One day, my father said to me, "In an age in which we possess pictures of the world from space, we know that actual national borders do not exist. We decided where they are. So I do not see how one group of people has the right to tell another group of people where they can and cannot live based on borders that are imaginary." I think about this a lot. His insight implicated to me the fundamentals of culture and the nation-state. By reflecting on my father's statement, I hope to show that patriotism cannot coexist with resolute Christian faith.
Nation-states are comprised of people. They rely on social contracts. In these contracts, people decide which cultural groups will make up the nation-state. After the borders of the nation-state are drawn, people from within those borders erect a system of rules under which everyone within those borders must abide by. If these rules are not followed, the people who created the system, or their inheritors, will coerce the people to abide by them. This coercion may be a police force or an army. Of course, this means there must be some level of agreement on what must be punished and what must be accepted. People then decide whether on what is allowed. Whatever is decided makes up the code for identifying the nation-state. A nation-state is the laws enforced upon people within certain (imaginary) boundaries.
Who creates these boundaries? A person of meager living with few possessions and little influence will have both little need of creating boundaries and little power to do so. Only those who have much will require the safety net of a nation-state and the security it promises. Not only that, those with substantial means are the only ones viable to provide the resources necessary to build a system of government. Thus, all governments develop by the elite and for the elite. Patriotism becomes the way into maintaining the wealthy and their power.
By convincing people to believe that the legal code within the imaginary boundaries that encapsulate their living space is the most supreme and just legal code, the wealthy elite who created the nation-state grasp the loyalty of all those within the imaginary borders. Hence, those who have little need of the nation-state become its most loyal subjects. Why? Because if they resist the new order, if they say no to the financially powerful, they will be coerced into complicity, for the ones at the top of the heap rely on those at the bottom to give popular support to the nation-state's system of protection. The truth of all this became painfully obvious in the First World War. In it, almost an entire generation of men in Europe died in a massive attempt to maintain the sovereignty of people over the imaginary borders they ruled.
The nation-state serves to protect the interests of those who possess the resources to govern it. Its make-up derives from pretend borders decided by those strong enough to enforce such borders. How then is patriotism incompatible with patriotism or nationalism?
Christianity affirms G-d as the ruler of the entire earth. Moreover, Jesus, the ruler of this earth, suffered a disgraceful death and a triumphant resurrection. This is the good news: G-d presides and no one else. Borders, therefore, have no meaning. G-d's king did not establish national boundaries but obliterated them (Acts 10). Paul understood this quite well, and he became notorious for preaching it unabashedly. If G-d's presiding authority extends beyond imaginary boundaries (since they do not in fact exist upon the earth), those who live under the presidency of Jesus cannot, in good conscience, claim loyalty to something as pretend as nation-state borders. Furthermore, Christians do not believe that Jesus presides over those who have faith in him; Jesus presides over everything whether they like it or not. We all are residents in G-d's nation-state; some just want to believe they belong to a different one. If we begin to affirm this, we will understand a little better Jesus' call to love our enemies. How could we kill another citizen? What needs to begin in Christianity is an abandonment of any type of ethnocentrism and the promulgation of true globalization (see this link http://www.newleftreview.org/A2368). Perhaps then we will finally see what peace, reconciliation, and the healing of the nations (Revelation 22.2) is all about.
Agnus Dei
How G-d rules the world!
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
26 February 2010
Reflections on Walter Wink
On Monday this week, I read, from cover to cover, Walter Wink's The Powers That Be. I meant to read it for some time now. Since N.T. Wright populates my entire reading list (I have finished five of his books since December), I decided to interrupt my Wright project with a little liberal theology, and I must say, I loved it. For the past few days, I reflected on this work, and these are my first few impressions about it.
This book represents a simple summary of Wink's The Powers Trilogy. Essentially, Wink distilled his scholarly work into an accessible volume for laypeople. He fulfills what my professor Dr. Rob Wall calls his responsibility to scholasticism and to the Church by doing this. I appreciate his efforts.
First and foremost, Walter Wink is an activist. He makes this very clear by telling stories about his days in the Civil Rights Movement in the '60's and his work against South African Apartheid. Like all writers, Wink responds to the problems he sees in current systems. More precisely, he writes to give theological weight to the solutions of these problems. With activism as his platform and theology as his instrument, Wink argues for the Church to commit itself to complete non-violence as a centerpiece of its faith statement. The lines of his argument are as follows:
The main problems Wink encounters derive out of his activist stance. He concerns himself with what stands in the way of the effective liberation of those who suffer. To Wink, the barrier to liberation is, what he calls, The Domination System. The Domination System is nothing new and can be seen all the way down through history whenever one group of people oppresses another for the sake of greed and self-interest. Wink realizes The Domination System is an evil, demonic animal which requires sustenance. The food of this beast grows in the corresponding corollary to The Domination System: The Myth of Redemptive Violence. The Myth of Redemptive Violence provides The Domination System with a narrative that can be reproduced in an infinite number of ways which convinces all involved in The Domination System (oppressor and oppressed alike) that without The Domination System the world would collapse and only the violence perpetrated by it can save us from this fate. The Myth looks roughly like this: a powerful being or system has caused harm or distress to a certain other being or group; from within the oppressed group, a powerful being or system arises to defeat and kill the oppressor, ending the reign of terror; as a result, the victorious protagonist becomes the ruling victor who creates a space in which the liberated can live free and in harmony; but eventually, the once righteous liberator becomes the dominating oppressor, beginning the cycle all over again. This Myth, seen from the Babylonian creation myth to today's children's cartoons, maintains silent ubiquity by coercing its adherents into believing it is normative. This omnipresence, Wink argues, is so pervasive it even infiltrated the way in which ancient Hebrews conceived of G-d; thus, it produced vast amounts of violence in the Hebrew Bible as the will of G-d. Jesus interrupts this Myth, and exposes it for what it really is: legalized immorality. He paints Jesus in an activist light as one who courageously revealed the truth about the one true G-d who has no part in The Domination System. Oppressive structures killed him for his insolence, and the early Church only half-way understood his purpose.
Hope, for Wink, in the face of The Domination System, comes in a two-step process. First, Wink holds the worldview that spirit infuses everything. From the Pentagon to a preschool, spirituality mediates within all structures. Thus, the spirituality of everything can, as all spirits can, be redeemed. Some of these things which can be redeemed, such as the law, need simple or complex recreation; some others, such as Nazism, sexism, or racism, require total abandonment. Our first step in redemption is clothing ourselves in what Wink deems an "Integral Worldview". Once we recognize this worldview to be the case, the second step in the process of redemption occurs through Divine and human collusion manifested as direct non-violent action against The Domination System. This, after all, was what Jesus did and what later Christians would fail to understand as they drifted back into oppressive, demonic structures.
My reaction to Wink's argument is both positive and negative. First, I fully affirm his view of a ubiquitous system of dominance that oppresses others for its own gain and sustains itself through the telling and retelling of an indoctrinating myth that convinces people of its indispensability. Furthermore, I 100% agree with the conclusion concerning non-violence. If we employ the logic of the Myth of Redemptive Violence against oppressors, we simply insert ourselves into the cyclical destruction of The Domination System. Meanwhile, we will fool ourselves into believing we are creating freedom or newness (just as the Myth prophesied we would). Hence, the only conceivable way to escape the Myth's all-encompassing hold is to step outside its operating parameters and do what it least expects: non-violence. Jesus, in my perspective, demonstrated this way of life in the most exemplary way. Wink and I cohere at this point. Finally, I share Wink's Integral Worldview. In general, Wink's largest conclusions are those that I affirm.
My dissension with Wink comes in his nuances. Primarily, we disagree in the extent to which The Domination System must be abandoned. He states clearly Nazism represented a spirit which should not be redeemed but abandoned. Whether or not you agree with his worldview, nearly everyone would agree with him on this point. Nonetheless, the government in the U.S., which has committed genocide against dozens of tribes, afflicted entire people groups under slavery and then Jim Crow, cripples the poor beneath the military-industrial complex, and fights multiple explicit and secret wars around the world, belongs in the category of redeemable which he makes clear by insisting he is a devoted patriot. I cannot agree with Wink here. If the purpose of the nation-state exists to defend its artificial borders from would-be assailants, we can see, by observing the U.S. and its hyper-militarized fetish, where such logic takes us. Nationalism and the good of the state must be abandoned. Subversive love of G-d and neighbor must replace it. Secondarily, Wink's biblical scholarship is inconsistent and jumbled. He writes off the Epistle to the Hebrews as complicit in The Domination System, yet he maintains the authority of some Pauline texts. He exegetes gospel passages, yet he limits their interpretation to his own agenda. As a result, Jesus looks less like G-d's decisive act in history to deal with sin (or The Domination System) in its fullness via non-violent activity and more like a failed social activist like Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi who at least understood what the latter two had in mind during their movements. Consequently, he denies the Trinity, and damages his argument in the process. Even though I still agree with his final conclusion, by refuting Jesus' divinity, Wink only allows Jesus to be one who teaches us how G-d is. Instead, by holding Jesus as the second person of the Trinity, we see, in his non-violent, direct action against the powers that be, the very way in which G-d chooses to reveal G-d's self. Not only, then, would this add theological substance to Wink's argument; it would add an ethical mandate for Christians to follow suit.
Finally, Wink believes the future of Christianity does not lie in debates about salvation and justification but in our ability to live out G-d's all-embracing love through peaceable means. I believe this to be half true. All the bickering about who is in and who is out creates a dynamic in which we forget Jesus is Lord, and we recreate him as life-jacket. Jesus is the King, and it is time we started living by his kingdom edicts. However, we must have faith that Jesus is Lord. Faith and obedience are therefore two sides of the same coin which is the Gospel.
How we live this out will eternally be under argument; Wink gives us a useful guide tool. The Church's days of domination are over. Time has come for us to pick up our crosses and follow the Lord. Peace!
-ben adam
This book represents a simple summary of Wink's The Powers Trilogy. Essentially, Wink distilled his scholarly work into an accessible volume for laypeople. He fulfills what my professor Dr. Rob Wall calls his responsibility to scholasticism and to the Church by doing this. I appreciate his efforts.
First and foremost, Walter Wink is an activist. He makes this very clear by telling stories about his days in the Civil Rights Movement in the '60's and his work against South African Apartheid. Like all writers, Wink responds to the problems he sees in current systems. More precisely, he writes to give theological weight to the solutions of these problems. With activism as his platform and theology as his instrument, Wink argues for the Church to commit itself to complete non-violence as a centerpiece of its faith statement. The lines of his argument are as follows:
The main problems Wink encounters derive out of his activist stance. He concerns himself with what stands in the way of the effective liberation of those who suffer. To Wink, the barrier to liberation is, what he calls, The Domination System. The Domination System is nothing new and can be seen all the way down through history whenever one group of people oppresses another for the sake of greed and self-interest. Wink realizes The Domination System is an evil, demonic animal which requires sustenance. The food of this beast grows in the corresponding corollary to The Domination System: The Myth of Redemptive Violence. The Myth of Redemptive Violence provides The Domination System with a narrative that can be reproduced in an infinite number of ways which convinces all involved in The Domination System (oppressor and oppressed alike) that without The Domination System the world would collapse and only the violence perpetrated by it can save us from this fate. The Myth looks roughly like this: a powerful being or system has caused harm or distress to a certain other being or group; from within the oppressed group, a powerful being or system arises to defeat and kill the oppressor, ending the reign of terror; as a result, the victorious protagonist becomes the ruling victor who creates a space in which the liberated can live free and in harmony; but eventually, the once righteous liberator becomes the dominating oppressor, beginning the cycle all over again. This Myth, seen from the Babylonian creation myth to today's children's cartoons, maintains silent ubiquity by coercing its adherents into believing it is normative. This omnipresence, Wink argues, is so pervasive it even infiltrated the way in which ancient Hebrews conceived of G-d; thus, it produced vast amounts of violence in the Hebrew Bible as the will of G-d. Jesus interrupts this Myth, and exposes it for what it really is: legalized immorality. He paints Jesus in an activist light as one who courageously revealed the truth about the one true G-d who has no part in The Domination System. Oppressive structures killed him for his insolence, and the early Church only half-way understood his purpose.
Hope, for Wink, in the face of The Domination System, comes in a two-step process. First, Wink holds the worldview that spirit infuses everything. From the Pentagon to a preschool, spirituality mediates within all structures. Thus, the spirituality of everything can, as all spirits can, be redeemed. Some of these things which can be redeemed, such as the law, need simple or complex recreation; some others, such as Nazism, sexism, or racism, require total abandonment. Our first step in redemption is clothing ourselves in what Wink deems an "Integral Worldview". Once we recognize this worldview to be the case, the second step in the process of redemption occurs through Divine and human collusion manifested as direct non-violent action against The Domination System. This, after all, was what Jesus did and what later Christians would fail to understand as they drifted back into oppressive, demonic structures.
My reaction to Wink's argument is both positive and negative. First, I fully affirm his view of a ubiquitous system of dominance that oppresses others for its own gain and sustains itself through the telling and retelling of an indoctrinating myth that convinces people of its indispensability. Furthermore, I 100% agree with the conclusion concerning non-violence. If we employ the logic of the Myth of Redemptive Violence against oppressors, we simply insert ourselves into the cyclical destruction of The Domination System. Meanwhile, we will fool ourselves into believing we are creating freedom or newness (just as the Myth prophesied we would). Hence, the only conceivable way to escape the Myth's all-encompassing hold is to step outside its operating parameters and do what it least expects: non-violence. Jesus, in my perspective, demonstrated this way of life in the most exemplary way. Wink and I cohere at this point. Finally, I share Wink's Integral Worldview. In general, Wink's largest conclusions are those that I affirm.
My dissension with Wink comes in his nuances. Primarily, we disagree in the extent to which The Domination System must be abandoned. He states clearly Nazism represented a spirit which should not be redeemed but abandoned. Whether or not you agree with his worldview, nearly everyone would agree with him on this point. Nonetheless, the government in the U.S., which has committed genocide against dozens of tribes, afflicted entire people groups under slavery and then Jim Crow, cripples the poor beneath the military-industrial complex, and fights multiple explicit and secret wars around the world, belongs in the category of redeemable which he makes clear by insisting he is a devoted patriot. I cannot agree with Wink here. If the purpose of the nation-state exists to defend its artificial borders from would-be assailants, we can see, by observing the U.S. and its hyper-militarized fetish, where such logic takes us. Nationalism and the good of the state must be abandoned. Subversive love of G-d and neighbor must replace it. Secondarily, Wink's biblical scholarship is inconsistent and jumbled. He writes off the Epistle to the Hebrews as complicit in The Domination System, yet he maintains the authority of some Pauline texts. He exegetes gospel passages, yet he limits their interpretation to his own agenda. As a result, Jesus looks less like G-d's decisive act in history to deal with sin (or The Domination System) in its fullness via non-violent activity and more like a failed social activist like Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi who at least understood what the latter two had in mind during their movements. Consequently, he denies the Trinity, and damages his argument in the process. Even though I still agree with his final conclusion, by refuting Jesus' divinity, Wink only allows Jesus to be one who teaches us how G-d is. Instead, by holding Jesus as the second person of the Trinity, we see, in his non-violent, direct action against the powers that be, the very way in which G-d chooses to reveal G-d's self. Not only, then, would this add theological substance to Wink's argument; it would add an ethical mandate for Christians to follow suit.
Finally, Wink believes the future of Christianity does not lie in debates about salvation and justification but in our ability to live out G-d's all-embracing love through peaceable means. I believe this to be half true. All the bickering about who is in and who is out creates a dynamic in which we forget Jesus is Lord, and we recreate him as life-jacket. Jesus is the King, and it is time we started living by his kingdom edicts. However, we must have faith that Jesus is Lord. Faith and obedience are therefore two sides of the same coin which is the Gospel.
How we live this out will eternally be under argument; Wink gives us a useful guide tool. The Church's days of domination are over. Time has come for us to pick up our crosses and follow the Lord. Peace!
-ben adam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)