9:44 AM
DF,
I just got word from Dale that you had posted about this and then linked to me. What a great conversation you guys have going on here.
Just to throw in my own two cents, I think that any talk of how some people choose to participate in National politics as a way to practice "realism" is misguided in light of the Kingdom of God. The "realism" of National politics as the avenue of justice, etc. is itself an illusion. To say this is not to be sectarian or to be against living incarnationally. I think that Dave Fitch put it well when talking about the Church being the primary community which God uses to bring justice and change into our world... and so long as the state wants to or can cooperate with us then good for them, but it's not primarily about us cooperating with them.
11:15 AM
Cart. Horse.
Brilliant, Charlie.
1:48 PM
I don't get the concern about voting being a form of violence. Isn't hell a form of eternal violence? Isn't voting a way we share in the responsibility of government? If we didn't have voting then we'd end up with a dictator. With a dictator, there's usually more violence because the dictator wants to keep his power and any transition to a new ruler is usually a fight, either between the dictator and the usurper or between individuals vying for power. By having an electoral system, we prevent those in power from becoming corrupted by power and we provide for a peaceful transition between rulers. When we elect rulers we are calling them into account -a very Biblical and just idea seems to me.
7:46 PM
David,
This is a good post with well developed ideas, but I want to challenge you on 2 issues.
1) Are you sure there are not strong detailed objectives beneath the Obama "pleasing message"? Have you read his books and understood his basic understanding of constitutional law and market economics?
2) How can the church be the primary political instrument of true justice in the world? The church has NO POWER to do that. Governments institute justice. I agree that churches are great places to raise attention to injustice (i.e. prophetic imagination, art and prose). Churches also are great places to create charity. But charity is far from justice. We need a powerful and well harnessed government to create justice. Otherwise, we end up looking like a 3rd world nation with wide ranging injustice.
Great blog. I'm glad I found it.
2:38 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
2:55 PM
David, et. al.
Another great post, as usual your writing causes to me reflect
on the way I spend the energies God has blessed me with. This thread has been especially enjoyable and it has prompted me to order a copy of Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw. Perhaps it will be as thought provoking as this blog.
3:05 PM
Mike L,
As Christians, we make up one of the largest groups of people on this planet, how is it that we have "NO POWER" to be an instrument of Justice in the world???
I think that the reality is that we have more power than anyone else but we have given away power to governments, and we buy into the lies that the world is changed primarily through bombs and war and not through loving our enemies.
Power... REAL POWER is in the lamb that was slain. All that other stuff our world calls "power" is but an illusion. It is a lie.
I think that William Cavanaugh does a great job of illustrating this in his book Torture and Eucharist and Christians like those in the Christian Peacemaker Teams are examples of this kind of POWER at work in our world.
4:06 PM
Mike
As Hauerwas once said about being a Christian: "I'm an imperialist, but an imperialist with no power." I agree we Christians have no power, meaning the kind of power manifest through the violence and ideology of the state. Nonetheless, our ambitions to bring justice to the world are nothing less than imperialist, we believe Jesus is the Savior of the world, that His justice is coming over all the whole world, but it is coming through the ways of the cross, forgiveness, love, the victory over death and evil, that God has begun in the church. Did Martin Luther King have power when he started his nonviolent practice of the gospel? Did the base comunities that practiced Eucharistic politics in Chile have the power to bring down Pinochet's torture chambers (I refer you to Charlie's suggested book Cavanaugh, Torture and the Eucharist). These are just a few examples of how the church became God's instrument to tranform the world until He comes ...if we wil just let the church be the church. Of course Martin Luther King used the state, but the state only followed what had begun in the church.
Thanks for the conversation ...
5:03 PM
David,
I agree. Those are wonderful examples of how the church can be a catalyst for change. I think the best thing the church can do is to understand its need to inspire change.
Charlie,
when I say the church has no power, I mean it has no ability to directly institue justice. It can't make laws. It can't revoke policies of injustice. It CAN however inspire those changes by being a light to the world.
I simply warn against the tendency to withdraw from our responsibility to take part in the wonderful tools of public policy that so many have given their lives to obtain. Having a belief in supernatural things is great and can motivate great shifts in justice, but if it doesn't lead to action it is powerless.
I agree that we often buy into the idea that change is only made through bombs and violence. That is the way of Empire. Jesus taught us about another method for change. His "way" was to subvert the power of empire with love, non-violent protest, self-sacrifice, and justice.
6:26 PM
1. Is there a work of "ideological cynicism" at work in Christians supporting Obama?
Yes
2. Is the Obama bandwagon a positive or a negative (or neutral) for the church's role in bringing justice to the nations?
Negative, It is a HUGE distraction from real work that the church could be doing. Despite the many fractures of contemporary Christianity, the US government is not an adequte replacement for performing the work of the church.
3. Is energy by Christians spent on Obama politics misguided, too hopeful, and misdirected?
Yes
4. Is it too easy to just say "you should be doing both, voting for Obama and working for social justice in your local church"?
While I don't have a problem with voting as a once a year activity, I think too many Christians in America, especially those who self-identify as "realists," have a co-dependency on American Democracy which, while unspoken, reveals a limited faith in God and the church.
Charlie: I really like your point about realism.
2:44 PM
Hey Everyone,
I'm a newcomer to this blog and enjoyed the provocative post. I echo the calls to be less enthralled of American politics and to not underestimate the Power (Big "P") of the Church being the Church when it comes to addressing issues of justice, community and social welfare. But as an African American doing ministry in the Mainline, let me try getting at this issue from a different angle.
We live in a country that has a majority Xtian population and a political culture embued with Xtian thought and language, yet we have a history of ill treatment of various minority groups including African slaves and their decendents.
Those of us who desire the Church to be the Church should recognize that electoral politics shows us how adept our culture is at capitalizing upon, and often shortcircuiting Christian thought and language. A glance at Obama's speeches and you'll know he didn't come up with this stuff in a faith proof vault. The Church I believe has a role to play in pressing our culture to follow through on its flirtation with Gospel of Jesus. MLK did so much in his speechs and organizing by challenging Americans to fully account for the use of religious rhetoric in their founding documents and political culture.
I think the appeal of electoral politics underscores the Church's failures in attending to the needs and dignity of the marginalized and placing them at the center of its activity. For African Americans, the politics of reconstruction, desegregation, judicial review, and social action, became important (even in the Black Church) because many who would call themselves Christians were unwilling to see the sharing of their lives and resources with the marginalized as part a critical part of their Xtian identity. Consequently, I tend to see political participation as a necessity, if only to keep a weary eye on those who would make our lives unbearable. Unlike those in our society whose privilege and position leave them well cushioned, whether they decide to participate or not, participation becomes a necessary use of social power (small "p") because our lives have historically been at such social risk, and sometimes fellow Christians don't fill the breach as they should.
I sometimes wonder, would American history have been different, if in times of crisis, Xtians with social, political and economic power scattered throughout our society reconstituted themselves as the Church and fully addressed, to their capacity, the problems that have led the vulnerable to seek the assistance of the state? I think thats well worth pondering as we watch the current political dramas unfold.
4:30 PM
You basically have it, but I think you're confused about what Zizek means when he's talking aout "the Real".
also...if you're a Christian, there's probably a decent chance that you're a little prone to irrational belief in the Other anyway..
9:03 AM
As some have posted here I too fear Obama's words and their almost messianic appeal. In fact I fear both what would be unleashed in his losing and his winning.
As I've revisited my ana-Baptist roots in my readings, I've day by day become more distanced from believing that any material investment of time/energy in the State has a spiritual outcome that is meaningful to the urban Steelton/Mennonite community and its impact in the geographical community that it ministers to.
The embrace of Constantine/Obama (add your favorite) is (in modernist terms) "leverage", but what are you leveraging?
In front of me today is a woman/man/child who needs something, possibly even local justice, in that justice I can/will open my pocket, talk to her neighbors, be her advocate with her town supervisor whatever. Is there some kind of "big" outcome here, no, not here in this world. But possibly in eternity. I think it is better to be asked "why are you doing this?" then "we're glad your with us!".
How many times is the (US) church going to look for a false savior, be left down, before it is awakens to its historic (self) deception, ("the very elect" maybe).
6:50 PM
AMY GOODMAN: And now we’re in 2008, and right here in this country, in the midst of this presidential race. I don’t know how long you’ve been in the United States right now, but you are—
SLAVOJ ZIZEK: No, but I follow you [inaudible]. It’s the talk of the world. This may amuse you. It’s going to—when I was asked by a academic journal to say if I were to hold the power for one day as president, what—and I would have kind of absolute power to introduce a law, what law that would have been? My immediate answer was not as some humanist suggested, since United States at least thinks they are a global empire, so let every adult in the world be allowed to vote; my advice would be the opposite one: let’s everybody in the world, except US citizens, be allowed to vote and elect the American government. I think it would have been much better for you, even, because we all outside the United States would project our desires into how you should be. I think it would have been better, so that only non-Americans vote for—I know this is a nightmare from Pat Buchanan or somebody like that, but—
AMY GOODMAN: And who do you think would win?
SLAVOJ ZIZEK: I think there would have been like left of Barack, if I may put it this way, no? It would have been probably not. But going seriously, no, of course, I am—my god, it’s stupid to say—for Barack and so on. But I see a tragedy here, because like let’s say he wins. What will he do? The tragedy of today’s left is what? It’s always the same story. Lula in Brazil, Mandela even. The good guy wins, we are enthusiastic, then you have around two years usually of period of grace, and then you have really to decide—do you play with global capitalism, or do you want to mess with it?
With this, I am not saying it doesn’t matter. Barack Obama can do things. There are many important gestures, like Guantanamo, stop with these waterboarding jokes, open relations with Cuba, recognize this would be incredibly important, recognize the Hague international tribunal.
5:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home