I am grateful for a newsletter I’ve chosen to regularly receive, called Inward/Outward, from Church Of The Savior in Washington, D.C. I deeply value their ethos, and it is generally shared here in our faith community in St. Stephen.
It is a newsletter I highly recommend you join for daily formation ideas.
However, the last newsletter begged an issue on which I have strong feelings, and therefore I include the post and my response here.
Upside-down Kingdom
Written by admin January 26th, 2009 in on the way
By Gordon Cosby
We moderate and polish the world’s thinking, and name it Christian. The church embodies the upside-down kingdom. Whatever the world admires is probably not good, according to kingdom values. The church is always anti-empire.
What the church does is provide a place where pain can be touched and where the vision for a new world can be lifted up and held before people.
Source: quoted by Peter Renner in “Good Is a Timely Word”
DAN’S RESPONSE
I’m always grateful for the insights in the Inward/Outward newsletter, but in this case, I must raise a voice of disagreement.
The Church is not always “anti-empire.” If in this case we are defining the empire as the self-sufficient culture (as it seems in Gordon’s words above), I would offer a contrasting thought.
When it is assumed the Church should be “anti-empire,” and we believe or unquestioningly affirm these words, in my estimation we have chosen the wrong enemy.
I would suggest that this idea is a carry-over from historic Christan ideas that toxify (to greater or lesser degrees) and possibly nullify our capacity to enact a joyful missional spirituality in the world.
To say the culture does not value forgiveness, generosity, justice, beauty and even unconditional love – and the Church does, in contrast – is simply not true in my experience.
It is indeed the distortions of culture (we are “indisputably bent” as Shaeffer once said) that blind us from the centrality of these values, it is indeed the culture’s stories that disorient us from the Story that is their source. We are unquestionably blinded by the empire to the values that make humanity humane.
However, we can see these values popping out all about us in “unbelieving” culture; one can’t quite keep the ImageBearer from shining through, especially in times of trouble or distress.
In the artistic community, we often see these themes bursting through from the unbelieving culture, and I suggest that the condemning of “empire” is rooted in a misunderstanding of how God sees the Church moving in human culture.
We are part of human culture, indeed part of the empire, just as we also are a part of a transcendent community that is a King-led, Kingdom community across time.
But to say that we are always to be “anti-empire,” is an old condemnation (again, in my humble perspective) of “all cultural values,” that pushes us to be more set apart in thinking, style and form than I think God requires of us. The paradigm of sacred/secular rears its head once again, and throws us back into unhelpful worldviews that are less than biblical at almost every turn.
Culture is not the enemy. It is a textbook to be studied, and endorsed or challenged at every turn. I agree that we are part of the New Creation voice, and that our minds must be renewed. I also agree that the world is a very dark place, and we are called to be people of light within it.
I just believe that statements such as “the church is always anti-empire” are not only false, but harmful over decades, centuries and millenia.
Empire is not the issue. We are not anti-empire.
Culture is not the issue. We are not anti-culture.
The unawakened heart is the issue.
We are “anti-anything-that-wars-against-the-law-of-Love.”
19 Comments
Dan,
Good words, I do agree that we are not anti-empire – or anti culture. For some reason in the US faith and polictics seems more closely tied then in Canada for good and ill. This question of how we as members of the Kingdom of God engage in the Kingdom of the world is a difficult one. One mistake we have made ie. Christian right is to put our hope for chaning a nation in the Kingdoms of the World. If only we can grab the power we could make everone love Jesus and be Christians(at least pray in school). I have found Lee Camp (Mere Discipleship) very helpful in this discussion.
Leading up to the US elections we heard so much from both sides praying for God to put their man in and worring about the ramifications if he didn’t. Yes we do need to engage the culture, be transformers, creators – when we strive for Kingdom of the World power to bring “God’s Agenda” we must be careful.
well said Dan – beautiful thoughts.
What a great response. No lazy thinking here! I recently attended an amazing art symposium in Austin, TX that centered around the theme of “transforming culture.” We’re not anti…we transform those aspect that have become twisted and redeem them so they can be once again what they were truly intended for.
Anyway…I was standing in my chair and shouting “Amen” at what you wrote. Good on you!
Dan,
I suppose we have to define what we mean when we speak of “empire.” If “empire” is just another word for “culture” or “world,” then surely we must articulate a more nuanced position than unqualified condemnation. I’m not sure what the author of the article means by empire, but to me anyway, empire is an expression of the reality that the “world” is in a state of rebellion. If the “world” is in a state of rebellion, then it is not truly itself, which is another way of saying that the “world” is only really the “world” in Jesus Christ.
Of course, the term, “empire,” is thoroughly political, which you seem to shy away from in your response. Instead, your treatment of empire seems to be more concerned with how we perceive the “unbelieving culture.” However, the question is not about whether the unbelieving culture has anything substantial to offer the church, it should be obvious that it does. Indeed, the church does not have some sort of monopoly or corner on truth–nor does the church lie outside the reality of the world. Rather, the whole world has been reconciled to God in Jesus Christ. What constitutes the church’s visible distinctness from the “world” is precisely that it witnesses to the real, to what the world is really called to be, and already is, in Jesus Christ.
I think we can still use words like “world,” to speak of the constant and consistent rebelliousness of the powers–here we might even use the word “empire”–but we must remember that it is always the “world” in rebellion and so not the world as it should be, as it really is, in Jesus Christ. To think biblically about these matters is also to recognize the political import of talk of the “world”–for among the most popular descriptions of the “world” in the New Testament is the “powers.” If empire names the structural and socio-political rebellious state of the “world” then it makes sense that the church should stand in opposition to any and all manifestations of empire. Of course, the church’s anti-empire stance is never about a sort anti-world sentiment. The church, after all, exists for the sake of the world, for the flourishing of human life. But, the mission of the church is to call for the world’s “conversion”–that is, for the world to be more fully the world, more fully what it is in Jesus Christ. And so, in a sense, it is only inevitable that if the church is faithful then it will appear to be “anti-empire.”
Ry
I do not say this because the “world” has some sort of ontological dignity “in itself,” but because the world has already been reconciled to God in Jesus Christ. So, the “world” is not really the “world” when it remains estranged from God, it is not “itself” at all.
To speak of the “world” is not to speak of a sort of interior state of unbelief as if the “world” is constituted by those people have not accepted Jesus into their hearts. Nor is it to speak of “nature” or “humanity” as such,
which I think evades the real challenging issues.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to include that last part.
Ry, this is a beautiful and poignant response to the post.
I agree with you on every front, and your distinctions are strong at every turn. I would challenge not one idea you offer, and was personally inspired by your clear thinking on the topic.
I look forward to the books you will write.
I would only clarify one idea, as your benevolent reading of that to which I was responding may have been, in my estimation, too generous.
You said:
“However, the question is not about whether the unbelieving culture has anything substantial to offer the church, it should be obvious that it does.”
You are speaking to a different target group than I.
The belief that the culture has something substantial to offer the church is not obvious to a few generations and ilks of Christian. It is anything but obvious. That is the only reason I challenged the statement, posted outside the context of the whole writing from which the post was selected.
As a 44 year old, believing man who has spent the sum of decades intimately interacting with tens of thousands of “evangelical” believers in at least 30 denominations in 10 countries for the past 20 years (I wish it weren’t true, as it sounds quite arrogant)…
…it is not obvious that the church not only exists within culture, but should happily take on some of its qualities (as if it could separate itself completely from the water in which it swims).
The question of whether the culture has anything substantial to offer the church is exactly the question for large portions of the evangelical Christian church today, spoken from pulpits in a thousand contradictions Sunday after Sunday – and many voices are joining the chorus to reform thinking to better fit the understandings you articulated above.
The answer may be obvious now, to many who would share your view (and mine), but it has not been obvious to many Christians and Christian leaders with whom I have spent countless hours, over the past two decades. I might also suggest that the “obvious” has not been obvious for many communities throughout church history as well.
If we as the whole church are coming around to the beautiful thinking about the church, empire and culture that you articulated above, it is only because many have challenged this toxic thinking in the church over the course of the last 50 years before this conversation we are having ever had ever seen the light of internet day.
There is still much ground to be regained, and we need more bridges into the heart of this thinking in the evangelical world to reclaim not only the clear ideas about “empire” you state above, but also to utterly clarify (if not change) the language of those that dominate pulpits, airwaves, music and media in popular Christian circles.
It seems, for me, this is one of the roles to which I have been invited.
For you, and your generation, this has become a no-brainer. I thank God that such ideas are obvious, and demand little air time. For many today, however, the obvious to us is hidden, confused in myriad sermons and songs, and the precipitant of a confused Christ-followership that results in truncated expressions of mission in the world.
I.e. To the target group to which I am speaking, given the assumptions I believe to be present, the church is not anti-empire.
I.e. To you, and the movements reaching their peak in the world that are making the helpful distinctions you articulate above, the church is indeed anti-empire.
Cheers to the New Creation, and the reclaiming of the world as it was made to be.
Thanks for the gift of your post, Ry.
and the dialog gets richer and more beautiful – thank you gentlemen (and I mean that in the most beautiful way, you truly are gentle men)
Thanks, Heidi.
Thanks for this Dan. I completely agree with you that to be the Church is not to be anti-Culture.
However, I have found the recent rise of critiquing “Empire” helpful. In my understanding Empire is not a synonym for Culture (and perhaps even “The World”) but it is about corrupt power games. I’m not sure which way Cosby is taking it here though.
Dan,
Thanks for clarifying. I do wonder if attempting to pull people away from their insularity in order to embrace the wider “culture” or “empire” is really that important. Every “wider world” is just another perspective, and all perspectives are limited. I guess we’re coming at this a bit differently. I’m more concerned that the church has largely accommodated to empire than I am about anti-culture sentiment. I realize that the sort of anti-culture sentiment can be a struggle, especially those who work in the arts. But, I would emphasize the reverse problem more strongly. Personally, I’m not too worried about a sort of provincialism–the problem with conservative evangelicalism, as I see it, is not narrow-mindedness as such, but a dangerous mix of legalism and pietistic spiritualism. I think you’ll agree with me, as I’ve heard you speak about this before, there is a strange sort of anti-fleshliness–a sort of body/soul dualism–that is present in much of evangelicalism. It seems to me that the loss of a theologically “thick” account of the body results not just in an anti-culture sentiment, but also a loss of political witness.
Ry
Ry,
Good words, in the truest sense of the word, “good.”
Some level of insularity has its benefits – the slowness to accommodate to the zeitgeist (again, only on some levels) may always be the gift the church brings to any time in which it finds itself. Chilled molasses is hard to reckon with in a world demanding at least some warm maple syrup (forgive me – it’s -20 outside today).
And yet, the narrowing of the mind has made many Christians wild consumers and politically naive citizens, while at the same time slowly transforming those who should be champions of beauty into whiny naysayers in a magical universe.
All of this darkens our witness (and joy) in the world of the arts, sciences, politics and beyond.
You are accurate in your suggestion that we’re coming at this a bit differently – most probably due to both roots and vocation. In my world, I begin each day combatting the greatest evil I can imagine – the blinding of the eyes to the ordo amoris (loving order) all around us, and the dehumanizing of those we are called to love.
In my mind, the lack of embracing of the shared imago Dei in all of humankind, and the “us/them” (covenantal distinctions that we’ve made human distinctions) worldviews that still thrive in the Christian world continue to toxify our thinking in all of the arenas about which you and I would deeply care.
I speak against, then, the dualism – from this vantage point.
I don’t always like it, but I’ve found that I have more natural affinity with the worlds of art (and even science) than I do with the world of politics, but I am on a sacred quest to become as holistic as I am meant to be in this brief lifetime!
For this reason, you rightly suggest, I may have an axe to grind with anti-culture sentiment in the church. It’s either a sense of mission talking, or my brokenness talking, or both.
The opening post statements about empire were less offensive to me than the suggestion that we can create a secular container for all the world’s values to be tossed into, and this will be our basis for “discernment.” I balk at these kinds of simplistic statements, mainly because they have reaked so much havoc in my own journey as an artist.
I.e. My goal is not that we “embrace culture,” or “embrace empire.” It is that we see that human beings actually are not stupid, worthless or without dignity until they pray a prayer. They are broken ImageBearers yet to respond to a covenant made with them. Their values are always mixed – like ours.
The statement made in the opening post that precipitates this conversation suggests that “whatever the world admires is probably not good according to Kingdom values.”
I am only saying that the “world,” though distorted and confused as to “who/what it is meant to be” is not that consistent. Sometimes the world values the “wrong thing” according to the statement above – i.e. forgiveness, healing, justice and mutual dignity. Oops. The world even, at times, leads the way in the quest for values that Jesus affirmed.
Eden is not far from Hollywood, Washington, London, Johannesburg or Baghdad – the attempt to travel between them is simply confusing. This confusion is exacerbated by fear of our own glory, and our illusions of grandeur. Thinking too little of ourselves and others, or thinking too much of the same, clouds our vision equally.
Many times, humans seem to recognize truth when they feel it in their bones – though seared in our conscience we are. All of the “world’s” values are not antithetical to God’s – they are usually distorted and despicable permutations of the truer values that something in the world’s soul is telling them they should hold.
I agree that a theologically “thick” account of the body of Christ would raise the tide in the arts, sciences and politics. We have much to learn, unlearn and re-learn.
Again, for all reading along, I want to say again that I do not want the church simply to embrace culture. In this, we perpetuate “empire” and the land is filled with shadows instead of light.
Rather want to embrace beauty and truth in whatever strange places we may find it, amplify it, and use it to call the world back to its purpose. In doing so, we carry on a dialogue with the world, calling people to be who they were made to be. In not doing so, we carry on a monologue with the world, telling people what they are not (and could only be if they took our brand of Christianity for a turn about the room).
I choose the former. I choose the dialogue. I choose the conversation.
I want us to permeate culture without perpetuating it. This takes love, an eye to see beauty everywhere, a stalwart heart that can confront the empire, and a vision of a future in which all things will be made new.
Thanks Ry, for bringing so many clarifying ideas to this.
“whiny naysayers in a magical universe” – YOU NEED TO WRITE THIS ARTICLE DAN!!
sorry – hit submit before I meant to.
Also wanted to note that this dialog shouldn’t be lost in your comments – each one of these responses deserves to be a blog post in itself , or a dialog for an article – I’m just sayin’…
Great conversation…I agree that culture is something to be engaged, nurtured, challenged, formed, and reformed—but ‘empire’ connotes something much more specific than the ubiquitous ‘culture’.
Just curious if anyone has read William Cavanaugh’s “Empire of the Empty Shrine”…?
http://www.catholicanarchy.org/cavanaugh/Cavanaugh%20-%20The%20Empire%20of%20the%20Empty%20Shrine.pdf
“For: The Institute Of Contemporary And Emerging Worship Studies, St. Stephen’s University, Essentials Blue Online Worship Theology Course with Dan Wilt”
The Institute – http://www.theworshipleader.com
SSU – http://www.ssu.ca
Dan Wilt – http://www.danwilt.com
Essentials Blue – http://www.essentialscourse.com
“Whatever the world admires is probably not good, according to kingdom values.” I find this statement in particular to be quite opposite to some of the things that have been reinforced in the essentials course (blue) as of late.
Specifically, we, as Christians, hold that God made a good world, and that creation is good. Furthermore, human beings are created in the imago Dei – they are good creations in this regard. Consequently, it’s hard for me to believe that ANYTHING that the world (comprised of human beings created in the image of God) admires is probably not good – both because human beings must be able to recognize and discern goodness in some form and because the world is replete with goodness – both of these things adhere to the theology of the imago Dei and the goodness of creation, respectively.
With regard to music and the arts, it seems like the world admires a great deal of what I would consider “good” music or art. In fact, to play into the distinction of the sacred and secular, it seems to me that the world’s art and music is often of a higher quality than that of the modern Christian industry.
Finally, I have learned that creativity in and of itself is good because it evidences the fact that God endowed human beings with an aspect (creativity) that he possesses to an infinite degree. If the world admires various forms of creativity, and creativity is good, then it seems to follow that the world is capable of admiring things that are good.
A good observation Dan. Another way of looking at it is that we are “for” the empire as Heather pointed out – we are for transforming the empire. Not by the tools, weapons, and ways of the this world or the “empires” of this world but by the Spirit of God working through us, by serving, and loving, and being the Kingdom of God here on earth.
Hey Dan,
I don’t usually think about stuff like this by choice because I often don’t have a clue what they are trying to say. That was true in this case as well. I had no idea what the person in this article was trying to say. What does it mean to be anti-empire? I have to know what that means before I can agree with it and say “yeah, that’s me”, or “no, I don’t agree with that.”
It really needed to be fleshed out a bit more.
So I appreciated your comments on it because then I was able to say, “ok, now I’m starting to see what he may have been talking about.” Thank you for explaining that the world or culture does exhibit or value love and forgiveness, charity and compassion. I think it does because Jesus came into the world and really set it on fire with these values and they have remained, even if people or the world/culture have forgotten their source. Perhaps we as the church just have a fuller understanding or picture of those values?? And then again maybe not – LOL! I also liked what you said about “their values are always mixed- like ours.”
I really appreciated R.O. Flyer’s comments as well. Man you guys can sure dialogue over my head! I must say I had a good laugh the whole way through reading you two back and forth, I haven’t come across so many words I didn’t recognize in a long time!
I need my dictionary! Ahhhhh….who knew I’d find some comic relief here among the philisophical discussion-ing…LOL
Thanks guys.
Suhail, I must say I appreciated your comments as well. Man we’ve got some real thinkers among us – rich in soul and spirit people.
Smiles y’all,
M
Dan writes:
“There is still much ground to be regained, and we need more bridges into the heart of this thinking in the evangelical world to reclaim not only the clear ideas about “empire” …but also to utterly clarify (if not change) the language of those that dominate pulpits, airwaves, music and media in popular Christian circles.”
After spending the last eight years of ministry attempting to purvey this exact message, I find that the fields are vast, and the workers are few. Sadly, there are multiple generations of people taking a strong stance against those younger who would find these ideas “obvious.” Sometimes the bridges are built only 1/2 way, and the other half is left gaping over open water as the “other side” refuses to even discuss making blueprints.
I find it interesting, albeit frustrating, to see evangelical leaders debating whether or not we should embrace or discard aspects of the current culture, while at the same time not even considering the need to address the internal generational divide that seems to grow every year.
Wow! I had no idea what I was getting into when I clicked on this blog. What an in depth and amazing conversation through all the comments here.
I have often also seen, as Dan said, that “The world even, at times, leads the way in the quest for values that Jesus affirmed.” I often feel ashamed as the Church that we aren’t the ones leading the way in some of the major justice issues in our world.
I also really identified with the end of Dan’s last long “comment”:
“…embrace beauty and truth in whatever strange places we may find it, amplify it, and use it to call the world back to its purpose. In doing so, we carry on a dialogue with the world, calling people to be who they were made to be. In not doing so, we carry on a monologue with the world, telling people what they are not (and could only be if they took our brand of Christianity for a turn about the room).”
I have personally felt somewhat stunted in my own growth as an “artist” because of well-meaning things said by well-meaning Christians who criticized me along the way about what they felt was a “holy” use of my gifts or not. I don’t want to be part of putting the same trip on anyone else. Whom am I to tell them how a gift from God should or shouldn’t be used? What makes the use of the gift “holy” or “un-holy” anyways? I want to embrace the gifts I see in others around me – whether sacred or secular – and be part of the dialogue as well!
Incoming Links
Leave a Reply