Tony Jones, American Empire and the Hauerwasian Mafia

Tony Jones recently posted an entry on his blog about why the United States is not an empire. The primary reason he gives is that "an empire has, by definition, an emperor," and "the Bush-Cheney oligarchy ... do not represent an emperor." Genius! What brilliant deductive reasoning!

And rather beside the point when you consider how many right-wing political types have been lauding the emergence of the American Empire, Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol being two of the more popular ones. Robert Kagan would be another one. These neo-conservatives are not ashamed of the global military influence of the US to say the least - go here and learn about these folks and what they want. From another corner, Patrick Buchanan (another political type who would not call himself a "progressive Christian") has accused the USA of behaving like an empire. Yes, that's an old school conservative criticizing the current neo-con love affair with American imperialism.

And not all who accuse America of being imperialist would say that it's a phenomenon that began with Bush-Cheney. The Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, and the New World Order were around before they got selected, and those ideas will certainly linger on no matter who replaces them. Michael ("Guido") Northcott's An Angel Directs the Storm is a good telling of this story.

It's odd that Tony would be so particular about the use of the word "empire" when he is rather sloppy with his use of the word "mafia". You know the "Hauerwasian Mafia" - those guys who come in and blow away Niebuhrian realism with reckless abandon. Oh, for sure, reading After Christendom would make any delicate-minded, hard-core Zwingli follower cry all over their TULIPs. But Hauerwas and those influenced by him are hardly gun-toting guys who control the crime in their cities and put bullet holes in people who don't see things their way. Has a horse head ever ended up in Tony's bed?

Read more...

Greg Boyd Says Mennonites Should "Cherish Their Treasure"

Greg Boyd has a good blog post here on a topic that some Mennonites and also non-Mennonites have been musing over. The question he asks is, Why are so many Mennonites embracing either the political left or (even more so) the political right when their tradition calls them to embody the politics of God's kingdom? Read it.
Read more...

More Evidence that the State is not the Keeper of the Common Good

I finished reading Top Secret Tourism by Harry Helms a few weeks ago. It's an incomplete list of the major government locations in the US which were or are involved in some kind of activity which the government wants to keep under wraps (mostly, anyway) and out of the everyday thoughts of the average person. A number of the sites listed were established for something called "Continuity of Government". This program began in the 1950's during the buildup of Cold War fears that the US and Russia would annihilate each other with their growing arsenals of nuclear weapons. For instance, if Washington, DC were attacked or threatened with attack, critical functions of the government would need to be moved out of harms way. Thus underground facilities were built near Berryville, VA, known as Mount Weather, which were capable of withstanding a nuclear blast. Other sites which were built (which are safe from radioactive fallout but not from a direct hit) are at Boonsboro and Hagerstown, MD, Mercersburg, PA, and Harpers Ferry, WV. Various departments would retreat to their designated location should the unthinkable happen.

A few years ago, William Cavanaugh wrote an article called "Killing for the Telephone Company: Why the Nation-State is Not the Keeper of the Common Good". The main thrust is that states (particularly Western ones) tend to be seen as the "keepers of the common good" in that society. He goes on to argue that the church is actually that space where the common good of the gospel is preached and practiced. Along the way, he makes the case that the state's history of development is really characterized by an idea of salvation from the common fear of death. Rather than the state being founded on a positive unity, it is founded on a negative one.

I think one of the things the existence of the Continuity of Government program makes clear is that the US government is not thinking of the "common good" first, or perhaps it sees it's own preservation as that common good. But that's not what most of us would think the common good is. While the government leaders are "safe" in the shelters, what is the "common" citizen supposed to be doing? Making do with plastic sheeting and duct tape? If the state is willing to "fight for our freedom" overseas, why is it only securing the safety of it's highest leaders here. And yes, I know the obvious answer: the government needs to continue functioning in the event of any kind of disaster. But the fact remains that the lives of government leaders have been deemed worthy of saving while the rest have been deemed worthy to be left behind. The call of the church is completely otherwise: self-sacrificial ministry and care for those who are deemed "the lowest" in our society, as well as a decentralized leadership that is nonetheless united by the Spirit of Christ. I would even argue that historically the church has a valid claim to the title "keeper of the common good" (hospitals, relief work) while the state does not, but that will have to wait for another post.

Postscript: Let me make it clear that I'm not saying that "the big one's coming so dig your backyard bomb shelters to save your own butt." I am simply following the logic of the government's plan to its apparent conclusion: "We are indispensable. You... well, good luck. We'll pray for you."

Read more...

Band Concert or Religious Service?

I went to a band concert a few weeks ago. The Massanutten Brass Band played on the lawn at James Madison University. They were awesome. They played some good tunes, and they were good at it. My son and I loved the "Imperial March" from Star Wars, and all of it was top notch. But this post is not intended to be a review of the concert so much as a critique of the culture that the band concert took place in. Of course, they opened with "The Star-Spangled Banner" (that was the opening prayer). Most civic events do. And, of course, some people in attendance sang along and a few even placed their hands over their hearts. Many of the songs were patriotic marches with one or two Christian hymns sprinkled in as a perfunctory nod to the role Christianity plays in our culture - as a support to the greater, overriding ideology of America.

It would appear that America is a highly religious nation, but its dominant religion is not biblical
Christianity. Its dominant religion is America. In the concert, the overwhelming theme was the greatness of America. The hymns were brought almost as a sub-theme.

It's interesting to think about the heated debates about the appropriateness of religion (or maybe faith is the current buzzword) in politics. I'm thinking that that discussion completely misses the elephant in the room that I've been talking about - Americanism. People kill for it, people die for it, they sing its praises, they want it to rescue them from terror or poverty, they give large chunks of their lives to serve it. Liberals and conservatives alike. Christian and anti-Christian alike.

America is its own god. Now where's my John Philip Sousa record?

Read more...

Charles E. Fuller and R.E.M.

Here's what can happen when you load up your MP3 player (actually a PDA, but I couldn't call it an MP3 player when I was buying it) with recorded broadcasts of the 1930's thru 1950's radio show called the Old Fashioned Revival Hour and the R.E.M. albums from "Out of Time" to "Around The Sun", and then listen to them all intermixed and in a loop while staining the outside of your house for three weeks: you start thinking that the one might be talking about the other.

I did anyway, and something jumped out at me after hearing the choir on the OFRH sing the song "Heavenly Sunshine" for the 13th time followed by R.E.M.'s "Shiny Happy People." I thought to myself: "Michael Stipe is taking a jab at the Christians who are caught up in a heavenly, sunshiny faith which makes them care less about life in the dirt of the planet Earth, forgetting that the Word became flesh."

I grew up hearing rebroadcasts of the OFRH on the local Christian radio station. Both of my parents heard it in their conservative Mennonite homes. The founder, fundamentalist pastor Charles E. Fuller was a gifted preacher who had a good command of his tone of voice and diction. He could string parts of different Bible verses together and come up with a coherent sentence, and finally punctuate it with a self-assured "Thus saith the Lord." Very inspiring..., but sometimes (too frequently) untrue to the original verses which were strung together. Maybe that's why the Christian faith he preached was mostly about how to comfort oneself with the knowledge that their ticket to heaven was secure and that one didn't need to be troubled by wars, strife and sorrows in this life. The United States of America was (pre-)destined to win all her wars anyway.

Sometime in the 1980's, I started listening to R.E.M. After a few albums, I caught on to Michael Stipe's riffs on Christianity. And I think that he has some pretty valid critiques that serious Christians need to pay attention to. Fuller's otherworldly flavor of Christian faith wasn't invented by him. He came from a stream which was reacting to the postmillenial liberalism of the Social Gospelers. To him, faith was not intended to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth. It was meant to save souls from eternal damnation.

Stipe's response is reactionary also, but in it we can see a call to reclaim some of what the Social Gospelers were after - the Kingdom of God must be visible on earth through the actions of the church. A faith that can only witness to premillennial hope is usually one that also rejects the connected gospel calls to love God and love neighbor - including those neighbors who are our enemy. It preaches a Jesus who can't be followed. Following might look too much like attempts to earn our salvation. In truth, following Jesus is simply working out one's salvation.

Thanks for the reminder, R.E.M.

Read more...

At Least It's Something...

I added some links on the right. Also added the full moon image. Now we can get that genuine "howlin' at the moon" feel. Very inspirational.

We should have some more posts coming soon. I'm working on something about Charles Fuller and R.E.M. (which I had mostly done and then made one wrong click and lost it) in a pop culture/theology vein. I have all kinds of ideas but less discipline and even less time. Meanwhile, here's something to chew on: An excellent article (beginning on page 5) by Alain Epp Weaver and Peter Dula in the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Office Newsletter. It's about humanitarianism and the ways it can become disconnected from and dehumanize the ones it seeks to help. I think it connects in a way with the book I just finished reading by Charles Marsh, The Beloved Community. A must read if you are interested in sustainable peace and justice activism.
Read more...

Thoughts on Human Being and Being Human

A written word is the choicest of relics…it is the work of art nearest to life itself. It may be translated into every language, and not only be read but actually breathed from all human lips; not be represented on canvas or in marble only, but be carved out of the breath of life itself. The symbol of an ancient man’s thought becomes a modern man’s speech (Thoreau)

Long before the time of Christ, the fathers and sons of Israel began piecing together narratives describing their relationships to each other and to their God. Artfully, strategically, they wove together stories and songs trying to capture the depth of their tradition. Stories of human experience passed from mouth to ear for generations before the written word cemented their place in the annals of recorded history.

And so we read today; “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1).

This experience--what it means to be human—has not significantly changed since the beginning of time. Our story is remarkably similar to that of Adam and Eve, yet we are no closer to answering the basic questions of human identity than they. We continue to question our identity for ourselves, before others, and before our God.

In short, we continue to seek the meaning of life that has eluded so many for so long. I am interested in demonstrating how we hold together the finitude of life as we know it with the infinite character of God—whom we are modeled after.

From the outset of created humanity, so the story goes, we were meant to live in relation to both God and other people. We are complex individuals intended for community, for “The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.””[1] We were never meant for isolated existence apart from our creator or the rest of creation. “Such a model of unfettered freedom is an unreachable mirage.”[2]

Therefore, one of the most poignant metaphors we can use when talking about God is that of a serious relationship such as marriage. Such a metaphor is useful because we were intended for relationship from the beginning! I have long held to the belief that what is true of one relationship might be considered true for most relationships. While this view may or may not hold water across the broad spectrum of humanity, I have found it helpful to think in this way on numerous occasions when attempting to understand or describe a specific relationship in which I am involved.

“True knowledge of humanity cannot be separated from true knowledge of God.”[1]

The church today could benefit from viewing the decision to follow Christ with as much weight as the decision of young people to marry. If I had been encouraged to consider as much my decision to become a Christian as I was my decision to get married, I would have given it much more serious consideration before taking the plunge.

Until our Christianity is as real and as life-altering as marriage (and I assume childbirth), we are largely missing the point in our congregations. Stagg describes what I am trying to say as dealing with salvation as both gift and demand.[1]

It poses an interesting question—did Jesus as our model human (he was human as intended) always delight in servitude? Or did he sometimes share the same feelings of drudgery that often mark our common experience? The implications of such a humanity could be liberating for us today. It would free us from the bulwark of pretense and take us into a deeper realization of what it means to be fully human in relation to God.

This relationship to God is an incredible, gracious gift that comes with a sense of duty not unlike marriage. Brueggemann hits the nail on the head when he states “the poets who have given us our primal language for God are seeking a way to voice an inscrutability that overrides our logic and is more like the inscrutability of serious relationships than it is like anything else.”[1] This inscrutability is one of the best ways I have heard yet to describe the paradoxes and dichotomies that comprise our human experience, yet we continue to scrutinize, to search for answers to the questions we struggle with.

At this point I would like to make a distinction between authentic experience and true knowledge. True knowledge seems somewhat ambiguous. If I truly know something, the implication is that the mystery surrounding it has burned away like morning fog and I have seen it clearly for whatever it is. I don’t think it’s helpful to think about either God or human being in this way.

There is a mystery, or as Brueggemann puts it, inscrutability, inherent to serious relationship that does not allow for complete, ‘true’ knowing.[1] There will always be an element of the unknown in any relationship that matters.

It is this unknowable element that continues to intrigue me about serious relationships that I have, that makes me want to continue knowing this person and get to know them better than I do. Mystery has the power to suck us in and pay attention to what is happening.

In closing for this post, I would like to end with the observations of Arthur Vogel, who has said

"There is no ratio between the finite and the infinite. Finite creatures such as we cannot get closer to God by degrees, understanding God better and better as we go along, until there is less and less of God that is mysterious to us. God is total Mystery." [1]

---

[1] Vogel, Arthur A., God, Prayer, and Healing (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 105-106.

---

[1] See Brueggemann pages 3-4 for further discussion along these lines.

---

[1] Brueggemann 4.

---

[1] Frank Stagg, Polarities of Human Existence in Biblical Perspective (Macon: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 1994), 149-161.

---

[1] Jones 294.

---

[1] Genesis 2:18 NIV

[2] Walter Brueggemann, “Duty as Delight and Desire: Preaching Obedience That is Not Legalism,” Journal for Preachers 18 (1994): 3.

---

Henry David Thoreau, Reading, ed. Carl Bode (New York: Penguin Books, 1982), 355.

---

Read more...