I would say a better way with a better focus might look like withdrawal but it wouldn’t be and in fact would be more in line with our calling. Also, I would say deciding not to engage under current terms doesn’t mean you desire some Utopian experience at all but instead would be driven by a desire to have only one Lord, Jesus Christ.

I think Colossians 1:15-20 says it all.

I don’t agree with your assessment as to what would happen should Christians withdraw from politics, though I think Hunter does. Part of it comes down to what such a withdrawal would look like. I envision a rejection of partisanship, a refusal to align ourselves with any party or political movement. I do think the church should speak “prophetically” on the issues of the day, addressing them from a kingdom standpoint, rather than joining in the win/lose aspects of party politics.

I also think that we analyze much of this merely from the standpoint of modern democracies, failing to see that God’s kingdom has never been dependent on having an inside voice in governments of this world. We address the governments of this world as ambassadors of another kingdom, unapologetically speaking out for the interests of our kingdom, rather than the kingdom we are addressing. When the two interests coincide, great. But that’s not our goal.

I would move beyond Hunter’s “faithful presence” to imagery involving our being emissaries of God’s kingdom. As you said, we seek to influence the kingdoms of this world, all of them equally, speaking not as insiders but sympathetic outsiders.

Grace and peace,
Tim Archer

But we also must remember whence we came as evangelicals and apolitical Restorationists. Prior to Reagan, few of us were involved in the realm of politics at all. It was Reagan’s coalition along with preacher/politicians such as C0lson, Falwell and Robertson that led us down the path of embracing politics as a vehicle for cultural and spiritual change, and many of us in the Churches of Christ came to embrace this kind of view of politics after 9/11 and with the rise of an evangelical talking president, George W. Bush. Once “we” had power, we seemed trust it more and engaged fully.

I only bring this up because I think that I don’t wish to see us make the mistakes of either past. Total withdrawal from politics in hopes for some more utopian spiritual kingdom leaves the gospel without any significance for a significant force in our lives, namely politics, and thus we segment a part of our reality from gospel influence. I don’t wish to see our churches become silent on issues of the day, even when we disagree. On the other hand, we also must reject an understanding of politics as sheer power understood as domination. This is a kind of power that is contrary to the cross and to every spiritual principle of Jesus about how Jesus followers make impact in the world.

It seems to me that one solution is to view power as influence and not as domination. We all know that those who sometimes most influence institutions are those without titles but with real power (the church secretary, for example). These persons gain functional power (as influence) through service and through earned respect, not through quests for titles or position. Thus, Christians become influencers in politics, media and all other spheres that impact our lives, but they do not “seek” position in order to influence. There’s a fine line there, I agree — but it seems to me the fine line between “yeast” and thrones.

i really don’t see the force of his critique of Neo-Anabaptists here. The early Christians clearly used political language (“gospel” being a prime example). They definitely used language that had a blatant subversive ring to it. i don’t see how that this implies they were defined by what they were rejecting rather than standing on their own principles. And besides that, i don’t see how it’s much of a problem if they did. If Jesus came teaching principles that radically differed from those embodied by the empire and authorities of His time, then of course He’d had quite a lot of “correcting” and “reacting” to do. Does that mean He didn’t stand for something?

–guy

Having a conversation about the same book.

Hunter quotes quite a broad range of people when referring to “Neo-Anabaptists.” I have a lot of sympathy for this viewpoint, yet find Hunter quoting things that I don’t agree with. I too have a problem with this assertion. What Hunter advocates in the end is much like what I consider to be the Neo-Anabaptist point of view. I guess, like many things, much depends on your definitions.

Grace and peace,

Rex

plan to get this book, thanks again

Hope my comment wasn’t too harsh. I wasn’t perturbed with you, but with those that use such situations for political gain. As Hunter would point out, that happens on the Right and on the Left.

Read Tuesday’s post: Hunter will lay into the Neo-Anabaptists as well.