catapult magazine

in an attempt to keep the discussion on “wartime budget” going in a budgetary direction, i’m starting this discussion to talk about something mrsanniep briefly touched on over there.

she said:

my question is, couldn’t you pretty much twist that sentiment to say, “capitalism and christianity are completely irreconcilable, although, when looking at most north american christians, it’s very easy to confuse the two.”

i’m not arguing that either are perfect, both are flawed because of human greed (for power or money). but i think it’s far too easy to just completely discount either.

I’ve been away for quite awhile, so am just reading the long list of comments on this topic. Interesting.
A year or so ago, I discovered the writings of Vernard Eller on the World Wide Web. I was particularly taken with his essays on “Christian Anarchy.” I don’t do well with most writings on philosophy, and I must admit I got pretty bogged down in some of what Eller had to say. Still, I felt that he was getting at something particularly important to Christians, so I worked extra hard to understand what he was trying to get across.
In popular usage, the term “anarchy” is applied to disobedient – usually violent – acts or movements against society. Eller insists that anarchy has been given a bad rap, partly by those who label themselves anarchists and who do seek change through violence, but mostly because the term has been misunderstood and incorrectly applied to people and
movements that are really not anarchic, at all. He defines anarchy as neither for nor against some power or authority,
but simply NOT that thing. Using his own coined term “arky” to refer to any power or principality competing for our time
and allegiance (government, political party, school, church, social standards, advertising, etc.), Eller explains:

“‘Anarchy’ (‘unarkyness’), it follows, is simply the state of being unimpressed with, disinterested in, skeptical of,
nonchalant toward, and uninfluenced by the highfalutin claims of any and all arkys. And ‘Christian Anarchy’—the special topic of this book—is a Christianly motivated ‘unarkyness.’ Precisely because Jesus is THE ARKY, the Prime of Creation, the Principal of all Good, the Prince of Peace and Everything Else, Christians dare never grant a human arky the primacy it claims for itself. Precisely because God is the Lord of History we dare never grant that it is in the outcome of the human arky contest that the determination of history lies.” (Christian Anarchy, Chapter 1)

The message I get out of continuing to follow Eller’s rationale is that Christians should never think of themselves as,say, Capitalists or Socialists; Republicans or Democrats; Baptists, Methodists or Catholics; liberals or conservatives; Black, White, Oriental or Hispanic; or even American, Indonesian, or French. To do so removes us from full contact with the will of God
because God does not subscribe to any of these “arkys.” To be anything but a Christian is to dilute God’s power in us,
and consequently in The Body of Christ (all us Christians functioning together).

The phenomenon of Christians associating themselves with the philosophies of a particular political party illustrates
the problem and the danger. While one party may superficially seem to represent “Christian values” more than another
- particularly if they vocally proclaim themselves “Christian,” “moral,” or for “family values” – an objective look at their entire agenda, at the spokespeople for that agenda, and at they way they present that agenda to the world may reveal some decidedly “un-Christian” aspects. (I’m not letting the “other” party off the hook, here. While I personally think they come out doing more “Christ-like” things than does the self-proclaimed “moral” party, more often than not their agenda is cause-oriented, not Christ-oriented. Neither can truly be Christian.)

One of the reasons that Christians label themselves politically, denominationally, or otherwise is to add definition to
their beliefs. As one person said to me, the Bible leaves too many “gray areas.” It doesn’t give the answers for everyday
life. Belonging to a particular group, or espousing a particular philosophy, gives some concreteness, as well as a sense
of community. Sounds nice, but what if removing “the gray” also moves us away from God’s will?

The problem with Christianity is that it is full of “gray areas” – and it’s supposed to be that way. Old Testament law had an extremely rigid set of requirements and prohibitions. With Old Testament law, you always knew exactly where you were – or, at least, where you were supposed to be. Jesus replaced the rigidity with a framework of concepts and
attitudes (Be-attitudes, as somebody said in a song), with the Holy Spirit as our daily guide to living within the
framework. But concepts are hard; do’s and don’ts are easy. They don’t require a brain, or imagination, or compassion,
or even God (since there’s nothing God can tell us that isn’t on the list of do’s and don’ts). Lots of rules may make for a strong “religion,” but Christianity (if really embraced) isn’t a club we belong to; it’s a way of life. We do things (with the Holy Spirit’s guidance) because they seem the “right” things to do. The “gray areas” are only gray to us because we don’t know the right action or response until the time comes to make it. That’s where believing God’s promises and
trusting the Holy Spirit come in.

Wow Sandy. Great post.
Welcome back sir.
Does Eller ever give an excuse for specifying our positions on politics, art, social issues etc? I’ve never felt comfortable telling people I’m Christian Reformed over being Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, or any other denomination. It has always seemed at odds with Pauls statement of: We’re followers of Christ; so don’t say I follow Peter or I follow Paul. (or something to that nature)
Yet, there are times I feel it necessary and prudent to specify about my particular perspective. If the Spirit unites us and leads us to “live within the framework”, can there not be different perspectives on that framework with which to argue and discuss and strengthen not necessarily our positions, but our faith?
Unfortunately however, as I look at the church now, I see more dissension than collaboration because of arguements used to strengthen positions (We’re right; You’re wrong" mentallity).

If anybody wants to read more of Eller, his esssays are on the Web at http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/
If you?re interested in more of my ramblings on the subject, my essay ?Has Your Christianity Been Hijacked?? is at http://www.netcom.com/~symbios/hijack.html

It?s human – and fun and rewarding – to have personal opinions and personal likes and dislikes. It would be a pretty boring world if everybody had to like the same things. We don?t seem to have any trouble with personal likes or dislikes when it involves the arts or recreation, because I doubt that there is anybody who is just one thing. You may really like Stravinsky, but you probably don?t consider yourself a Stravinskyist, and you probably don?t find it impossible to appreciate Bach or Ravel. You may like Andy Warhol, but that doesn?t preclude your having considerable understanding and appreciation for the Impressionists. Why then, when it comes to economics, politics and organized religion, do we have to consider ourselves just one thing? While there may be some merit in labeling ourselves (although I don?t know what that merit might be), no thinking person – let alone a Holy Spirit-led thinking person – believes exactly what the hypothetical perfect Baptist, Christian Reformed, Conservative Republican, Liberal Democrat, Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist believes. Would you vote a straight ticket in an election, even when you know the person running for senator is a serial killer, just because you are ?a Democrat??

I?ve lived my entire life in the United States, and probably 90 percent or more of what I think I know about the world has been learned through the filters of being ?an American? (actually, a UnitedStatesian – there really are other ?Americans? who don?t think like us). I think our socio-politico-economic system is – at least in concept – ?the best in the world.? But at various times in our short existence (and now perhaps as strongly as ever), the United States has flown a banner that seems to be equal parts Stars and Stripes, Christian Cross, and Dow Jones Average. I can?t salute that flag. My Christianity doesn?t allow me to overlook the great wrongs that UnitedStatesism has perpetrated – and is still perpetrating – on ourselves and the world – unequal distribution of wealth, hogging of natural resources, discrimination, global warming, unjust wars, to name only a few. Also, my Christianity also doesn?t allow me to overlook that some other countries and governments have better – in fact, more ?Christian? – ways than we do of perceiving and responding to the various needs of their people and the rest of the world. As I said previously, I don?t believe a Christian can be just a Capitalist, just a Presbyterian, just a Libertarian – a Christian has to be Just A Christian.