Will Grace be Good Enough?
One of the underlying reasons evil men can come to power is that those in the middle err on the side of believing the best about those they would do well to discerningly distrust. I also fundamentally believe that most people in positions of political influence are of two varieties: they either are in it for the naked pursuit of power, or they are true ideologues. What seems important to me is that too few people who would be called gracious leaders seem to be able to find their voice and offer up alternative visions of the future within this setting, leaving only the weak and the wolves to vie for control.
Will Grace be Good Enough?
Underneath the religious dialogue between secularists and religious people is an equally interesting and compelling conversation taking place between moderates and fundamentalists from the same faith tradition. This can be seen in the moments when these two branches of the same community come together in an attempt to dialogue one with another. The Tim Russert Meet the Press episode with Jerry Falwell, Richard Land, Al Sharpton (OK, maybe Sharpton does not really qualify as being of the same tradition!) and Jim Wallis (lately off his well earned God’s Politics book tour success) is one good example, as is the Larry King Live episode with various religious leaders, of which Brian McLaren was one of the guests. In each of these cases I was again impressed by the grace and calm enveloping Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren in stark contrast to the arrogant, condescending and mean spirited responses of the panel’s fundamentalists. While my appreciation for Wallis and McLaren continues to build almost every time I see them in a public forum or read what they write, I have a nagging concern of whether or not their gracious approach will be sufficient to turn the tide of organized fundamentalism in America. My instinct is that America will need leaders who hold the same or secular equivalent opinions of Wallis and McLaren, but are willing to be more forceful and dramatic in their argument. But even as I write this I feel condemned, as if I am betraying one of the principles of Jesus that I recognize as having utmost value: that what is valued on this earth (the acquisition and dissemination of power) is not what is of primary importance, and is not that which will reshape mankind the most elegantly. My imbalance on this topic centers around whether we can develop and embrace a concept of grace that is forceful, able to stand up and push back against the most virulent of fundamentalisms.
Let me convey one of my deeper questions for asking this: I suspect that the solutions to the problems that will press on our world over the next two to three decades will have no peaceful solution outside of what I choose to call empowered grace. Left unchallenged, today’s fundamentalisms in Christianity and Islam will overpower the middle majority and begin to speak for the whole, just as has happened in periods of time like that of the Middle Ages. If we take seriously the ecological challenges posed by the diminishing of certain key non-renewable energy sources, the basic issues for the globe sustaining itself as economies develop further, and the unresolved questions of international law and the greater planetary good, it is not hyperbolic to suggest that within most of our lifetimes we will face challenges like those the world has not seen for seventy years (or perhaps ever). One of the underlying reasons evil men can come to power is that those in the middle err on the side of believing the best about those they would do well to discerningly distrust. I also fundamentally believe that most people in positions of political influence are of two varieties: they either are in it for the naked pursuit of power, or they are true ideologues. What seems important to me is that too few people who would be called gracious leaders seem to be able to find their voice and offer up alternative visions of the future within this setting, leaving only the weak and the wolves to vie for control. Once bad people come to power they command loyalty and set to work aggressively dismantling any opposing voices whether they be voices from within a particular faith, the intelligentsia or leaders who dare to cast a different vision of the future. When firmly established in power, the minority - who got to this position of power by being willing to be the most aggressive and yell the loudest - become the majority. It seems to me that empowered grace, where equally assertive (without being vitriolic) and equally powerful (without attacking people personally), offers our one chance of avoiding the vociferous minority becoming the dominant majority.
I began this line of thinking with thoughts about Brian McLaren specifically. As those who read my site may know, I am deeply fond of his writing and see it on par with that of CS Lewis. But I wonder if that is what we need, if that is enough to turn the fear of encroaching modernity away from fundamentalism and get us to trust in each other’s innate goodness. I wonder if McLaren, while being a gift to our generation’s as a modern-day CS Lewis, will be insufficient when it comes to the street fights taking place across our country and in Washington DC. While writing this I must acknowledge that I recognize McLaren’s gift is not everyone’s, and it is enough to appreciate him for what he gives us and who he is. My broader concern is that the movement he exemplifies sees him as their voice and their leader, and that no other more dramatic voices exist that can fend off and fight back the lunacy coming from the right. I feel that the best chance of Christianity in America not badly over-reaching and ultimately dying on the vine, is for voices like that of McLaren and Campolo to become the majority; however, I do not see that happening for a number of reasons, one of which is the unstructured form of the Emergent Movement they currently represent (as those familiar with Emergent will know, authority within the group is informal at best, and liquid leadership is perceived as an ideal). When contrasted to the highly organized might of the Religious Right I can not but feel helpless that unless the voices within the Emergent Movement choose to more forcefully stand up for their beliefs and be willing to say more stridently and assertively that their fundamentalist brothers and sisters are wrong, that we have little hope to pin on the changes that will come from the Emergent Movement. This, to me, is why it is important to challenge McLaren and Campolo to speak to those outside of the church and not tailor their message to offend the least of those inside the church. For the most part, those inside the church have made their choice; accept it, paint a new vision for what the church could be, embrace the questions that the average person has about the Bible and Christianity, and be honest about what scholarship suggests needs to be held and not held on orthodoxy.
Have I given up too much in this questioning? Have I asked myself if grace will be enough, only to sacrifice it in my own way to an ideal I hold on political power? If I have, I am wrong. Grace is necessary because whether in victory or defeat, it is the one act that can unite disparate views of the world into a common position, drawing strength from what both sides see and do most effectively. I wrestle and struggle with, at a very simple level, where, when and how Jesus chose to assert his teachings against those of the religious establishment of the day. I fear today’s Emergent Movement is unwilling to call Falwell, Land, Dobson, Kennedy and McArthur for what they are - the Pharisees of our day. History begs we heed the lessons taught when the Pharisees ascend to power and encourage us to reach for that which is not ours to hold.
previous post: March 2005 Bookshelf
next post: Book Review: The Coming Anarchy
4 Responses to “Will Grace be Good Enough?”
Leave a Reply
About MysteriousFaith
“If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm.”
Themes
Now Reading
Search
Favorites
Personal Writing
Theology
Categories
Meta Data
April 7th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Remember that the one act that changed the course of human history forever, came from a man who willingly died for what he belived than forced it on another. Maybe many of these men do not feel called from their platforms to do exactly what the Religious Right does from theirs. Maybe change will burst forth as we all quietly live humble lives of love before God and others and to seek to do justice when we can. The intellectual wars of who is right and who is wrong don’t seem to help much, in fact, they often seem to create a greater divide. Maybe men like McLaren feel like it is time to act and do and live and allow that to do most of the speaking. Sometimes it feels that you are giving men like Jerry Fallwell the platform to do his loudest speaking. Sometimes it seems that you hate them as much as they hate you, and so the fire burns on. Just trying to offer another persepctive! - Shane
April 7th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Shane - Thanks for posting the comments! And please, don’t be a stranger - don’t let this go if I’m still off track!
A couple of things: I do not hate Fallwell, but I do believe he needs to be called on the carpet for what his words & teaching clearly state about his intentions, motives and agenda. I believe the same thing of men like Kennedy, Dobson and others within the evangelical community. If Falwell were to have his way, he would impose his views on others through whatever means at his disposal (the attempt to make America’s founding a monolithic Christian achievement is designed with explicit intentions, one of which is to argue for what defines belongers and outcasts - the implications of that need to be realized as being more than simple nationalism).
If that isn’t blunt enough, let me be more so: men like Fallwell are the precursors to more malicious men who make those very decisions to force their beliefs on others and willfully employ “ends justifying the means” reasoning in order to force themselves on others in the belief that a homogeneous spectrum of belief is what is needed to garner God’s favor or protect us from His wrath. History has proven this, and a large part of what motivated my writing about whether “grace will be enough” is because I view our world at a moment of profound transition when decisions are going to be made that will reverborate through the mid-term in ways that are not fully appreciated. I am going to go way out on a limb and borrow heavily from NT Wright and his second book (Jesus and the Victory of God): one of his core points is that Jesus’ message was to not be political where the contemporary message was to be very political. Jesus was warning not to get in a fight with Rome, and he had good reason to vocalize this warning. The situation is different now, but the warning follows the same logic: if modern Christianity weds itself to a political agenda it will over-reach and speak for areas of society it should not. It will hurt itself and will ultimately hurt it’s long term viability during this. As someone who believes religion, and specifically Christianity, has unique value where rightly placed, I am concerned that this over-reaching is precisely where the majority of evangelical dialouge & activity is taking us!
If we choose wrongly we may be horrified at where our society goes. My point in this essay is how do we challenge what is wrong (and here I’m going to do what most people in my situation will, which is strain my argument into incorporating those moments when Jesus was angry or put people in their places by calling them for what they were). I believe strong positions can be taken which call these men out and force them to say to more than their select demographic what they believe, but to do this in a way that is gracious (again the term sI used in my essay of “empowered grace” are apropos). I think we can find some direction here from John Locke who stated that “all evil men need to come to power is for good men to do nothing.” What I’m wrestling with is what that “something” is that needs to be done. It’s similar to how we can love without letting someone destructive cross boundaries; similarly, how do we be gracious without allowing that which is wrong to carry the day? Not one meaningful social analysis of how bad things happen in a society can overlook the repeatable fact that the middle majority - the people that thought the fringe didn’t need to be taken seriously and so could afford to ignore them - were proven wrong and the fringe became the voice of the whole. We fool ourselves to think similar problems will escape us.
April 7th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
All that is to assume that loving, serving and being a blessing to the world and starting churches and organizations that do not line up with Falwell’s thoughts and bringing our own thoughts to the media is to do nothing. I think too much time is wasted in endless chatter - just let the man run his mouth and look stupid and pay no attention. Then turn around and love and serve your neighbor and the world in the name of Jesus showing them the true mark of a Christian is not who comes up with the greatest argument, but love. I am done wasting time with those who want to blissfully remain in their juvenile understanding of life. The time has come to be salt and light and to be just as vocal about what we are for as he rants and raves about what he is against. Which of these will be more powerful at the end of the day: to go and be the most kind, caring commmunities of people that we can possibly be while serving our world or dropping bombs on the heavy Fundamentalist turning red on the screen? Every now and then we just remind people that Protestants don’t have popes and that he does not speak for our tribe. I really do think people are actually waiting for our evangelical actions to speak louder than our evangelical words. - Shane
April 7th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
I don’t think I said being loving was nothing … but Christianity’s name-sake would suggest that fundamentalisms are worth fighting against, does it not? Perhaps the difference I believe in is that Dietrich Bonhoffer couldn’t and didn’t stop Hitler - Churchill and FDR did.