Very interesting post, thanks! Žižek's article is fascinating.

John,
To butcher a paraphrase: the American form of government is the worst that has ever existed, except for all the others.

Are you sure you are not being a bit naive regarding the history of society and the possibilities that are available in a fallen world?

Of course the United States is real, government is real, societies are real. They are not personal, but they are real. Is Israel, as a nation, not real?

How can God institute something that is not real?

Have you read Edmund Burke? Or how about de Tocqeuville? of Friedrich von Hayek? Or even the Federalist Papers?

Perhaps you have, but I am wondering what other government exists (no abstracts please) that you would exchange for the American Experiment?

Are you sure you have a clear notion of what totalitarianism is?

totalitarian - Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

The very fact that you are free to express yourself in such an open and free way is a profound gift secured by American notions of Government.

Pastor John,

I do sympathize with the idea (fact?) that the "modern/liberal/market-driven/nation-state" is a type of totalitarianism or oppression in its unique ubiquity and almost stealth like influence. I do think there is some truth here. But, if you were to ask a Holocaust survivor or a survivor of Soviet oppression if the complete freedom to consume, speak one's mind, write what one wants, worship where one will, and myriad other choices (however nihilistic) were simply the "inversion" of ovens, death camps, and firing squads, do you think they would agree? One does not have to be a blind defender of the USA or some misguided patriotic stooge to see that such a comparison is shallow and so part of the conventional "wisdom" of the old secular Left. Such thinking is beneath you--you are bigger than such a small view of things.

Dear Derek and Pastor Darrell:

Thank you for your responses. I hope in a few days to post some reflections on "free speech" based on some of the work of Talal Asad. I would contest empirically that one can "woship where one will" (in the past year I have been threatened for arrest for praying with a group in a foyer outside a courtroom, and we were prevented from gathering for a preaching service and food within a church by a government supported commercial development corporation for four months). I also don't think that one can consume what one will (I'd love to buy more books, but can't afford it!!), and many that I know can't consume basic goods such as housing and food and health care.

Yet I have some sympathy with Pastor Darrell's observations about the tired rhetoric of the secular left, and the concern to separate my rhetoric from it. I needed to make sure that I did not make a straight claim of "immoral equivalence" in my language of inversion of totalitarian claims. Some types of totalitarian are more directly malicious than others. I apologize for allowing such an interpretation to be possible from my post.

I would have to agree that the ovens, death camps, and firing squads do not have a direct equivalence in the history of the United States -- although we do currently have secret CIA prisons and government approved torture, and, historically, US sponsored death squads in other parts of the world. The United States has dropped nuclear weapons on civilian populations, and fabricated evidence to begin several wars (the Gulf of Tonkin and, in the Persian Gulf War I, not to mention II, a satellite photo was shown to be doctored that the US used to claim that Iraq was approaching Saudi Arabia with its troops).

That is why I want to look at the whole form of the modern nation-state as something that is in itself morally questionable, not its existence in its liberal or socialist forms. I want to learn appropriate discernment, and specific means of engagement and disengagement for my life and the life of the church. My concern is that I often get it backwards -- engage when I should disengage; disengage when I should engage.

Thank you so much for your thinking and praying with me!

Peace,
John

I also very much hear the

Derek,

I have read all those documents you reference as I was trained as a political scientist before I converted to Christianity. Before that, I was a cadet at the United States Military Academy. I was completely devoted to the U.S. nation-state as the hope for the world's salvation (and was willing even to give my life for it and command others to give theirs).

I think if you read those documents you will find that they confirm what Pastor John lays out in the body of his reflections. The Founding Fathers recognized very much what Hobbes described as the state of nature, what Milbank would call an ontology of violence. To butcher a paraphrase, the world is a rotten place, and left to its own will always end in chaos unless some form of order is imposed on it. What the Founding Fathers envisioned was a governmental system where government was limited to only what was necessary to play off competing interests. In other words, an antagonistic competition between self-interested parties where a government would regulate the conflict to keep it from spilling over into war.

To really grasp what Pastor John is saying, you must relinquish the language of liberal/conservative ideology that prohibits any kind of intelligent discourse in the US today. In this excellent post, he just points out why Christian theology, doctrine, and practice should help us to see that our hope of salvation is mediated to us by God through His church, not through the nation-state.

Since you referenced Tocqueville in your post, I will point you to this rough paraphrase from Democracy in America. He states that princes and tyrants are ultimately limited in their power because at the core all they can do is break bones to ensure compliance, but democracies are much more powerful ultimately, because they can reach into the heart and soul of a man and convince him that the actions of the state are his own. I don't believe that Pastor John was trying to equate the US with Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, but to point out that there is a very real liberal, capitalistic totalitarianism at play in the world today. Your post reminds me of the frequent assertions that began to be made in the 1890s when the U.S. began her bent towards global imperialism. At the time of the Spanish-American War, one frequent comment was, "My country- right or wrong. My country, nonetheless." What does it say when Christians are willing to embrace a nation-state even when they confess that she may be wrong?

For me, the question I would ask is how the Scriptures and Church tradition/history have addressed the issue of the relationship between the church and state, and even on whether the nation-state is real.

Grace and Peace,
Scott

What about the millions murdered through abortion in our country? Compare the number of their deaths in this country to the total numbers of deaths the Nazis were responsible for against Jews, Catholics & Gympies. This is just one example. It's a genocide going on right before our eyes, mostly against the poor...

"...there is a very real liberal, capitalistic totalitarianism at play in the world today". Scott, I still think this is inflamatory language and not an accurate description. Please give examples of how the American 'regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul.'

"What does it say when Christians are willing to embrace a nation-state even when they confess that she may be wrong?"

For me the response is analogous to my devotion to the Church. I embrace her because I know who she is, even when she may be wrong in some of her actions. She is a pilgrim and will, as long as she sojourns in this world, make mistakes, sometimes horrible ones. Never will that be a cause for me to cease my love and devotion in fighting for her to live up to her high calling.

Now I realize that the American Experiment is not ultimately divine in nature but I fail to see why a similar devotion is not called for in those who think the dignity of man and his freedom are at the heart of the experiment (and to deny that would be skepticism of a high order). The fact remains, however, that I have yet to see a form of government that comes near to ours. What are the alternatives?

"I was completely devoted to the U.S. nation-state as the hope for the world's salvation".

What drove you to such an extreme and utopian disposition? Wasn't that a failure of theology rather than polity?

"That is why I want to look at the whole form of the modern nation-state as something that is in itself morally questionable"

Again, what in the world do you propose to replace it?!! It is this kind of temperament that led to the Terror.

It seems to me that you are very nearly making the same mistake Luther made. The corruption and abuse of government are not a condemnation of the form of government but of the people who run the government. But you are never going to rid government of people. The key being is there a check on that kind of abuse and corruption so that it can be overcome? We will always have to cry out for justice and truth.

Can American goverment be improved? Absolutely. Are there serious problems. You bet. First and foremost:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9611/articles/bork.html

"To really grasp what Pastor John is saying, you must relinquish the language of liberal/conservative ideology that prohibits any kind of intelligent discourse in the US today". What? I fail to see where I employed 'the language of liberal/conservative ideology' in my post. I am by no means blind to our failures, but neither do I expect more from government than it is capable of securing. Why do you think there is no intelligent discourse on politics? There is all kinds of intelligent discourse if you know where to look.

Like I said before, ours is the worst form of government there is, except for everything else that exists. In fact, in comparison, the form is brilliant. Not perfect, or idiot proof, but brilliant nevertheless.

"The contemporary nation-state is merely a projection of human imagination, upheld by certain interests who benefit from such an imaginary construct." John, it seems to me that this is a very idealogical assumption and is at the heart of all that follows in your thinking. (Do you see the similarity between your quote above and the following, "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles?") But I think it is very bad philosophy and political theory. It appears very nearly Nominalism, and what a great tragedy that has been for the world.

"What about the millions murdered through abortion in our country?" Indeed. A great tragedy. And one which history will judge as such. But so was slavery. And I would still say, in the strongest of terms, that neither of these great tragedies can be blamed on the form of our government. In fact, our form of government and its inherent respect for the dignity of man is one of the very few that has existed that has a chance to overcome such tragedy. Gentlemen, we are in a war, but the form of our government is not the enemy. The fact that an ideological faction has highjacked the Supreme Court of our land in the last 50 years is no reason to condemn American Democracy.

Atheistic Humanism and all of her spawn are far more responsible. There is no just form of government for a people who have forgotten the dignity of man.

By the way, what atheistic philosopher (Zizek) has ever had a view of the world that has led to anything but horror? Montaigne, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Comte, Feurbach, Rousseau, Marx, Freud, right on down the line, have left the West in a terrible metaphysical mess.

Peace,
Derek

Derek,
"Please give examples of how the American 'regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul.'"

Granted, this is not always in the typical totalitarian ways of massive force; however, capitalism (at this point, I would argue that capitalism has surpassed and moved beyond the control of American hegemony) by its very nature seeks to destroy any mediating institutions that stand between the individual and the market (or the nation-state). It is hard for me to describe the cases you are asking for. I will point you to some books that I think make the case brilliantly, Torture and Eucharist by William Cavanaugh and Liberation Theology after the End of History by Dan Bell.

"For me the response is analogous to my devotion to the Church. I embrace her because I know who she is, even when she may be wrong in some of her actions. She is a pilgrim and will, as long as she sojourns in this world, make mistakes, sometimes horrible ones. Never will that be a cause for me to cease my love and devotion in fighting for her to live up to her high calling."

The problem is that you are viewing the nation-state, at least de facto, as the instrument of God's salvation. You cannot equate the Church and the nation-state, for a whole host of reasons, first and foremost because it is idolatrous. The language you use here is language used to describe Israel and the Church. It is common for Americans to use the same language to describe the US. But I ask, is the telos of the U.S. the same as the Church's? Explain to me how it is?

I really do not grasp how you see parallels to Luther and Marx in our posts, except that it is always easy to read someone as a liberal and then call them a closet Marxist. If anything, our thought is heavily Augustinian, though certainly with Anabaptist tinges. Interestingly, David that responded above is Catholic, and also hardly liberal or Marxist. I really am unsure how you see Terror lying behind what has been posted on this board. Again, it is the rhetorical equivalent of saying, "That sounds like Hitler."

"By the way, what atheistic philosopher (Zizek) has ever had a view of the world that has led to anything but horror? Montaigne, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Comte, Feurbach, Rousseau, Marx, Freud, right on down the line, have left the West in a terrible metaphysical mess."

Absolutely, I agree. But here is the rub. First, Pastor John was not saying that he was a follower of Zizek. He only stated that Zizek better understood American Christianity better (at least more critically) than American Christianity understands herself. Second, this is where I am unable to pin you down ideologically. American political thought from the very beginning, including the philosophy that guided the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was formed by just such godless, atheistic philosophers. Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu were hardly faithful Christian philosophers. In fact, their thought undermined Christianity in the West (Locke and Hobbes). Kant, Hegel, Hume, Freud, Nietzsche underwrite most of American political theory and practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. The metaphysical mess we find ourselves in is the product of our blind allegiance to the nation-state, caused by a lack of understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ and God's chosen instrument for salvation.

What drove you to such an extreme and utopian disposition? Wasn't that a failure of theology rather than polity?

Church led me to this position. Participating in a local body, learning to pray, learning to confess and forgive, learning to receive the Eucharist, remembering my baptism, regular worship, being called to preach the Gospel, being ordained an elder in the Church of the Nazarene. The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit revealing to me what is truly real in the world and what is absolutely nothing.

The failure of theology that I suffered from was the realization that the soteriology of the nation-state is false, that the nation is a parody of the church. I am content now to live by the practices of Christian faith, receiving the faith handed down by the saints, and learning how to lead the Church to proclaim the Gospel, administer the Sacraments, and live faithfully.

Peace,
Scott

The nation is a parody of the Church? This is an interesting idea, one that I'll have to ponder. Scott, in what way do you mean this? Do you mean that if there was no sin, there would be no need for nations? Do you mean that the structure and purpose of government is parody that of the church? If you mean this, how do you explain that nations existed before the Church, or even before Israel? Are nations thus a prophetic sort of parody? Or is this a specific statement, as in "our" (if you can call it that) nation, the US, is a parody of the Church?

Josh,
The idea of the nation-state is a recent phenomenon. The best discussion of what I mean by the nation-state as a parody of the church comes from William Cavanaugh's article in Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology. But the term, "nation", means something radically different prior to the Enlightenment, when the idea of the nation-state became more clearly defined and visible.

I cannot explain all of how this works, but the basic argument is also layed out in Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon.

Here is one brief example of what I mean: In the 19th century, Bismarck needed a way to wage war against the French, but he could not muster up the manpower necessary to field a huge, permanent army. the reason being that if the men were killed or seriously injured, their families would starve to death, without their main bread winner present. In response, Bismarck developed the social welfare system to provide pensions to the families of soldiers killed in combat. Thus, the men could serve in the military. The nation-state (Bismarck's proto-Germany) offers salvation (pensions and social protection) in exchange for service even unto death. This is a parody of the church. The state seeks to become the chief instrument of God's grace, and parodies the church by twisting that grace towards its own ends.

Peace,
Scott

Pastor John,
I too think we need to critique the very idea and legitimacy of the modern state including the USA and I applaud the efforts of the Radical Orthodox people, Hauerwas, and others in doing so. I especially think that Oliver O'Donovan is helpful here and I think that David Hart is helpful in his book "The Beauty of the Infinite" where towards the end he speaks of the Market and its power. And I applaud you as well. Still, if we do not speak differently from the Old Left, we will not be heard by the evangelical culture or even the culture in general. Do you want to be heard?

As to your response to my initial post: To the idea that you cannot worship where you will--again, go ask a Chinese pastor in the underground church movement who has more freedom to worship--you or him. Share with him your story of not being allowed to pray outside a courtroom and then compare that with what he/she is living through. I would imagine you would receive looks of incredulity. They would wonder, "Can he possibly be serious?" As to the freedom to consume--clearly you have as much freedom as the law and your income allow--something many cultures do not have. As to the rest, you again fall into the same way of thinking as the Old Left. Yes, the USA has made plenty of mistakes. But to say those mistakes, intentional or otherwise, are comparable to the crimes committed by Soviet/Nazis/Fascist/ or present day tyrannies is simply to inhabit a world where justice and truth mean nothing.

Darrell,

The problem is that you continued to be mired in relativism and quandary ethics. Of course, things are very different in China and were different in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. However, we do not pastor local congregations within those contexts. We pastor in the time of the self-proclaimed "end of history" when liberalism and capitalism claim victory over all rivals. It is imperative that in this context the church speak prophetically about the specific idolatries of her time which threaten to call the church to be less than the body of Christ.

According to your logic, all that can be stated is that the U.S. has made a few mistakes over the years; however, she remains much better than anywhere else in the world. How is that theologically sound, not to mention even good for the nation if you are a patriot. Is it not better to call the nation to live out the fullness of her own creeds, rather than to become chaplains that blindly bless anything she elects to do.

The ability to deceive ourselves is a powerful temptation within our context. The effects of the massive propaganda are clear when the best critique is one can offer is nothing more than the refrain, This is the thinking of the Old Left. If you read Pastor John's comments, you will find very little in common with the Old Left. Instead, you will hear the echoes of the Church historic, that indeed there was a time when there was no secular...

Peace,
Scott

Pastor John,

I'm just curious as to whether or not you agree with Scott's response to my last post. Or do you think he's missed something when he writes: "The ability to deceive ourselves is a powerful temptation within our context." After all, the Old Left and its thinking still dominates our secular universities, much of our literary and journalistic worlds, and much of the popular culture--it is still a very big part of our context. Does he think this ability to deceive affects everyone but himself? Maybe we all are susceptible to the effects of "massive propaganda" such as the old moral equivalency argument...

I only ask because in your intial response you seemed to indicate an agreement of sorts with my main point, which was simply that, yes, let's critique ourselves and the "state" but let's not fall into doing it in a way that hinders our efforts rather than helps them.

Best regards,

Derek writes: "By the way, what atheistic philosopher (Zizek) has ever had a view of the world that has led to anything but horror? Montaigne, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Comte, Feurbach, Rousseau, Marx, Freud, right on down the line, have left the West in a terrible metaphysical mess."

Two brief comments that aren't as important as some of the other issues others have raised above.


First, not everyone on the list given was an aetheist.

Second, there is a vast difference between something being a metaphysical mess and it being or leading to horror. I could give examples, but I doubt many would be interested.

Perhaps this will be a helpful way of thinking about the larger issues. There are political questions/issues and there are theological questions/issues. The two sets are neither completely overlapping nor completely distinct. But the issue that I *think* is driving John and Scott is that we need to address these two sets of questions/issues in the right order. People on both sides of the polical specturm have gone wrong in thinking primarily in policial rather than theological terms. Politics, like ethics, depends on ontology. But ontology is explicitly theological. To make the ontological claim that I am a creature is to make the theological claim that I am not the Creator, that I exist only as the result of God's grace, that there is a fundamental difference between my existence and God's.

Greetings from Kenya in the gracious name of our beloved Holy one the Lord Jesus Christ from whom we are forgiven and saved. We are greatly blessed and feel privileged
to know you through your website, learnt about your faith and your desire to serve God.

We are an independent fellowship church group in Kenya desiring to be established in your church ministry. We are independent in that we are without any cover,are not under any mission, ministry or church organization. We request for your Christian literature materials and bibles.

We pray that through God's Holy Spirit at work, that you shall appreciate our interest and desire that we might find a definite spiritual partinership with your church ministry.

May God richly bless you as we look forward for your feedback?

Sincerely in Chist mark
box 171-40204 Southern Kisii- kenya
Tel +254724241091