Can Political Involvement be Centered Set?

Thanks for your thoughtful comments last week on whether we want to be defined by our political identity.  Most, but by no means all, of you agreed with me that this would be a bad idea, that we have bigger fish to fry than our political allegiances--namely our experience of Jesus.

But some of your rightfully pushed back that, surely, being centered set couldn't mean we just disengaged from the political arena.  And, strangely, I'm thinking one can be centered set and in the arena.

What we can't be, on this theory, is bounded-set about this.  Bounded-set here means, to my thinking, that we strongly identify with a political ideology and we draw lines to separate the good people from the bad people.  I think centered set here would mean that we fully understand that we're engaging politically as people trying to follow Jesus, that we could be wrong about whatever our political conviction is, and that we'll realign as needed as we go.

This would strike me as a radically different approach than the doctrinaire stances we experience today, doctrinaire stances that often require demonizing our opposition.  If I can point fingers for a moment, the reports of racist and homophobic slurs characterizing the health care opposition rally in DC, along with stories of threats and intimidation towards congresspeople who voted in favor of it--I'm hopeful we can all agree that should be condemned.  And that this is an extreme response to strong line-drawing.

We would-be stage 4 people are agreed, I'm thinking, that we want to shoot for "mysticism" rather than "line drawing."  Surely this suggests something about ways that political engagement can be awesome and other ways that it can be destructive. 

But walk me through this.  How would you suggest distinguishing between stage 2 and stage 4 political involvement?

Comments

[Peter Eavis]

For the most part, I feel this is spot-on: "I think centered set here would mean that we fully understand that we're engaging politically as people trying to follow Jesus, that we could be wrong about whatever our political conviction is, and that we'll realign as needed as we go." We build that vibe into our political consciousness and all seems well but then we stumble upon something downright enraging -- for instance, brazen corruption or perhaps some form of persecution -- and then that balance becomes a lot harder to maintain. I guess, therefore, a lot comes down to knowing ourselves -- being aware of what issues push us over the edge too easily and turn us into attack-dogs. Interestingly, I notice that in stage-4 social circles, zealotry of all sorts is subtly frowned upon.

[Titi]

I'm beginning to realize that "centered set" is an ironic term itself, in that a set by its nature implies inclusion and exclusion. And when we start distinguishing between centered sets and bounded sets, we are falling into the set trap by drawing lines. Centering is about interacting with a "center", and by extension interacting with others who are also interacting with that center. I think it's a matter of participation. Everybody's on the team to the degree that they act like they are. (I would even go so far as to say that enmity may be a meaningful way of interacting with a center, far moreso than apathy.)

Line drawing is of course a helpful way of thinking of it, but it's hard not to draw a meta-line. (There's two kinds of people in the world: those that think there's two kinds of people in the world and those that don't.) And it's very hard to function without at least faint outlines to work with. Our minds are just not big enough to hold solely onto reference points all the time and need to use some sort of boundary as a reference point. I think we must be willing to accept our tendency--yea, need--to take these short cuts at times and just hold these inevitable lines very lightly. And as Peter said, that partly involves staying away from situations that would provoke us to dig in our heels in a bad way.

[Vinceation]

I had a really disheartening experience last summer talking with someone I was just getting to know from my church. This person off-handedly threw out a VERY boundary-drawing comment about a hot-button political issue, and there was this obvious assumption that because I was also a churchgoer I would agree. But I didn't really like what was said, and I've felt so awkward around that person ever since because I didn't know how to say that.
But I think the difference between Stage 2 and Stage 4 political engagement has a lot to do with the idea we've tossed out before that "what I don't know is far greater and more significant than what I do know." Those assumptions that come out in everyday conversation which imply "following Jesus or being a churchgoer means you politically align with (blank)" seem to epitomize that "I've got it all figured out" attitude.

[Brent]

I have always thought it strange that politics should divide Christian so much since this is an area where Jesus provided such clear guidance. He lived in an incredibly politically-charged time and people engaged in politics were constantly trying to draw him in to take political positions on the major issues of the day. He always refused and did so in a way that rejected the premise of political division and reoriented listeners to a life of Kingdom citizenship only.

If Caesar wants your money, he says, just give it to him because Caesar has no idea what's real.

Political positions all come from the same source: a belief that we can fix things, that we can make things better than they are by using the power of the law and the sword. If we just get THIS guy in power, or if we just pass THIS law, then things will be on the right track. Rubbish. The only real power to change things is the power of Jesus' self-sacrificing cruciform love.

That kind of power, I think, can be very political, but not in the ways we usually think of it. It doesn't often, for instance, compel us to vote for this person or that person running for office. But I think it might from time to time compel us to oppose an unjust law or rally for the political establishment of particular rights. The civil rights movement under MLK, Jr. was certainly driven by this kind of cruciform love. Last spring, I felt compelled to get lightly involved in arguing against local and state-wide efforts to restrict people's rights based on sexual orientation for the same reason.

That, to me, is stage 4 politics. I am a citizen of the Kingdom only and all of my allegiances lie there. This citizenship might compel me to engaged in the world's political structures in specific ways from time to time, but only to the extent that those structures can be a tool to building the Kingdom. In my opinion, this only happens on rare occasions. In most cases, the two are opposed to each other. Therefore, in most cases I tend to think we should, like Jesus, stay away from political positions and action.

OK, now let's all go read some John Howard Yoder :)

[Marcia]

I find this discussion tremendous! It is great to have a REAL LIFE application that I can use to keep me realigning my arrow on Jesus (and specifically help me recognize where I have gotten off the mark). I find this especially helpful for me when such strong feelings and so-called "logic" march around inside me, masquerading as truth. I'm taking every thought (and feeling) captive to the obedience of Christ. Thanks.

[Ryan NYC]

Awesome

[Dave T.]

I'm not trying to be difficult or relish in being the black sheep. Dave, you're essentially saying don't lead, and get out of the way. Where would you lead anyone in your version of centered-set politics? Do you feel like you'll have corrupted someone if you actually went in a certain direction? And you'll worry that there's an opposite direction that you don't want to disenfranchise or alienate? That's not centered-set, that's going round and round in circles. It seems to me that you're telling a politician to commit intellectual suicide, and lose office besides. Why can't you believe or trust that a politician can have good positive motives, good positive direction, want to accomplish good things, and identify with a party too? I don't care which one: Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Liberace-ism. Centered-set politics should be about aiming at "the good," not at "I hope I didn't offend anyone."

[General Kafka]

for Dave T: I think you misunderstood Dave S. He is not saying a politician shouldn't have their conviction and firmly express them.
He is also not saying that we shouldn't be engaged or try to convince people.

He is saying that demonizing those who happen to have opposing view to you is a lose-lose approach.

[Brent]

Hi, Dave T. For my part, I would say that I totally believe politicians can do good things and have good motives, etc. But I am very wary about equating those good things with Christian things. I think we have to very careful about keeping those two ideas separate. When we don't, we end up with the kind of thing I think Dave S. was getting at. We start thinking that one can't be pro-choice and be a Christian or that to be an evangelical is to be a Republican.

[Dave T.]

I agree with your saying that Dave is oppossed to the demonization of others, I agree too. But it can't be that a blog entry amounts to just that. Review his first paragraph:

"...we have bigger fish to fry than our political allegiances--namely our experience of Jesus."

There is no shame in doing both. Dave squarely sees there being a potential for one's politics overshadowing one's experience of Jesus. Of course this IS possible. But it's also possible for it to not happen.

More from Dave's first paragraph:

"...whether we want to be defined by our political identity...this would be a bad idea..."

Unfortunately, unless I read Dave wrong - which is possible, he's trying to say a lot in a little space - Dave is saying or implying that if I should be defined in any way by a "political identity" then it's a bad idea. How could a politician, office holder, soldier carrying a gun, not be defined by a political identity?

Dave's politics implies, I think, as the only way to "get out of" the circles I think this takes us in, is to sort of be "issue oriented only" and never identify with party politics. I think that's very short-sighted as to what politics IS. Just because Jesus Himself, or His church as a whole need not identify with an entire party doesn't mean that individuals can't be defined by their political identity. It's just too simplistic of Dave (or my view of Dave?) that a person has only one identity. We have many identities, right? It's sorta' anti-intellectual to insist that a Christian's identity should foremost be in being a Christian. Then what does it mean to be a Christian? I think it means doing all your identities properly. Having various identities. If there's a category for Dave to be concerned about it's in doing your politics poorly, which IS what you brought up. (It jusy doesn't seem to me that that was his primary point at the beginning.)

[Brent]

Thanks for that clarification, Dave T. I think your view is a fairly popular one. I have heard, for instance, Chuck Colson use that 'render unto Caesar' speech of Jesus' to argue that we have 'dual citizenship' (and therefore dual obligations) to the Kingdom and America.

You do a nice job here of showing that this can be a difficult problem and that there is more than one possible way to view things. But I don't mind saying that I just think the view you outline here, like Colson's view, is the wrong one. I think when we choose to follow Jesus, he does become the sole source of our identity (or at least that's the goal). I think that's what it means to die to Christ. Being a Christian doesn't mean I try to be the best politician or teacher or linguist I can be. It means I try to be the best Jesus I can be. And that will heavily influence the kinds of things I align myself with.

If part of my identity, part of what gives me life, is my active membership in a political party, then I think that that part of my identity is not coming from Christ and I need to make a change.

I can still have opinions, of course. I can still think that Obama would make a better US President than McCain and could even go out and vote on it, I suppose. But I have to stop short of getting any kind of life or identity from the outcome of that election. Christ needs to be my only source of life.

[Dave T.]

Hi Brent, well, if you'll answer my following questions, and if I understand you, I might get where Dave's been going...you say things like "Christ needs to be my only source of life," but then you can have opinions and vote. But according to your grid, didn't you just give up on your life in Christ? You're not watering things down when you shade your focus even a little? If active membership in a party means to you that your identity is not coming from Christ, where do you draw the line? You're not a member of anything except a church? No sports team memberships for you? AAA? Insurance company membership? I'm not trying to be silly. Maybe you overstate my political party membership - or I do - but as best as I recall, Paul urged men and women to remain celibate to retain focus, and never said membership in the Roman army was an issue. And neither did John the Baptist. Nor did Jesus call the centurion away from the army. Instead he said the soldier had greater faith than anyone in Israel. To retain focus are you remaining celibate? Christ is my only source of life, I say that to equal your concern. My having a political party affiliation does not alarm me about whether Christ is still my sole source of life. What do you think of Bonhoeffer being involved in attempted assassination? You're trying to be "the best Jesus" you can be: what does that mean? I don't see that language in the New Testament per say, but I'm guessing you do. What does that mean?

[Brent]

Hi, Dave. Too many question marks there to answer, I think, and it is hard to be precise in this kind of setting. I'll just reiterate that I think we can have opinions and even maybe vote, but still not get life from those things and have it become a crucial part of our identity. That's where I dry the line.

And I'll answer one of the questions: I think Bonhoeffer's involvement in attempted assassination was a huge mistake. History bears it out. There is evidence that the failed attempt reinvigorated Hitler and some aspects of the Nazi party. Christians are to love their enemies. Whatever else that means, I think it at least means we don't try to kill them. Personally, I don't see a way around that one.

[Evan]

Interesting dialog with Dave T and Brent. Rather than comment much, I'm taking the opportunity to complete an assignment I gave myself months ago--to view this video: http://bit.ly/dr69v2. It's a conversation on Christianity and Politics with Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd and Shane Claibourne. Many of us have sampled it in blog writings and book reviews.

It strikes me that if we do not embrace Colson's "two kingdoms" perspective, we get cornered into a very stringent strain of pacifism. At this point in my journey, that view seems naive regarding the nature of evil. Similarly, the idea that Bonhoeffer was a key player in the evil of the holocaust rings hollow for me.

An off the cuff thought: If we apply directly Jesus' comments about godly living under Caesar's government, we may end up with a form of government more like Caesar's government.

Interesting...in Colson's opening comments, he explains that his book Kingdoms in Conflict was authored to counter evangelicals who were uniting the cross and the crown. I also agree that Christian involvement in the public square should be sophisticated enough that a theological view could be paired with a number of disparate public policy stances.

[Evan]

Boyd, "Sometimes we put the political cart before the kingdom horse." Agreed.

Colson, "Jim Wallis' latest book out is 'Join the Democratic party and get justice.'" So the uniting of the cross and the crown can cut both ways.

Claibourne, Mother Teresa didn't wear an "Abortion is Murder" shirt, but she said "If you have a baby, you can give it to me." I like the spirit of that.

[Evan]

At the end of the first hour of this video, I'm struck by the blessing that each of these panelists is to the Kingdom of God. Yes, they represent even some of the differences in this NTRT comment thread, but both church and society are richer for their unique type of involvement.

Yes, I think that's part of the centered set political involvement. We can disagree with each other's politics and even each other's practice of faith, but we can still drive toward Jesus at the center. We can even feel that someone else's approach to God and government is misguided, and still aim together for a Jesus-center.

I said a prayer at a Republican function a few weeks ago. I asked God to help us operate in grace and truth. Perhaps being public with my politics and my faith will help me show the redemptive love of Jesus in the middle of America's supercharged political divide.

[Dave Thom]

I don't really know who you are, Evan, or Brent for that matter, but bravo to you both. I'm fine with Brent thinking Boenhoffer was mistaken. Like Evan said, if we really believe in centered-set thinking, we need to expect to find disagreement among well-thinking well-meaning brothers.

I've grown in contentment with the Lord in my old age (49). Existentially speaking, I don't really care that much to say "This is right, this is wrong." I just know that between me & The Lord, I feel/think I'm okay saying this/that seems right to me until further notice. I'm perfectly content in knowing God may show me differently tomorrow, but for now, I'm cool with seeing things a certain way and knowing I may not have arrived at where others are at or they may not yet have arrived where I'm at, but that's cuz The Lord works with us at our own pace. That's gotta sound totally wishy-washy, but I like to think it reflects unconditional love. And still, like Boenhoffer, after much prayer and meditation, I'd've be okay with that plot/plan.

[Brent]

Hey, Evan. That's a great video. Boyd and Claibourne are two of the best articulators on this topic, I think.

If you're willing, I'd like to press you a little on what you mean by a 'very stringent strain of pacificism.' That is, I wonder what about this pacifism worries you or makes you hesitant about it?

Peace.

[Evan]

Brent, thanks for the kind spirit of your question. I'm far from an expert on war theory, but I'm more of a Just War proponent than a supporter of pacifism.

Wiki lists the range of pacifism strains like this:

"Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others."

So, to oversimplify, some strains are more stringent than others. It strikes me how tightly war theory is tied to the broader ideas on political involvement and the "two kingdoms".

I'm not completely anti-violence. If an intruder breaks into my home and threatens my family, I'll do whatever I can do disable him. If an intruder breaks into my country and threatens my national family, I also think we need to defend ourselves.

The funny thing is, I'm one of the least confrontational people you'll ever meet. Really. But I also have very deep convictions and affection. I'm interested in reading more of Yoder's work as I'm able. The idea of being longsuffering and slow on the trigger is appealing to me. I may have some growing to do in this area, but I don't think I'm the only one.

[Brent]

Thanks, Evan. I agree these aren't easy issues to wade through. I think it's great you can have convictions will still being open to learning more. While pressing into these questions myself, I kept finding myself running into a wall that Jesus seems to put in place. Love your enemies is a big one for me. I can't imagine that command being compatible with any kind of just war theory (for me, there is no 'just war,' there's just war). And then there's the fact that we follow a savior who could have, at any moment, called down angels from heaven or commanded his disciples to take up arms and defend him, but chose not to.

He told Peter to put away his sword, so I think I have to put mine away too.

Thanks for the dialogue.