Communities of Hope, part one

My previous post on Bush and Kerry elicited a number of interesting responses. Much of the discussion revolved the responsibility we have to vote. I'm not sure.

Check out this quote from Eberhard Arnold:

"To say something really bold: I believe God controls the hell of human society with an infernal machine, the state. Someone may say, 'I am going to operate this machine and make it less hellish; I will moderate the satanic properties of hell; I will serve the state.' Such a resolve commands respect.�But for myself, I refuse to mount the machines of hell. I will board the ship that shows all humankind the way to the other shore: to the kingdom of peace, justice, and perfect love. We need people who dare to set the course for this other shore, who dare to live in accordance with the ways of the land on the other side. It�is the way we can best serve the world in this terrifying moment of history."

I think that was what I was trying to get to. This election seems to ask me to compromise with things I don't want to have to compromise. That seemed to be the essence of what Noll was getting to. Somehow the "right" to vote has come to be the highest calling, as if my citizenship and the responsibility here exceeds my true citizenship and the requirements of the Kingdom of God; as if my "right" to vote has become more important than my conscience.

I believe in the church as an alternate reality, embodying another hope. In that sense, I find Lydia's response most "hopeful" when she says,

"OK, sad, but true, I care nothing about the political debates. I am writing on your blog to say that I really feel the Lord calling me to be more active at Jacob�s Well. I�m not sure where yet, but I know He�s calling me."

The reality is I will likely vote. At the same time, I am moving through the gospel of Mark every week and dealing with the reality that Jesus is constantly challenging the controlling narrative of the culture, the story of power, the story of empire, the story of who is in and who is out. Are we being challenged? Is our worldview being confronted? I'll close with this from N.T. Wright.

"Worldviews are like the foundation of a house: vital, but invisible. They are that through which, not at which, a society or an individual normally looks; they form the grid according to which humans organize reality, not bits of reality that offer themselves for organization. They are not usually called up to consciousness or discussion unless they are challenged or flouted fairly explicitly, and when this happens it is usually felt to be an event of worryingly large significance. They can, however, be challenged; they can, if necessary, be discussed, and their truth-value called into question. Conversion, in the sense of radical shift in worldview, can happen, whether in the case of a Saul on the road to Damascus or in the case of a member of a North American Indian who moves to the city and adopts the Western way of life. But worldviews normally come into sight, on a more day-to-day basis, in sets of beliefs and aims which emerge into the open, which are more regularly discussed, and which in principle could be revised without revising the worldview itself." - from The New Testament and the People of God

What would it look like for our worldview to experience a conversion, not just our beliefs and aims?

Comments

[nile]

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’

--Edmund Burke, English philosopher

[Tim Keel]

No, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is when smart men make trite, over-simplified posts...see quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes in previous post.

Okay, I confess I'm feeling a llittle surly, but I don't get the use of that quote - I mean I do get it, but...well, hopefully you get what I'm saying. Then again, maybe not.

[timsamoff]

Man, I had that same thing quoted on my Blog this morning -- by a different person. What's up with that?!

[gad]

Surly, indeed, Mr. Keel. : ) For my two cents, I would say that Burke's quotation and your post aren't necessarily antithetical. The frustrating thing about how the Burke quoation is often used--and I don't know if Nile meant it in this way or not--is that voting and/or other political action is often equated with "doing something."

If one denies this equation, then the quote might be seen to reinforce your original post, in which you imply that "doing something" might entail a more direct action within an individual's sphere of influence, rather than compromising with and through the surrogate institution of the state.

Maybe. :)

gad

[Tim Keel]

Yes, surly indeed, I confess. In fact I've asked Niles for his forgiveness because tone doesn't translate in this medium and I was mostly trying to stir it up a bit but may have misfired. Drat.

You are right, Greg, when you say that Burke's statement and my contention are not mutually exclusive. I agree with your assessment that my reaction to Niles's post was along the lines of assuming that "doing something" = voting, which is what I am hearing a lot...what I am suggesting is that doing something may mean something substantially different than we have imagined. I am trying to suggest that our imagination may be more constrained by the American story than released by the story (gospel) of the Kingdom of God. I do not believe freedom is some divine right. Check out Alexander Solzhenitsyn (the Russian dissident who spent quite a bit of time in a Russian gulag) on this issue of freedom:

"After the Western ideal of unlimited freedom, after the Marxist concept of freedom as acceptance of the yoke of necessity—here is the true Christian definition of freedom. Freedom is self-restriction! Restriction of the self for the sake of others!"

This is a sort of non-sequitur, but all I am trying to ask is, "Is freedom really our highest aspiration as followers of Christ?" If so, then the exercise of its disciplines, like voting, become a necessity, nay a moral obligation. But is this our highest aspiration? It's not that one doesn't vote because one doesn't care enough, but because one cares so much that one can't hardly imagine endorsing the options presented in light of one's value system (which I think Noll does an admirable job articulating). Remember I also said I'll likely vote.

Two more things:

1) Did anyone read Noll's article?
2) Are you the Grey Dyer I knew in college, who went to KSU and worked at Kanakuk?

[nile]

ok, so maybe I should've said more than just laying the Burke quote on you, but honestly? I was making a quick run of the blogs I read this morning when I came across your entry and when I came across your post, it's what came to mind. It's not that I'm trying to equate voting with doing something (maybe I am), but understand this: I am a Cuban-American and understand a bit about freedom and the common American's lack of appreciation for this awesome country. My family in Cuba has NO choice. How's that? Here we get to bicker over whether we're going to exercise our right to vote or not. There they have to abide by the decisions of one man, like it or not. So go ahead and say it's "trite and oversimplified", but from where I'm standing having A CHOICE beats having NO CHOICE any day hands down! we may not like the choices presented to us, but I say, make the best of whatcha got and leave the rest to God!

by the way, no need to apologize... I'm thick-skinned and used to surly pastors! ;)

[Larry]

Another Wright quote seems appropriate here:

What if the resurrection, instead of (as is often imagined) legitimating a cozy, comfortable, socially and culturally conservative form of Christianity, should turn out to be, in the twenty-first century as in the first, the most socially, culturally and politically explosive force imaginable, blasting its way through the sealed tombs and locked doors of modernist epistemology and the (now) deeply conservative and social and political culture which it sustains? When I said that there was no neutral ground at this point, I was not only referring to patterns of thought and belief. Indeed, the holding apart of the mental and spiritual on the one hand from the social, cultural and political on the other, one of the most important planks in the Enlightenment platform, is itself challenged by the question of Jesus's resurrection. -- N.T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God

This is a choice and a vision far beyond what any political party or politician offers. Those who look to politics to effect change are going to be disappointed, politics is a lagging indicator of societal and cultural change, real change occurs one mind (and heart) at a time, politicians tag along behind. Vote if you feel the urge, but don't expect it to change anything.

[Larry]

And happy day, it looks like the Yankees are going down!

[Larry]

The Eberhard Arnold quote interested me, I hadn't heard of him before. This site: http://www.eberhardarnold.com is dedicated to his work, and has several of his books available for free download. They look interesting, challenging, and maybe even offensive to some who think Christianity should be costless. A link to "The Individual and World Need" on the main page says "Readers soley interested in personal salvation may not like this e-book".

[Tim Keel]

The Yankees did go down! Hallelujah.

Nile, thanks for the post. You bring up an interesting perspective because I think that your national and political background bring a lot to the conversation. I think this is particularly significant when faced with the question of how people of Jesus respond when voting is not an option. It seems to me that in places like China and the former Soviet Union the underground church had to articulate another version of reality. I don't know how the church (or the people of Jesus) responded in Cuba. I do remember as the Soviet bloc began to fall, stories began to emerge out of Eastern bloc countries that it was Christian leaders working subversively against these evil systems that led to their fall...places like Poland and Romania. In a sense that is sort of what I worry about in our country. It can become easy to practice a civic faith that supports the status quo, that is, the empire. Are we really making a choice between two different things when we have to decide "Bush" or "Kerry?" I mean, even in the picture they're wearing the same tie, for Pete's sake. I think being in the margins is a good place for followers of Jesus to be, where practicing another reality isn't really an option, it is a necessity. So much of the rhetoric around voting is about securing our rights based on whoever can convince me they have my needs foremost in their mind.

I've been wondering about the seven things Noll lists as critical issues for him that neither candidate or party addresses adequately. What if we decided not to vote but instead sought to figure out how to meaningfully engage in practices related to justice in these spheres of need. What if transformation began flowing out of our communities of hope in such a way that politicians had to take notice? What if Christians didn't have to run ads in the New York Times declaring that God is not a Republican or a Democrat?

Larry, that is a great N.T. Wright quote. I am reminded of a statement my friend Ashley Cleveland often quotes from G. K. Chesterton: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."

[gad]

Hey Tim --

Yep, it's the same Greg Dyer. I managed to track down your blog several months ago, after reading Tomlinson's _The Post-Evangelical_. Imagine my surprise picking up the book and encountering someone from way back when I was young and agile. :) I've been lurking since then, and this most recent post just sort of drew me in. By the way, thanks to everyone for their contributions to the discussion. It's been a blessing.

[gad]

Oh, and by the way, I did get a chance to read Noll's article--though only quickly. Ultimately, I'm undecided about his stance on voting, but I'm convicted by the clarity with which he articulates his priorities and values in connection with politics.

[nile]

I think voting is just one step, perhaps the very first, in being civically-minded and socially involved. Too many people are just "dropping out" of the system and think it's the "cool anti-establishment" thing to do.

glad you mentioned the subversiveness of christians in Eastern bloc countries and their role in the demise of the Soviet Union. it's a good example of what we're called to. as Americans, I think we're just a little too comfortable and apathetic.

[Tim Keel]

Okay...I'm not advocating "dropping out" in order to do the "cool anti-establishment" thing. I'm saying move into this alternate reality with a different set of practices that renders the current system if not obsolete, then irrelevant. That is why I think what Eberhard Arnold is saying is so challenging. I would be less inclined to start my sentence saying "...as Americans..." because I do not know if that is my primary loyalty. I am greatly appreciative of the fact of being a person who has the luxury of taking that for granted, a luxury that you and your family have not always enjoyed, Nile. I think that C.S. Lewis discusses this in his book "The Four Loves" and categorizes love of country somewhere in there, in a positive fashion. I don't want to minimize our freedom or the responsibility we have to yield the massive amounts of power we have. I guess I am simply questioning the efficacy of a vote between two candidates that really aren't that different from one another as the best means of stewarding our responsibilities. I am afraid of civic faith masquerading as real faith.

Greg, great to hear from you. Thanks for coming out of the shadows. Are you a college professor?

[gad]

Tim --

Yeah, I teach in the English department at the University of Sioux Falls, a small (1,400 students, or so) Christian liberal arts university in South Dakota.

gad

[Larry]

Tim, Kerry's tie is powder blue, Bush's is more of a steel blue. They're obviously very different. As different as two peas in pod!

[Lydia]

Wow. I feel like a star! No one's ever quoted me before, at least not to my knowledge. I'm so silly, I told all my friends!

[Doug]

Thanks for the good perspective - its hard not to have some degree of mixed feelings given the choices.
On "to vote or not to vote", I guess I think of it in more practical terms than spiritual or moral, since a vote is not not a pledge of allegiance to a particular candidate.
I would compare it to my child's school sending a letter saying "the board was deadlocked on which 3rd grade teacher to hire, so here are two resumes; please let us know who you prefer." The resumes might reveal sharp differences in teaching style, methodology, curriculum, etc., where I liked and disliked things on both sides. But I don't think I would hesitate to submit my choice, in an attempt to get the best possible teacher for my kid.
It'll definitely be a big relief when all this is over!

[bob]

i do experience a worldview clash when i consider this election. the "invisible foundation" of either major party picks and chooses between ideas which are important to me. i feel that when i choose one, i reject half of who i am in the other, and choose half of whom i am not in the one. i think that sentence works?

i want to think that a party or a candidate or plank in a platform will bring some sort of real change, the kind of change that only truly happens one heart at a time in this other world(view) called the church.

[Tim Keel]

Greg - it's cool to know what you are up to...a college prof! That's awesome. BTW, everyone on my Mom's side of the family are Swedes and Norwegians who settled in Sioux Falls. We used to go up there in the summer to hang out with Aunt Agnes and Uncle Elof on their historic farmstead. It's been a long time, though.

Doug - great words. I think the position for hire is a good analogy. Unfortunatley I find myself often reacting to the rhetoric of high profile Christians and the organizations they represent who seem to think that God is endorsing one candidate on one issue of particualr import to them. Maybe, maybe not. Here's my other dilemma: Kerry has conceded Missouri where we both live. Am I off the hook? Both parties have decided that Missouri is in Bush's pocket, along with Kansas. If that is true then my vote becomes merely a further endorsement of bush, or a protest, via Kerry, of Bush. I don't want ot endorse either. I'll vote anyway.

Thanks for your comments, too, Bob. I'm climbing off this horse. For my part, I've ridden it to death. Thanks for all the great interactions, friends.

[David Purifoy]

This dialogue has been very helpful to me. This election has been one of the most gut wrenching I can recall because I too do not want to endorse either candidate. But, this dialogue has prompted deeper thought for me - prompting the question "What am I really doing when I vote." Before reading today, I associated much more with my vote than I now think is reality. Things like – “my vote means I want this candidate and he represents”, “voting means I can change the political landscape”, “the election of this next candidate is going to have a dramatic and immediate impact on my life and my country”, etc. It revealed that I have bought more deeply into my direct influence as a voter in this election than I now believe to be real – that influence is severely limited. Here is how I see it now (at least in this moment that I write and know that could change.) 1 - There is going to be an election regardless of whether or not I vote – I have no control. 2 - Either Bush or Kerry will be chosen in this election – I have no control. 3 - I have been given the privilege of casting my vote but, for only one of two candidates- very limited control. 4 - It is best that I contribute to this process in the way that is currently afforded me vs. do nothing at all because it does not afford me the degree of influence I would like or am told I actually have.

In a nutshell - I now think I need to change my perspective of what the current system allows me to change - which frankly is not as much as I would like. When I do this, my vote comes down to size and feel "good" about my choice to vote and the candidate for which I will vote, neither of which were pleasant thoughts before I read this dialogue as I see the level of influence I have being in parity with the act of voting – which is both very small and very large at the same time.

I also recognize that if I truly care about real and lasting change in America, I cannot reduce my perceived control over my community, country, and culture to a single act of voting for candidate from a list of TWO possibilities. The fullness of my voice that I want expressed simply will not happen in this single act of voting. It is dramatically more complex than this election process ever has the hope of representing. What I need to look for is other ways to influence grass roots change that represent the greater complexity of my voice - and as was so well spoken - the political landscape will eventually reflect the changes which ensue. So, the change I can influence most directly starts again with me and through this change I need to find a way I can carry the light of the gospel to those around me knowing that if this light is what I believe it truly is, it will have a transforming impact on the world around me - and as God see fits - the world at large.

Thanks for an inspiring and dialogue.