Revolution and Advent: Christ Transforming Culture

In light of Emmanuel, the coming of God with us, the Emancipation that has Come, how are we to live so that this emancipatory potential might spread? 

How Should We Then Live? is the question posed by Francis Schaeffer’s influential book in the ‘70’s.  For Schaeffer the answer was relatively simple.  Live according to the compelling worldview of Biblical (which for him was somewhat conservative Reformed) Christianity.  If enough individual Christians would again interact with life and culture from a Christian worldview, then the crumbling towers of Western Civilization would be rebuild again, and the emancipatory potential of the Gospel will be unleashed with transformative power.

But, for many, Schaeffer’s proposal is found wanting.  Perhaps it is too intellectual in its orientation.  Or too simplistic in its individualist perspective, lacking an adequate ecclesiology.  Or too naive concerning actual cultural and political processes, needing to supplemented by a more robust political program.   But we should ask again Schaeffer’s question.  Assuming for the moment the Church should indeed engage in a project of cultural transformation, what might it look like?

Let’s return to Erik Olin Wright’s outline of an emancipatory social theory, particularly where he indication the “sort of collective strategies [which] will help us move in the direction of social emancipation.”  Wright notes three typical strategies of transformation: ruptural, interstitial, and symbiotic.  The first, ruptural,  is what most immediately comes to mind when we think of emancipation.  The revolutionary overthrow.  The sudden dissolution of the previous order and the emergence of something new.  The sharp, and often violent, breaking of the chains holding us back.  This is both the dream radicals and nightmare of conservatives, and as such gets the most press (especially in the movies: think  V for Vendetta).  The ruptural strategy seeks to “Smash the State.”  The second strategy, interstitial, “seeks to build new forms of social empowerment in the niches, spaces and margins” of the old order.  This strategy is deeply embedded in life practices of daily living, falling below the radar of the power that be.  It “aims to get on with the business of building an alternative world inside the old from the bottom up,” seeking to “Ignore the State.”  Lastly, the symbiotic strategy attempts to tip the balance of power slowly through strategic alliances and hybrid forms within existing structures. Its stance is to “Use the State.” 

Now, turning to the Advent narratives, we see each of these transformational strategies.  The ruptural strategy is noted in Herod’s response to the wise men and his killing of all the young boys.  The threat of anOther king (of the Jews) to Roman power did not go unnoticed.  Of course Mary’s song lends itself to a ruptural orientation, as do many of the Old Testament passages speaking of the Messiah.  We might even say that the Virgin Birth is a type of rupture of natural processes (although you could say that the incarnation is equally symbiotic using the old to create the new).  We can note the symbiotic strategy in the genealogies linking the birth of Jesus to the Davidic dynasty, as well as Bethlehem as his birthplace.   Also, both a priest and prophetess bless the child at the Temple.  Elaborative on this, the book of Hebrews ascribes the titles Prophet, Priest, and King, putting Jesus in a symbiotic position to all of the power centers of Jewish life.   But there is also strong interstitial orientation in the narratives.  The gypsy-like shepherds, marginalized in Jewish society, receive the announcement from the angels, not the kings or priests.  It is a lowly girl who bears the Savior, who is not from a prominent place in Israel, but from Nazareth (from which nothing good comes).  All these indicate a disregard for established power centers, and a willingness for God to begin again in the cracks of human life. 

So what?
Why this belabored tour through Gospel narratives and political theory, you might be asking?  Well, it is certainly not so that we can choose the best possible strategy based on the birth of Christ.  In fact my intension is the opposite.  We need to remember again the multitude of ways in which God interacts with culture.  In recent discourse around church-state relations (and missiology, but I won't go into that) it seems that people argue for an exclusive approach:  either a symbiotic perspective (Reformed and/or Protestant Liberal), a ruptural (fundamentalist, evangelical, conservative, although it is ruptural in rhetoric only while in practices it is symbiotic, but that is for another post), or interstitial (Anabaptists, Hauerwasians). 

But here is my contention.  Within Christendom and after, witnessed in the Religious Right’s attempt at taking over public policy (and being used sorely by Republicans), and the Religious Left’s effective ministry of civil religion (Democrats welcome all the help they can get), that transformative strategy is all too focused on “Using the State” as the means of cultural transformation.  Instead of this we need to again imagine an ecclesiology and political action within both the ruptural and interstitial orientations.  The Church in West (for this is where I am speaking from) must again be willing to “Smash the State” as well as “Ignore the State,” not so it can ignore political action and social justice (in a pietistic and other-worldly contemplation), but in order to effectively engage in the activities which might extend the presence of Advent and the practice of Incarnation. 

Comments

[Jason Hesiak]

Geoff,

You said: "In recent discourse around church-state relations (and missiology, but I won't go into that) it seems that people argue for an exclusive approach: either a symbiotic perspective (Reformed and/or Protestant Liberal), a ruptural (fundamentalist, evangelical, conservative, although it is ruptural in rhetoric only while in practices it is symbiotic, but that is for another post), or interstitial (Anabaptists, Hauerwasians)."

Uuhh...this totally doesn't actually challenge anything you said, but is more of a...well, you'll see. What's the point of saying that conservative politics are ruptural at all if they are acutally symbiotic in practice? You said "that's another post"...but...I 'dunno...I guess you were just sort of presenting the information...in idea I suppose it is ruptural - supposedly. OK, nevermind, I guess I've talked myself out of the question. These were just thoughts I've pondered before, and you provided a good grounds to work though them. Thank you.

Interestingly, through D.F.'s recent blog post, I was just doing a little bit of studying on the Anabaptists.

Thanks for another good post. Blessings,

Jason

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Jason,
I'm not sure what your question was, but you certainly grabbed to part of my post that probably needed more explanation. 

I had thought about adding a section of H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture where he talks about "Christ the transformer of culture" and severely prejudices the presentation by claim that this perspective remembers 1) the goodness of creation presumably against an ecclesiocentric new creation, 2) the Fall is not ontological, but incidental (which is another way of stating the first), and 3) that God works in All of history, not just church history (again, mean to widen the parameter of God's work).  Now this seems innocuous enough, even something we all could get excited about, but this effectively closes the door on both the ruptural and interstitial approaches, making the symbiotic the only REASONABLE course of action.  But I don't think this is the case. 

Of course many feel that against the exteme attachment to the doctrine of the Fall in Reformed theology, we need to again remember the orginal Creation was Good (which is what both Niebuhr and Schaeffer are doing in different ways).  Certainly this is one way to correct this tendency.  But another might be to think through the New Life (initialed in the Advent of Christ) which nullifies the FAll.  My general frame work is not to look into the past for creational structures that might aid us, but to look into the future of what God is calling us into, hinted at in the community of Christ here on earth, which means more emphasis on ecclesiology rather than creation(ology).   

[daniel a. siedell]

Geoff, I appreciate your reflections on the Christ and culture relationship. I couldn't agree more with your suggestion that a stronger ecclesiology is needed. Certainly, a broad range of theological traditions, encapsulated by such diverse figures as Hauerwas, Millbank and RO, as well as Schmemann and the Orthodox theologians believed that the Church is itself a political power since it testifies to a power greater than the State, whichis manifest most clearly in the eucharistic liturgy. The problem for us is what the Church actually is and what it looks like. But I do believe that it in the liturgy, literally, "the work of the people" that a truly Christian stragegy for social action begins and ends.

I am also concerned about the so-called "Symbiotic" strategy that is the dominant paradigm in Reformed circles because it, to my mind, radically understimates the power of the State. The State is not merely something to be "used." It too exerts a power back to the user, hence the problems that we see in the political arena. A strong ecclessiology--perhaps one so strong that it appears to most American Christians as "unengaged," is an important antidote to this, it seems to me.

[John Doyle]

The three transformative operations you persuasively outline have been applied also to the overthrow of the church by the church. Sticking just with the Modern era, you’ve got the rupture that is the Reformation; the interstitial breakaway sects that founded America; the symbiotic transformation of Roman Catholicism through the Counter-reformation, Anglicanism, Vatican Two, etc.

Then there’s the overthrow of the church by the state: the rupture of the French and Marxist Revolutions, interstitial efforts by scientists and artists and philosophers working in a predominantly Christian culture, symbiotic transformation by democracy and the marketplace.

What if this disruptive bidirectionality is a good thing? You could say that Jesus wanted to graft the Gentiles into Judaism, but you could just as easily say that he wanted to break down the cultural barriers the Jews had erected around themselves. The destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora might have been judgments, but they might also have been fulfillments, destructuring the people of God in order to make possible a more dispersed presence.

So: the Reformation begat the Protestant ethic, which begat market economics and democratic government, which begat “the dreadful average” (A.J. Nock’s phrase). The Reformation begat the Enlightenment, which begat science and technology, which begat evolutionary science and global pollution. The Reformation begat individual accountability, which begat Nietzsche and Freud, who begat the Cult of the Self. The Reformation begat iconoclasm, which begat secular art and literature and music, which begat Madonna crucified.

Is it conceivable that these diremptive incursions of secular culture constitute not just curse but also blessing? That the church’s resistance to modernity isn’t all that different from a secular conservatism bent on reinforcing its suburban ramparts? That what's needed isn't resistance but leverage? That the Christian mission isn’t to regather the church but to disperse it again, leaving the scattered remnant to listen for the indistinct call toward some unglimpsed fulfillment in which there is neither church nor state, neither sacred nor profane, neither modern nor postmodern, but a new creation?

[Geoff Holsclaw]

john,
very interest application.  the diremptive (or kenotic=emptying) work of God is poured out into creation.  Your examples of the state revolting against the church exposes that I was begging the question concerning the post-Constintinian situation of the Church (but maybe that was b/c he Church attempted to be the state?)

You ask maybe

"the Christian mission isn’t to regather the church but to disperse it again, leaving the scattered remnant to listen for the indistinct call toward some unglimpsed fulfillment in which there is neither church nor state, neither sacred nor profane, neither modern nor postmodern, but a new creation?"

In this sense the Church becomes the dies as the church for the sake of the world.  In a sense I agree with you, but I am troubled by what seems to be an equation of Church with Religion in general.  The Church Fathers did not understand the Church as another religion among many (and the Romans thought Christians were atheists), but rather as beyond religion.  So when you say that church might whither away into a dispensation w/o church or state, neither sacred nor profane, I think to myself yes, but that is when the Church is fully blossomed, rather than its death.

but maybe we are saying the same thing...?

[John Doyle]

Israel was buffered from the world by physical and cultural barriers; the church presumably is not. Here we have no continuing city; there is neither Jew nor Greek; we through the Law are dead to the Law; etc. But the ethos of the Kingdom supercedes all.

An intrusive and corrupt culture threatens either to dismantle the church or to empty it? The church tries desperately to reinforce its distinctiveness, either by sequestering itself or by counterattacking with its own brand of counterculture. But the corruptions of the world don’t threaten just the Christians. There are non-Christians who lament Dawkins’ uncivil discourse, for whom "what is good" is a more important question than "what do I want," who value character over personality, and so on. They too sense the threat.

Most people, Christian and non-Christian alike, want above all to live comfortable lives. Corruption can penetrate the barriers without anyone realizing or caring much one way or the other. Only the remnant cares – those outside the church as well as those on the inside. Form alliances with these people. Do rigorous science together. Encourage canon-worthy new art together. Seek justice and mercy together. Collaborate on making ruptural and interstitial and symbiotic differences in the world. Identify Kingdom-worthy standards for these endeavors together. Which is more important: to do the will of him who sent you, or to make sure the ninety-and-nine still feel comfortable? If God is going to sort out the sheep from the goats, let him take care of it later.

[Jason Hesiak]

Daniel,

If I remember right, we never got your list of artists :) Although you did mention a couple along the way...

Jason

[Andy]

John,

Good stuff. I agree with much, if not all, of what you wrote.

Andy

[Geoff Holsclaw]

while not directly participating in this conversation (although involved as an author here), David Fitch (via N.T Wright) has articulated ["contrary thoughts on the incarnation"] some of what I was getting at in my response to John D. 

While many hope to be "incarnational", we are still very much unsure what that means. 
does it mean that God broke into the world to change it (redeptive), or that he emptied himself into it (diremptive--to use John's language)?

[ktismatics]

How many of those who engage the world disruptively or interstitially are really sure they're doing (or thinking or writing) the right thing? Breaking up the evangelical consensus affords opportunities for the margins to become visible. If you wait until the masses converge on the latest version of its perpetual bland hegemony then it's already too late.

To the extent I participate in emerging blogs I'm "in the church but not of it." I don't, however, see any more hope in the secular herd than I do in the sacred one. Where I see glimmers are at the margins, among people who are motivated by a kind of pessimistic idealilsm, or who find themselves attracted to differance. A lot of those people seem to occupy the emerging postevangelical demimonde. What I find unfortunate is the emerging shift toward a kind of medieval valorization of tradition and consensus -- a direction that to me seems indistinguishable from reactionary nostalgia.

Moving the herd toward perpetual revolution or marginality seems futile. It takes nerve and discipline to be disruptive or interstitial when you don't have any guarantee that leadership or popular opinion will back you up. But I guess if you already had those things you wouldn't be disruptive or interstitial any more.

[rodney neill]

Hello all - Happy New year!

When one looks at the role of the institutional church in the history of Christendom in Western Europe it is a horror story - the Crusades,Wars of Religion, colonialism etc
There surely must raise a major qustion mark about the current 'medieval valorization of tradition and consensus'in the light of these terrible abuses of power- a major reason why the church has lost its credibility and plausibility. I wonder if Ktismatics post points the way foward when the church can embrace marginality in an effort to retrieve some kind of authentic Christianity

[rodney neill]

Ah,

Upon reading previous posts please diregard my last post as I have misunderstood the whole debate!!!!!!

[John Doyle]

Rodney -- You made me nervous for a second there, until I read your retraction. Maybe I misunderstand the debate too, because I thought your point was well taken.

[John Doyle]

Here's my Debordian-Baudrillardian interpretation of V for Vendetta. V is the collective identity of the filmmakers, who are producing the latest in a series of public spectacles. The crowd coming to watch the destruction of Parliament are the theater-goers. They all don the V mask for the show: as passive observers they're living the revolution vicariously through V. After the show is over they go home and wait for the next incarnation of V to stage an even more spectacular production/destruction. But nothing is really destroyed: it's all a simulated destruction, a piece of entertainment designed to feed the paying audience's self-image as being in on the scam, part of the revolution. But of course this self-image, like the spectacle itself, is an illusion, a delusion, a co-optation, a simulated rebellion designed to keep the system humming along and the money flowing.

I am also ktismatics, by the way -- sometimes my identity changes without my being aware of it.

[John Doyle]

Even I can take a hint eventually. Ciao.

[Hal]

7/12/09,my organic position is Islamic fedual reign.