Dynamics of Power
One more thought on this before I talk about Galatians - we as followers of Christ must seriously rethink our approaches to authority and power. I touched on this yesterday, but I think it bears more careful consideration than my quick summary. I think this is significant for several reasons. First, power is the dynamic that sets political relationships and structures apart from other kinds of relationality. When I have friends over for an evening of grill and brew, it's not necessarily a political action - there is no overt mechanic of power and authority (unless you have really strange friendships). But bring those same friends into my home for a house church gathering, and the relationality transforms into something political. (In what way this becomes political we'll discuss shortly - that's not necessarily a bad transition.) Second, I would argue that power dynamics are precisely what Jesus subverted in his political sphere. In other words, the gospel challenges us politically precisely because of Jesus' approach to power and authority. Not coincidentally, I think this is precisely where Christian political activism (in the more traditional sense) so often goes wrong, and why I suspect that, not only do we miss the gospel in our approach to government, but we actually do violence to it - especially those of us who follow Christ in the context of first world democracies.
I suppose again that a definition is in order. I've proposed that political relationality involves dynamics of power - nice move, Webster, but what does it mean? By power, I'm specifically referring to dynamics of influence or control. My current line of thought - and I'll be the first to admit this is in no way well-developed - is that power in and of itself is amoral. In other words, there is nothing particularly right or wrong about the act of exercising influence or control; it's simply a part of human relationships. It happens in families, in businesses, in little leagues and coffee shops, in Wissahickon and Washington. What makes an exercise of power a moral act are the means, the ends, and the motives - and it's precisely these elements where Jesus serves as both example and challenge for those of us who would follow in his Way.
I could probably write a book on this, so I'll try my best to be concise here. My proposal for understanding the nature of Jesus as a political figure is to examine the way in which he not only exercised power, but subverted and transcended it. What I mean is this - in the gospels, Jesus never exercises control through domination or subversion of the other. The closest we see to something like this is the cleansing of the temple narrative, and I think it's a stretch to argue that domination is what's in play in that instance. But clearly, in example after example, Jesus subverts power through submission and service. He transforms dynamics rooted in domination to ones birthed in love. Not only that, but he holds out his example for all who would be greatest in his kingdom - it's truly an inversion of worldly power structures, creating a radically different community built around radically different dynamics.
This dynamic is all through Jesus' teachings, especially in the Sermon on the Mount. Love for the enemy, care for the needy - submission and service are throughout, sometimes in truly remarkable terms. Many of us may be aware of the context for the statement about "going the extra mile". Roman soldiers of the day had the power to conscript a person to carry their belongings for a maximum distance of one mile. Jesus turns this power dynamic on its head by instructing his followers to not only submit to the Roman soldier, but to do twice what was required - love for the enemy indeed, to place the statement into its historical context. But I think something revolutionary happens in this act of submission. It's not passive by any means - it's subversive. Jesus takes an act of domination and transcends it through willing submission, in effect claiming its power as his own and transforming it into a display of love and service for an enemy. The cross is then the ultimate example, where Jesus' act of radical submission transcends the domination of Rome and results in Christ's enthronement as Lord. But again, the power of Lordship that he wields is love and service - not domination.
I think this example of Jesus' use of power should serve to fuel our own approach to power and authority. What does this look like for the Christian? If you haven't seen it yet, check out a great post over at Today at the Mission on the Christian Bill of Rights for starters. As followers of Christ, we no longer have the option of wielding power in the ways of the world - we are called to something greater by virtue of being lesser.
Email this post | Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
This continues to be fascinating reading, Berkhimer. "Coincidentally" I have an article on the discipline of submission due Monday. It will not go nearly as deep as you plan on going into the subject (approx. 400 words), but I find it to be a continual source of amazement to see how the Spirit moves in separate lives. Perhaps, rather, how he works in not-so-separate lives.
Posted by Scott L on June 24, 2005 07:01 PMIt's an article for Tyndale - it will be posted eventually by them, but I'm not sure when.
Posted by Scott L on June 25, 2005 08:30 AMAh - sounds good! You'll have to post or send a link when it gets published.
Posted by ScottB on June 25, 2005 09:54 AMYour recent thoughts on this subject have been very much in line with my own, yet unique enough to stimulate me to deeper thought. Thank you very much.
I think that Jesus did have a revolutionary way of looking at power. For him, true power (ability to influence or control) came from aligning oneself with a preexisting reality that is compelling to all sentient beings which truly perceive it... call it "good" or "love", or whatever (I'll call it "good" from here on). This reality appeals to all sentient beings because each can see that when universalized it will result in the best possible outcome for IT. Sure, sometimes there is an opposing force which deludes the mind into thinking that there is a better way for self-advancement. But the fact is that all it takes are simple demonstrations which are the natural outgrowth of the alignment to the side of "good" to break such delusions. (See how I'm working in my thoughts on faith and works here! :D) Thus, "evil" has it's work cut out for it, for the reality of "good" is easily demonstrable while "evil" must always rely on obfuscation to persuade. Thus it is seen that "good" has an inherent power that "evil" can never have, and it becomes evident that the true road to power must begin by an alignment with this eternal reality. This is, therefore, incredibly subversive!
Posted by Jared on June 25, 2005 06:48 PMInteresting thoughts, Jared - I'm going to think on these a bit.
Posted by ScottB on June 26, 2005 01:09 AMOk, having thought on this for a bit, here's my question - are you positing a reality of "good" that exists independent of the mind of God, or a reality that represents correspondence to His character and will?
Sometimes I'm dense - I'm not sure if you're being metaphorical or not ;). I like what you've said, but I don't think it's depersonalized, existing independently of God - especially as revealed in Christ. Fair? ;)
Posted by ScottB on June 27, 2005 08:16 PMDude, you are incredibly perceptive (and fair :D). In truth, I do wonder sometimes if we make the mistake of viewing good in terms of God and not God in terms of good. My thoughts along this line are very underdeveloped, but I'll be happy to share my progress (or regress, as some would see it). I'll take some time to let this stew before I do, though.
Let me say that I'm not sure that the way that I answer your question affects my view of the dynamics of power. I think (though I could be wrong) that what I have written would be true either way. (If I understand what you have written, then we are on the same page here.) Thanks for the challenge! I haven't yet been able to articulate any thoughts along these lines, so this will be helpful. Oh, and seriously, Scott, you read me like a book! :D
Posted by Jared on June 27, 2005 08:53 PMStew away - I'll look forward to reading your thoughts! And I think you're right - the main thrust of your thoughts doesn't depend on how you answer my question - I think we are on the same page from what you've said thus far.
Posted by ScottB on June 27, 2005 11:43 PMScott - I wrote an incredibly long comment, but then I realized that all of my hangups regarding viewing "good" as dependent upon God revolved around one scenario. Let me share it with you.
Imagine an alternate reality created and governed by a God whose character and will is aligned toward what we call "evil". Are we to think that "good" cannot exist in this reality simply because there is no divine being to say, "let it be so", or because the God of this reality is not characterized by "good", or because "good" is not a part of his will? This is inconceivable to me. I believe that in such a world (if such is possible, which may be a flaw in my reasoning here), and assuming free-will (a God of the puppet-strings can keep whatever he wants from existing), "good" would still exist. If I am right, then does this not point to the independence of "good"?
Wow, that was a ton shorter than what I originally came up with! :D Now, Scott, I really am not convinced that I am right, these are simply some thoughts that I have not been able to escape lately. I would love for you to give me your thoughts here!
Posted by Jared on June 29, 2005 10:36 PMI think there's a more fundamental question that you need to ask before you get to the scenario that you're describing. What is good? How do you define it, and how do you determine what fits into that category? I think you see this tension even in the NT, particularly in Paul's writings on grace and law. Is the law good, or evil? Paul will, in various places, argue both.
I suppose that another way to back into the same conversation is to ask whether "good" is subject to God, or vice versa. It almost sounds like the scenario you're proposing would make God subject to good, rather than the other way around.
Ok, those are my initial thoughts - I realize I've answered a question with a question, but it's the best way I think to approach it. Excellent thoughts - looking forward to hearing more.
Posted by ScottB on June 30, 2005 10:39 AMScott - Here's how I would define "good" as I have been using it here in the discussion of the dynamics of power...
Good is the disposition of one being to act in the best interests of another being.
Posted by Jared on June 30, 2005 02:18 PMSo if God's actions are for his own glory, could that be termed "good"?
:D
My next question would be what assigns the moral connotation of a positive towards the actions you're describing. Darwinism, for example, might look at something like that as furtherance of the species, or Nietzsche might look at that as foolish. On what basis do we then categorize these things as "good"?
Just thinking out loud... ;)
Posted by ScottB on June 30, 2005 02:36 PMScott - You have me once again! I grew up quite Arminian and I have only now begun to look at things from a different perspective. My conception of God has always been flawed, I believe, and you are right to point out that by my definition of good such actions on the part of God could not be so called.
To answer your next question, I would say that Jesus is the one who put the positive connotation on the principle of good that I have defined/described. Perhaps, however, it is a principle that has a domain of human relations only, and is not one that is independant of God? :D
Posted by Jared on July 2, 2005 12:10 PMI would go a step further and say that it is because it reflects the character of God. Acting in the best interests of another, as you said, or to frame it slightly differently, offering oneself in service to another, is inherently Godlike, and as a result is good.
Fair? :)
BTW - I think I'm about a 1.75 point Calvinist, so that makes me, I think, a Calviminian. ;)
Posted by ScottB on July 2, 2005 01:44 PMQuite fair. Thanks, Scott. Oh yeah, I guess that you could call me a Calviminian at the moment as well! :)
Posted by Jared on July 5, 2005 08:01 AM