I
am sitting on my back patio, reading on into Essay Three (his book is divided
into three parts) of James Davison Hunter’s book and getting a little excited
as I see where he is headed. In true “external processor” fashion, I have reached
a point where I need to stop and express my thoughts in print (even if no one
reads this, it helps me organize my thoughts).
In
his second essay (part 2 of the book) he devotes one chapter each to
examination of three current political theologies of Christian evangelicals;
the Christian Right, the Christian Left and what he calls the Neo-Anabaptist position. He describes
them as cultural strategies of “Defense
against,” “Relevance to,” and “Purity from” and shows that the first
two (the Right and the Left) buy into the “Constantinian heresy” (from an Anabaptist perspective and here Hunter agrees with them) of Christian
alliance with the coercive power of the State and the necessity of political
domination to impose moral views on a pluralistic public that is lacking a clear
moral consensus. One of his most telling quotes is about the extensive
politicization of our society:
"The politicization of everything is an indirect measure of the loss of
a common culture ... the competition among factions to dominate"
(I cannot find the page number right now but he amplifies this view in pages 102
to 107 in his discussion of the Nietzchean Will
to Power and the ugly function of Ressentiment)
I have come to appreciate the biblical values reflected
in many of the moral issues of the Christian Left (protections for the weak,
justice for the poor), although Hunter does a good job of deconstructing the
Christian Left’s Nietzschean “will to power” that also even more clearly characterizes
the Christian Right’s approach to politics. My problem with the Right (as well
as with the Left) has been the way they seek political domination through party politics and ultimately control
of the State, which seems ideologically partisan and antithetical to the spirit
of Christ. The Christian Right actually did achieve complete control of all three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) in the 2000s, roughly at the same time that they peaked in influence and began to decline. The Democrat Party learned from its errors, and made room to include people of faith on the Left in 2008. Hunter does an excellent job of documenting and exposing this process. In
many ways, I find myself closest to what he calls the ‘neo-Anabaptist” position
(which values the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount about loving one’s
enemies, and turning the cheek), but, as he points out, the problem with that
position is not so much the issue of “domination” but their hostile attitude
toward the World and tendency to disengagement from the public sphere. So many
of his paragraphs about power, cultural power and political power; and both soft and hard power, fit into concepts I have become aware of in recent
years, especially through Robert Farrar Capon’s ideas of Left-handed and Right-handed power (borrowed from Luther) and David Hawkins in Power versus Force (probably borrowed from Chinese Daoism). It is a good thing that I own my own hardcopy of Hunter’s book; the pages have
turned yellow with highlighting.
For at least a decade
(the same decade that Debbie was ill and I was in graduate school) I have floundered
around in the dark, like the proverbial blind man in India, thoroughly frustrated as I
groped and prodded the contours of the proverbial elephant, sensing the outlines of some truth intuitively
but unable to coherently describe what I was sensing. By keeping one foot in
the university and secular culture, and the other in evangelical subculture, I
led myself to a place where I felt culturally schizophrenic...
I felt strongly that the Christian Right took
a seriously wrong turn somewhere in the late 1980s and 1990s and departed from
Jesus’ style of exercising influence by attempting to dominate the State and
legislate evangelical morality through the electoral process (in the absence of
a clear cultural consensus) thus leading to the disastrous “Culture Wars” and
the current massive exodus of Millennials from churches (just do a check of the
hashtag #postchurch on Twitter).
Hunter has helped me
save a great deal of reading and investigation with the Christian Left and the
Neo-Anabaptists by analyzing their underlying strategies of influence (Note: I owe a deep debt of gratitude to thinkers
such as Brian McLaren and Anabaptists such as Yoder and Hauerwas and I respect
their basic theological message just not necessarily the accompanying
strategies of cultural influence).
I
am anticipating where Hunter is going with his idea of cultivating “Faithful Presence” in the public realms
of culture such as art, higher education, business, development, science and philanthropy
(as opposed to the three predominant strategies of “Defense against, “Relevance to,” and “Purity from”) and I am
genuinely excited about it. For several years I have been reflecting on the
Babylonian captivity of the Jews as a paradigm of culture change and a
reflection of God’s higher purposes with all of the implications of Jeremiah 29 (especially verses 5 to 9).
Faithful Presence accurately describes the attitude of Daniel and his three friends as they served in public administration under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule in the Babylonian Empire. They did not defensively resist the empire (although some Jews did, such as those who escaped to Egypt), they did not assimilate to Babylonian Culture (witness the three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace) and they did not withdraw from active participation in the life of the empire in order to maintain their purity (although some Jews did, think of the exiles who laid down their harps and refused to sing songs of Zion). Daniel and his friends provided a faithful (and non-political although quite public) witness and had the privilege of helping to interpret the Emperors’ dreams.
Faithful Presence accurately describes the attitude of Daniel and his three friends as they served in public administration under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule in the Babylonian Empire. They did not defensively resist the empire (although some Jews did, such as those who escaped to Egypt), they did not assimilate to Babylonian Culture (witness the three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace) and they did not withdraw from active participation in the life of the empire in order to maintain their purity (although some Jews did, think of the exiles who laid down their harps and refused to sing songs of Zion). Daniel and his friends provided a faithful (and non-political although quite public) witness and had the privilege of helping to interpret the Emperors’ dreams.
I
think Hunter’s proposed strategy will provide another big piece of the crazy
jig-saw puzzle in my head about “what Israel should do,” and “how we should
then live.” I have to confess
that it also stirs in me, not only hope, but the early flickering of desire to
participate in a faith community. I have been a blind man without a vision for far
too long.