catapult magazine

Thanks, Matthew. Is there a place we can find Nick’s words? I’d love to read them.

Last week, Calvin College announced that George W. Bush would be the speaker at their upcoming Commencement ceremony, replacing previously scheduled Nicholas Wolterstorff. The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin [i:6ec433b489](free registration required)[/i:6ec433b489] expresses his confusion as to why the President would speak at a small, Christian liberal arts college, while the Detroit Free Press’ article includes some “interesting” Calvin facts in its sidebar. Though some students and faculty have expressed disapproval, President Gaylen Byker appears elated:

It is a great honor to have the President of the United States speak at Calvin. By virtue of his position, he is undoubtedly one of the most influential people in the world. We want our students to leave this place challenged and motivated to renew God’s world in whatever they do. For our graduates to hear from President Bush as they prepare to leave Calvin and make a difference in the world is an extraordinary opportunity for them. The presence of President Bush will certainly make this a Commencement that students, parents and the Calvin community will remember for years to come.

What are your thoughts? Do you think it’s appropriate for President Bush to speak at Calvin? Why or why not?

Yes yes yes. It might be very good for Bush to be exposed to Calvin College. Hopefully, students will show the power of John Calvin’s biblical reformational teaching by not protesting and boycotting and acting all oppositionary, but by proactively presenting better ideas for peace and the future in Bush’s presence. What a great opportunity for Calvin to impress one of the most influential world leaders with the power of reformational ideas over conservative Christian ones!

I would tend to disagree with your assessment, grant, though i agree it would be great if Calvin’s reformational worldview could influence President Bush in some way. Somehow, though, I don’t think the interaction will be significant enough to have the kind of effect you’re hoping for.

I think it’s important to distinguish a Commencement speech from a guest lecture. Commencement, it seems to me, is a celebration of identity, not a platform for sharing and debating ideas. As such, I don’t think the President, regardless of the individual filling the position at any given time, is a good choice for speaker.

My primary problem, as outlined in my open letter to Calvin (as if they’d actually read it!), is the symbolic connection of Christianity with empire. I don’t think we take seriously enough the competing allegiances at work here.

I hear you laurencer! I wonder if some of the people in charge of choosing a speaker quickly stopped their cursing towards the president and pooped themselves at the thought of him coming. I mean the only reason I can think of for having him go to mobilize the “future” at Calvin is because of his celebrity status… or in a biblical sense, his idol status. The connection between Christianity and empire are eerie. It’s all too bad…

I hear what you’re saying about the goal of a commencement address, laurencer, and I agree that there would be better forums for dialogue between Bush and Calvin College, but I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that we ought to avoid any connections with the Empire. Doesn’t the whole story of the book of Acts lead up to the climax of Paul meeting with the leader of the Empire? And it’s a very very happy ending, despite the fact that Paul is in prison.

I think this would not even be a topic on *cino if it was some other guy who is not a Reformational Christian, but for some reason—because it’s the president of the U.S.—woe, be ye careful! Despite the value the world gives to the Empire, Christians ought to see Bush only as another sinful person in an office that is very influential, not as the symbol of evil to be avoided for fear that people might get the wrong idea. Christians ought to encourage other Christians (especially Reformational ones) to pursue such an influential office. Do you believe Bush is not a Christian? Not a fellow brother in the body of Christ?

Yes, the empire should be subverted in a redemptive way by reclaiming what belongs to God, but we shouldn’t buy into the world’s notion of Bush as the most powerful person in the world or any such thing. What I mean is that Bush’s reputation should not be seen as so powerful that Calvin must avoid being swallowed up by it. If Calvin’s purpose in having Bush speak is indeed biblically-directed (which is the relevant question), then we should not let other people’s opinions of Calvin College’s actions lord our life. Christ ate with sinners in a culture where eating with someone was considered one of the most intimate things you could do. Certainly it was a symbolic gesture in his society, but most people didn’t catch the significance that was intended. Is that Jesus’ fault? Paul made a choice to face death so he could have an audience with Caesar. One could interpret this as a Christian prisoner’s powerlessness being put on display in front of the emperor, but Acts interprets it as a chance for the Word of God to spread to the top of Roman government despite (even because of) Paul’s chains. Bono has lunch with people at the World Bank and yucks it up with the Pope. What a sell-out! But Bono’s intentions are good, no matter what it looks like.

Are you arguing with a political slant or a social one Grant? or both?
Paul used politics to get his point across but he was using the Roman’s own politics against them to point the way to a greater power. Bush is coming from “the empire” to speak to those who (hopefully) are holding the truth. Regardless of Bush’s faith, Rob is saying (I think) that the nature of the presidency demands that the empire comes first, or at least supercedes the collective body of believers as the empire is comprised of believers and unbelievers. Maybe this would be more acceptible if, like Paul, his primary life-mission is evangelism. I don’t think it is.

Socially, Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors. The beauty in Jesus’ actions (washing the disciples feet, speaking to and healing the lepers) is that they are a part of the social agenda. I can’t help but see Bush speaking as part of a political agenda either in Calvin extending an invitation or Bush accepting it, not a social one.

And I think this a very unfair assumption:

I think this would not even be a topic on *cino if it was some other guy who is not a Reformational Christian, but for some reason—because it’s the president of the U.S.—woe, be ye careful! Despite the value the world gives to the Empire, Christians ought to see Bush only as another sinful person in an office that is very influential, not as the symbol of evil to be avoided for fear that people might get the wrong idea.

I think Rob would have written that letter if Kerry or any other big name politician were to speak because of the political implications.

Just a quick update on the Washington Post front: Dan Froomkin, who originally reported President Bush’s upcoming Calvin speech on his blog, is re-thinking his opinion of Calvin [i:3103a6cc43](scroll down to the “The Calvin College Rebellion” heading)[/i:3103a6cc43]. Apparently Mr. Froomkin assumed too much in his initial characterization of the institution:

On closer inspection, it turns out that Calvin College is not the bastion of the Christian Right it appeared to be. In fact, judging from my e-mail, it’s a veritable hotbed of those other Christian values — the ones that oppose war, work for social justice, and don’t think much of the president at all.

Daily Kos has an interesting response to the Washington Post coverage.

A few quick responses to your post, grant.

First, my comments are in the specific context of Calvin’s Commencement and should be read in the light of my understanding of Commencement as a ceremony of identity. Commencement in the life of a Christian academic institution is an annual opportunity to reconnect with the institution’s tradition and to challenge the institution to remain faithful to its distinct calling. Perhaps I’m making too big a deal of it, but this event seems incredibly important in the life of a Christian college.

Second, if we take the effects of sin seriously, recognizing that the [i:5370c7c3dd]whole of creation[/i:5370c7c3dd] its curse, then we are not merely dealing with an individual. We are dealing with entire systems—political, economic, social—that have betrayed their divine callings through the actions of millions of individuals throughout history. World political systems have long abandoned biblical norms, opting instead to follow the idolatrous values at the core of political ideologies from socialism to classical liberalism/free market capitalism. Christianity, since Emperor Constantine’s conversion, has grown far too comfortable with its relationship to empire and has co-opted its values in many ways.

Third, I didn’t say Christians should “avoid any connections with the Empire;” I said, “a Christian institution should be extremely wary of associating itself with the symbolic representation of empire.” Seeing Commencement as a celebration of identity is important here. By inviting the ultimate representative of contemporary empire into this ceremony, Calvin is symbolically taking the values of empire into its identity as an institution. Other venues would be far more appropriate.

Fourth, the only reason the President of the United States would be invited to speak at Calvin College’s Commencement is his position. Implicitly, then, the college is recognizing his “honored” status in the eyes of the world; in fact, Calvin’s press release seems to indicate that they’ve bought into the world’s notion of the President:

“It is a great honor to have the President of the United States speak at Calvin,” he says. “By virtue of his position, he is undoubtedly one of the most influential people in the world. We want our students to leave this place challenged and motivated to renew God’s world in whatever they do. For our graduates to hear from President Bush as they prepare to leave Calvin and make a difference in the world is an extraordinary opportunity for them. The presence of President Bush will certainly make this a Commencement that students, parents and the Calvin community will remember for years to come.”

Byker says regardless of one’s political persuasion the opportunity to hear from the President of the United States is a singular opportunity.

Finally, my main point in the larger conversation of how Christianity relates to empire is this: “we need to fully recognize and acknowledge ideologies competing for our attention before we can appropriately act.” I don’t think North American Christianity is even remotely close to discerning its responsibility as transformational conduit, primarily due to its inability to distinguish Christian values on both individual and systemic levels. As Miroslav Volf puts it:

Our coziness with the surrounding culture has made us so blind to many of its evils that, instead of calling them into question, we offer our own versions of them—in God’s name and with a good conscience.

Before we can go about transformational/reformational work, we need to first identify what it is that needs reforming and what it should look like (approximately, recognizing our sinfulness in humility) when it is reformed.

That wasn’t as quick as I hoped it would be … I realize I left a lot out, but I really need to be writing a paper right now.

Oh man. There is much to respond to here.

Norbert: In my Book of Acts example, I meant to compare Calvin College with Paul, not Bush to Paul. Which would put Bush in the Caesar spot, but here is where the comparisons break down: Bush claims to be a Christian whereas Caesar did not.

laurencer: Despite the wording change about connecting with the empire or being wary, I stand by my main argument. Of course, we ought not follow an evil empire (but what is evil about the American empire? This is the spiritual discerning we must do). We are to serve the Kingdom of God, which means we are not afraid of what other people think or the symbols they see if they are misinterpreting the symbolic significance that is truly intended.

I am afraid that the “subverting the empire” theme that many “progressive” Christians are increasingly taking up as THE theme of Scripture could be taken too far. Yes, historically the church synthesized the radical antithesis of Christian faith with many aspects of the Roman Empire. But we need not over-react to our past failures. Subverting the empire does not mean separating from it. My thoughts are guided by this verse in Jeremiah. Israel is in captivity to Babylon and Jeremiah writes a letter to the people of God,

“This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” (Jeremiah 29:4-7)

I don’t mean to use this as a proof text for all and every situation. I’m just saying that God doesn’t ask us to separate ourselves from His world. His aim is to keep His community together. Anything that threatens to tear God’s community apart is to be avoided. So when the Jews wanted to rise up against their Roman captors in Jesus’ time, Jesus wept for them because he knew that this kind of action would lead to the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of God’s people. Christ was calling for a different kind of identity that is not of nations or race etc. The Jews of his time (and still today) did not see this. They are still thinking in terms of separation.

I’m suggesting that Christians ought not reduce Bush merely to a symbol of the great evil empire, but as another sinful human being (who calls himself a Christian!) in an influential position. Again, I can’t speak for Calvin College’s intentions, but I don’t see any inaccuracy in what they have said publicly about the great opportunity they have to hear a president speak to them. It is possible to see these events in a different symbolical way than much of the world might see it. The world may see it as “progressive” Christians catering to the Empire, but we may see it as one of Calvin College’s graduates having a Daniel-like influence on the President of the United States.

There are lots of implications for and ways to expand what I’m trying tosay, but I’ll take a breather here and let someone else respond.

This is coming up on Saturday…it’ll be interesting to see (or read after the fact, more likely) what kind of speech he gave (hopefully not using it as a political platform), and what kind of protests went on (hopefully not using it as a political platform).