Yo. Been a while. Hope everyone's doing well.

Sweet.

Alrighty then.

It's out...



Doc's The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310267307/sr=8-1/qid=1146065169/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6153020-8972760?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Ok. Just figured I'd start a possible discussion thread about this. I'll state things as I see them from time to time. But I would LOVE to see other people's impressions of this book. REALLY.

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 4/26/2006 10:37:24 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (feelinahole) : 4/26/2006 5:38:07 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 4/29/2006 5:39:56 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 4/29/2006 6:34:03 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (feelinahole) : 4/29/2006 8:58:40 PM (GMT-5)

Jeff: I would say the answer is yes. But I wouldn't say that answer is obvious. Per scripture, the power to avenge was delegated to man at a point in time, so I'm not sure we could argue it on a purely philosophical basis. Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord. Hence, the power to avenge (which Rom. 13 and Gen. say resides in government) had to be DELEGATED. It is not necessarily some natural right intrinsic to human nature.

Brandon:  Right.  My point is simply that God has called the powers to serve as ministers of justice.  Greg, it seems to me, would say that this is a manifestation of the kingdom of this world: “Wherever a person or group exercises power over others — or tries to — there is a VERSION of the kingdom of the world.”  Later, he goes on to say of the “power over” that all versions  of it that the Kingdom of this world exercise are not altogether bad.  You know, they can be used for good.  And yet, later he goes on to say, with regard to Satan’s authority, “What is clear is that, however it came about, God’s cosmic archenemy now owns the authority of all versions of the kingdom of the world and gives this authority to whomever he pleases.”

So let me see if I understand this.  Satan now possesses all of the authority of all versions for the Kingdom of this world, and he is on this destructive bent hostile to God, yet some of this worldly Satanic power, is used for good.

This doesn’t seem to be clear to me.  If the “powers that be”-the governments are evil (after all, they are worldly), which exercise worldly, “power over” then how can one call for transformation of these powers when they are the very embodiment of evil?  How can we call them to justice, when they are the very embodiment of injustice?

Of course, Meph Man I think, will come out much like he did on the “Kingdom of God and Violence” thread.  God is an agonized participant (which I think Greg would agree with as he says that God uses “power over” for his own purposes.  I think Greg is inconsistent here).  Bottomline is that God will use and participate in the powers.

Sahid: Of course. The same with all sinners and sinful systems. Christ is Lord. The "Christian approach would require the working for transformation, reformation and renewal" of those sinners and sinful systems. How does that justify being sinful? Christ could have exerted dominating political power. He said so. But he chose rather the cross, and he told us that to be his disciple we must make the same choice.

Brandon:  First, if the systems are themselves evil, it would seem the only appropriate response is to dismantle them.  Sider, believes this (transforming) can be done from within the system.  Wallis may believe this as well, but not as much as Sider.  But what is interesting is that Greg along with Sider and Wallis, agree that the powers can be used for good.  You know, “perverted kingship” is denounced, however, Christians can use “uncross like” power to help overcome political and economic oppression.  How is this the way of the Cross then?

Sahid: I don't know Sider, but though Wallis and Yoder may end up seeming similar, their theologies have very little in common. In this book Doc is nothing like Wallis except that they both are critical of America.

Brandon: Whatever differences Wallis and Sider have at a tactical level, both share in Yoder’s political perspective that is shaped BY THE THEME of “Christ against the powers.”

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 4/29/2006 11:21:14 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid: Christ could have exerted dominating political power. He said so. But he chose rather the cross, and he told us that to be his disciple we must make the same choice.

and

Was the crucifixion of Jesus evil? Then why did he not "dismantle" this event? There are plenty of evil actions and systems that God permits to exist. But if "the only appropriate response is to dismantle them," then God is acting inappropriately.

That’s not what I’m saying. It’s not the question.  It’s not a question of whether God can USE the system, but whether it can be transformed (even here, I’m being realistic about politics.  I don’t see that we will necessarily have TOTAL transformation, but while the war is not over many battles can be won.  There can be renewal and reform).  I’m saying that Greg’s premise is that governments and systems are inherently evil (even you admit this by your crucifixion example—this is Yoder politics).  After all, they are worldly and they are own by Satan (though later, he says that they are not altogether bad, which doesn’t make sense to me after saying they are worldly and sinful). Greg may say that they can’t be TRANSFORMED, but only that they can be used for good and that this is probably not so much from within, but from without.  That is, we can speak from the “outside” to governments prophetically.  Sider, on the other hand believes one can work from within the system but one needs to be careful about being co-otped BY the system (as I understand it, he is not saying TRANSFORMATION but rather more along the lines of simply working from within the system for positive changes).  Now, I’m not getting what Greg believes from the book, as I don’t have my copy as I said above, but from my discussions with him on these boards as I remember them all.

Regardless, if governments are INHERENTLY EVIL, what use is there to speak TO the system?  It seems to me that the best thing to do is to dismantle them.  Now Dwayne will say that God is an “agonized participant” in the system, as the reason why he is agonized, is that he has to participate in sinful structures.  I would agree, but I would not say that the structure is TOTALLY and irredeemably sinful.  I'd say that to the extent that it is sinful and God participates in it, God is agonized.

Second, it is not all that clear that we should judge our participation on the basis of what God does and doesn’t do at any moment in history.  For example, though Christ was PREPARED to challenge the status quo he did not do so in every instance.  Eventually the system was undermined by his life and death but we cannot say that he WOULD dismantle sinful systems given the opportunity to do so.  This is very much like limiting what we would do to exactly what Jesus would do.

Another important and more related question would be this.  Generally speaking, Yoder, Sider and Wallis (and yourself) basically say that we are to imitate Christ.  He never used “power over,” or lordship, but follow the path of the cross and defeated the powers, by “accepting powerlessness” (personally, I question this interpretation).  My response at the most basic level would be this:  The Gospel narratives tells us that Jesus faced death with agony and horror.  He asks the disciples to keep watch with him and BEGS the Father to let his cup pass by him.  When he IS on the cross he is crying, “Father why have you FORSAKEN me?”  We, on the other hand can say like Paul, “Death, where is your sting” and face it calmly even in the way that Socrates dies—calmly and in serenity even chiding his friend FOR REGRETTING that he must die in anticipation of another world.  As a matter of fact, it is probably more proper for us to face death after the manner of Socrates than Jesus.

Now, if it is wrong for us to face death as Jesus face it, why must we face the powers after the manner of his work on the cross?  See, Jesus was not simply facing death but was facing sin and death like no one else before or since has to face it.  He was about to remove the curse and his response was proper. 

But guess what?  On another level, His was the ultimate CONFRONTATION with the Powers also ultimately spells their defeat.  On the cross, their sting is removed.  And just as we do not have to submit to death helplessly, so we too can enter the Domains of the Powers seeking to promote justice and righteousness with confidence, that they (the Powers) cannot separate us from the love of God.  And this is one of the big problems I have when we speak of the cross as “accepting powerlessness” or “subordination.”  We seem to think of THIS confrontation with the Powers as if it were somehow a FULLY VISIBLE event.  We don’t see all the dimensions and the full significance of all that took place on the cross.  When we take into account (as best we can) all the links previous to and after the cross, then we can legitimately ask to what degree we are to imitate certain aspects of the suffering of Jesus in view of the fact that those sufferings had connections to THOSE events—events that we cannot duplicate.

P.S.  When I say that Greg says that we can use “uncross like” power, I’m simply saying that he admits that not all versions of worldly power are bad and can be used for good.  So, yeah, he does say that.

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 5/1/2006 12:08:51 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/1/2006 2:01:29 PM (GMT-5)

Zach: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that Greg advocates the position that worldly governments and systems are bad but can be manipulated by people outside for good. For the most part I agree that this is what he's saying and I also agree with his position. The only thing is I'd say that given the inherent evil of the system there are people within it who do good things. Their participation within the system is bad, but there may be plenty of things that they nevertheless do that are inspired by the Spirit. For example an alcoholic can still love his neighbor. His overall adiction to an evil system does not rule out truly good actions. But these good actions do not justify alcoholism.

Brandon:  Well, this starts getting into the question about the nature of the powers themselves But yeah, Greg believes that they are bad (inherently evil) and that GOD can manipulated them for his purposes.  This would be akin to Dwayne’s God as an “agonized participant.”  I’m also saying though, that the system is not INHERENTLY evil.  And that to the extent that it IS sinful and God participates in it, he participates in a conflicted way.

As far as your analogy, I would agree with you that good actions occur within evil systems, but I would say that “the system” is more than simply any one addiction (there is a difference between powers and systems and structures).

 Zach: When we speak to the inherently evil governments we say, "Stop being inherently evil." I'll agree that speaking to them is useless if our speech does not encourage at least a step toward repentance. When calling an inherently evil party to repentance we are calling for it to cease to exist. But this is not the way I like to think about it. "Government" is the word for a relationship between people. Practically speaking it is pretty useless to speak to a government. I would rather speak to people. And when speaking to people we are speaking to things that are inherently good and only accidentally (used in it's proper sense) evil. When we speak to people we do not encourage them to cease to exist. We instead encourage them to abandon a sinful relationship, that of complicity in "lording it over" their neighbor. It is wrong for 90% to vote and force the other 10% to be "more Christian." We should call people out of this arrongant, idolatrous, and selfish relationship. Evil governments will continue to exist. I have no dreams of a day when everyone will simply abandon sin. Jesus will have to deal the final death-blow to sin. But in the meantime it is very realistic to call people out of bad relationships to good ones.

Brandon:  Granted that we ACCEPT that governments and systems ARE INHERENTLY EVIL then there is NO call towards repentance.  It may help to say that I don’t view patterns of domination and manipulation that PRESENTLY CHARACTERIZE political activity ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES of an order introduced into creation as a result of sin.  That is, I don’t see government as ESSENTIALLY COERCIEVE.  I would say that they constitute a PERVERSION of an order that was a part of the original creation.  If it is a perversion, then we can call these entities to repentance.

Zach:  Agreed. But Jesus never participated in the status quo when doing so would be sinful.

Brandon:  Again, that is a presupposition on your part to say the status quo was sinful i.e. that the essential properties of governments and systems are domination, manipulation and coercion.

Zach: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I am not saying that he would have "dismantled sinful systems given the opportunity." I'm saying the opposite. The strange thing about Jesus is that he recognized coercive force as evil but did not overcome this evil with more evil of his own. He did not fight the sword with the sword. He did not dismantle those systems that sought to dismantle his Father's.

Brandon: I said that if the systems of this world are evil, then it would seem the best response would be to “dismantle” them (because there is no possible way to change something that is an essential property of said systems).  You then asked that if the crucifixion was inherently evil, why didn’t Christ dismantle this?  I then said that even if Christ was given the opportunity to do so, it does not follow that he would dismantle evil systems and structures (and this could be shown throughout the Gospels) i.e. Christ chose not to do anything to oppose the practice of slavery in his own time and place.  Eventually, the system was undermined by his life and death as you yourself agree, “I would however say that in at least some small way a good portion of Jesus' "non-challenging" time actually was challenging in subtle ways. Even his non-challenging smile on a street filled with Roman soldiers would have been subtly "insubordinate" [not the right word] to the world's system.”

You say that Christ allows the evil structures to exist because he will not use coercive force to change the system.  However, my point is that it is not of much help to simply take this “WWJD approach” and hermeneutically apply it to ourselves i.e. “Well, Jesus did not coerce people to let go of slaves, so neither should we.”  The approach is narrow because it limits our response to SPECIFICALLY and EXACTLY to what Jesus would do.  None of us does this when we really get down to it.

Zach: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I am not saying that he would have "dismantled sinful systems given the opportunity." I'm saying the opposite. The strange thing about Jesus is that he recognized coercive force as evil but did not overcome this evil with more evil of his own. He did not fight the sword with the sword. He did not dismantle those systems that sought to dismantle his Father's.

Brandon:  But you are working with the presupposition that coercive force is evil to begin with and that this is evil is essential to governments and systems.  I don’t adhere to that.

Zach: Lev 11:45, Matt 10:38, 1 John 2:6 - This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Brandon:  Though Yoder is not a romanticist like when it comes to “imitating Christ” ironically like the liberal and fundamentalist emphasis on WWJD style of decision-making, frankly, there are many things which Jesus did that we would only be insane to do them.  Yet Yoder comes along and says, if anything we need to “consistently and universally” imitate the cross.  No where else like this one central location—the cross.  And here it is interpreted as “powerlessness” and “subordination.”  Yet, I struggle to see that this is all that was happening there.

Zach: With all possible respect, says who? Here's what Paul says:

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. [not "make you feel forsaken".] Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

Brandon:  On the most basic level this visible event, we can see that Paul suggests that we don’t have to face death like Christ.  Comparing Paul’s statement to the Passion narrative, we see that Paul’s view of death is more in line with Socrates than Jesus’.  Would there be something wrong with me not looking at death with agony Christ, but with a homecoming yearning?

Zach: Jesus did not say, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross, and speak the same words and feel the same way that I will feel when I am crucified." Our lives are to be conformed to Christ. This means love and obedience, even at the ultimate cost. If we are not forsaken, we don't have to lie. If we are not killed, we don't have to go get ourselves killed. We should not hope for or attempt to die for our faith. Even Jesus willed otherwise. What I'm saying is that we ourselves must imitate Christ, but we have no responsibility to make our surroundings imitate those of the crucifixion.

Brandon:  Please, oh please explain to me how you came up with this hermeneutical maneuver.  If under Yoder’s belief the cross is CENTRAL and we are suppose to follow Christ “consistently and universally” (and this is obviously yours and Greg’s position) then please explain to me how upon this one event you argue that we DON’T have to do that.  When I ask about imitating the cross, I’m not asking that we duplicate the surroundings of the crucifixion, as OBVIOUSLY this can’t be done.  But this doesn’t answer the question as to what extent we are to imitate or duplicate the cross consistently and universally.  Why should we imitate powerlessness but not agony?  Even more importantly, let’s say we are to not to make our surroundings imitate those of the crucifixion, but we are to “accept powerlessness” (Yoder’s terminology) or subordination, it should be noted that notions of subordination are traditionally understood as a description of the Son’s relationship to the Father NOT to the Powers.  Subordination to the Father means obedience to the Father and as such has a close relationship to the cross as a payment for sin.  So if there has been this transaction with the Powers, then we don’t need to get rid of the idea that the cross is a sort of quasi-legal economic transaction Col 2:13-15.  So, when we speak about there being a “Theology of the Powers” we can be just as enthused that “Jesus paid it all.”

What does this mean?  It means that Christ’s death on the Cross:

A.  Reconciles us to God and by the same act

B.  He OVERCAME the powers in order to establish his Kingdom such that we can rule with him Rev 5:9-10.

What this means is that it really isn’t that accurate to say that TWO things were going on at Calvary-- “subordination to the father” and “submission to the Powers.”   It would be more accurate to say that the payment for sin REQUIRED A VICTORY OVER the Powers and that this encounter, this CONFRONTATION with the Powers is what it took for Jesus to “pay it all.”

So, I’m not at all convinced that we should or even could imitate the cross (and thereby imitate the Jesus’ encounter with the Powers) in the manner you are suggesting--“consistently and universally.”

Zach: No. That does not logically follow. First you said that Christ confronted the Powers. Then you said that this means his followers can confront the Powers using means that are the opposite of Christ's. Just because we are to confront the Powers like Jesus did, does not mean that we are to confront the Powers like Jesus did NOT. The ends don't justify the means. You can't say, "Jesus confronted the powers, so any means of confronting powers that works is ok." It is simply illogical. Jesus gave specific teaching and examples of HOW to confront the sinful powers. Jesus never said that we are to use illegitimate power to fight illegitimate power. Neither Jesus nor Paul says that we are to combat the evil powers from within. That's Constantine not Christ.

Brandon:  Well, I hope it is a little clearer.  I’m not saying that we are to confront the powers like Jesus did.  You are saying that.  And I’m especially not saying that the Yoderish type view is the most accurate either. 

In terms of using illegitimate power to fight illigitmate power, let me provide an example of what I’m talking about.

Jesus is both a lion and a Lamb and sometimes the Lion or the “kingly” side of his mission includes disciplinary activity.  For example, take sexual promiscuity.  Breaking the covenantal commitment in the Christian community should be seen as a serious breach from the faith.

However, when it comes to non-Christians who do not acknowledge these biblical norms, what should our response be?

Well, first we ought NOT enact laws for the primary purpose of FORCING non-Christians to conform to the Christian patterns of sexuality but we should feel regret.  That is, we don’t enact laws simply because someone somewhere is viewing porn or having promiscuous sex and this upsets us.  If we want to enact laws against such things, then justice should be based on the idea that we do so out of desire to see humans be FREE to pursue their interests that flow from fundamental life commitments, no matter how regrettable they may be to us.  This is not to say that we should never call for restrictions i.e. when something GENUINELY INFRINGES SERIOUSLY on the rights of others i.e. sex with minors or small children.  However, to say that we should make a law against some sin or another simply because it upsets us is not OUR RIGHT.

But you see, I have more than simply Jesus to look at here.  In the Garden, God doesn’t destroy Adam and Even for rebelling against him, nor does he attempt to get them to grudgingly obey Him.  They make a decision, and guess what?  They are free to pursue it.  Now, there may be consequences to one’s decisions and people have to face up to that.  But the bottom line is that there is no VINDICTIVE MANIPULATION on God’s part to get others to tow the line.  Nope.  God gives them a choice and they are free to follow it.  And so I would agree that it is wrong for Christians to attempt to exercise patterns of coercive lordship that God himself has refused.

What this means is that we don’t exercise “Lion type” or “Kingly discipline” SIMPLY TO COERCE OR MANIPULATE OTHERS.  We don’t restrict something JUST BECAUSE it is sinful.  Only when legislation has the aim of a more equitable distribution of rights and opportunities then and only then are we justified in promoting such legislation.  I’m sorry to see that many Christians don’t get this difference.

So, if say a rich man was exemplifying greed and covetousness in such a way that no one else was being affected but himself i.e. oppressed.  Guess what?  We don’t have a right to change his behavior or actions by coercion i.e. taxing the hell outta him or placing mundane restrictions on his business.  We can call and plead with him to repentance, but we don’t legislate against his destructive behavior.  If he does exemplify greed and covetousness by oppressing others (which is usually the natural outcome as oppressive economic activity does not take place within a vacuum), then we must lobby on behalf of these people.

Zach: I do not advocate "accepting powerlessness." I do advocate "subordination." There is an enormous difference. Judging from the book, Greg agrees. If I couldn't see the difference between the two, then I would agree fully that we must fight with any means. But it is my belief that the subordination of the cross is very, very powerful. I think the resurrection shows that. If the crucifixion just resulted in a powerless dead guy, that'd be another story. But the crucified Jesus is the most powerful man in existence. I don't see how we can equate "accepting powerlessness" and "subordination" without denying the most central truth of Christianity: Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again.

It's not a matter of accepting powerlessness. If that's what you think Greg is advocating, then all I can say is that his book explicitly says otherwise. The book advocates being as powerful as possible. Greg says it best, "In truth there is no greater power on the planet than self-sacrificial love... ...This is the unique 'Lamb Power' of the kingdom of God, and indeed, this is the power of the Almighty."

Brandon:  When I speak of “accepting powerlessness” I speak of voluntarily subordinating one’s self to another.  Yoder, speaking of the cross says, “the voluntary subordination of one who knows that another regime is normative.”