Donald Miller and Hauerwas, on the same team?

I would have never thought I’d associate Donald Miller with Stanley Hauerwas. Donald Miller is from my hometown of Portland, OR, and as such when he’s been to Calvin, I’m always really excited. His popularity confirms that where I’m from is a really cool place, which I believe but hardly anyone here really knows. When I picked up Blue Like Jazz last year, though, I wasn’t really all that excited about it. It was interesting, but I wasn’t going to go out and by the precious moments figurines of it or anything. Then, he came last October to Calvin, and I found out last minute and went with some friends. I was horribly disappointed, because that was in the last few weeks before the Presidential election, and he was here as part of Obama’s campaign team, of all things!!! I had written an article for the school newspaper explaining why I thought it was best not to vote, which I can assure you, hardly anyone really understands, let alone believes it themselves. So my friends and I got in a mildly heated debate as we left and I expressed my utter disappointment. But this year he came as part of a book tour he’s doing at 65 cities around the country. The book is displayed on the left, “Searching for God Knows What.” He even had an opener, which was a strange phenomena for an author, to me at least; she was another author who just read her book called “Angry Conversations with God” (Susan Isaccs). But this time, Don did not let me down. I really had low expectations after the previous year, so he way exceeded them. He told the story of his experience when his book was going to get turned into a movie, and how that got him on the track to realize that his life was too boring for the screen… which made him wonder what makes a story good? He then spent a lot of time studying narrative structure, which really excited me, because I think that was part of the problem I had with Blue Like Jazz. It did not have a narrative structure that I could really follow and appreciate, it just felt like it was so disconnected. In his lecture, Miller explained how when you are asked a question like “how did you meet your wife?” you will relate the story in the proper narrative structure, which is to say, express it as a character who wants something, experiences conflict, and then hopefully gets what he or she wants. Now why did I say he and Hauerwas are on the same team? Well, I admit, I am a Hauerwas fan, but I have not read as much of him as I should. I read Resident Aliens and it changed my life so completely, I’m a little afraid to read anything else because it can’t have that same conversion-experience effect. But I do know that what I loved about Resident Aliens from the very beginning (there were a lot of things that I had to be converted before I could fully appreciate, but this I loved from the first), was his chapter on story. I had a teacher in high school who taught the Bible as story, and it was amazing. Literally mind-blowing. Hauerwas, I know, is associated with the termed “Narrative Theology,” and although I don’t entirely know the intricate details of that perspective, I think Miller would subscribe to that view as well. Miller is different because he appeals to the popular culture, of course, and Hauerwas feels as if he has not been truthful enough if at least one student doesn’t get offended and leave his class. However, Miller said that he felt all of our stories were just the subplot of the epic story. Christ was not the climax of our stories. We only find significance in our stories when we associate ourselves with the overall story that appears in Scripture. WOAH! Really, Donald Miller!! Yay! This is wonderful! Now, I did hear criticism that the lecture was very self-affirming, because Miller did tell a ton of stories about himself. However, I thought it was sort of appropriate that while he was talking about how we should live our lives as if they were cinematic stories (that is, good stories) he constructed his lecture as a story in which he wanted to figure something out, experienced conflict, then is now in the process of doing it. For Miller, this happens in the form of a ministry he has started that equips churches to have mentoring programs for young men. (He himself grew up without a father, and cited many statistics of various criminals who grew up in households without a father as well). I look forward to seeing other things from Miller in the coming years.

Colleges in Poor Economic Times: Where Does Calvin Fall?

Upon recommendation of one of my teachers to read the New York Times, I get the headlines sent to my email every day. Usually I read the headlines if nothing else. I realize that’s sort of cheating… but that’s not my point. Today I actually read a number of articles, one of which caught my attention because it concerned a college from my home state of Oregon: Reed College. I’ve been to Reed a number of times, often for Latin gatherings, and it is well-known for both its academic rigour and anti-Christianity, despite being “free-spirited.” This article talked about how Reed had to pick students they thought were less qualified to be admitted because they had more money and could pay their way. No longer was the choice about only merit. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10reed.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th.

Within that article was a link to another article on the word “climbing walls.” The article was talking about how colleges were in the business of meeting consumer needs, although Reed was trying to resist that, because as Reed’s president put nicely,  “The whole point of higher education is we know something you don’t.” It’s not supposed to be about what the consumers have claimed they want so you give it to them. You offer them something that they don’t have and inspire them to want it: education. Maybe that’s too idealistic: maybe nowadays education is not attractive enough for people. People were once concerned with things like duty and honor but now are only interested in fulfilling their wants and their self-seeking: like the Dursleys from Harry Potter. (Thanks to Mr. Plato for making that connection so brilliantly: Voldemort is certainly evil. But so are the Dursleys, and they are the ones that we could easily become if we aren’t careful). Here’s the article I read about consumerism in universities: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/us/jacuzzi-u-a-battle-of-perks-to-lure-students.html.

So with these two things in mind, where does my own university fall? It has recently made a huge sports complex, undoubtedly for the sake of having a perk that attracts mainly athletes. I think if a vote had been taken with all the Calvin community as to whether that was a good idea or not… well those who weren’t excited about it might be in the minority, but they would at least be well-represented. But, what’s done is done. What’s next for Calvin is renovating the Fine Arts Center. New classrooms, and better facilities for music and other fine arts. That, I certainly approve of for its educational value, perhaps because one of my majors (English) is one of the departments being renovated. And, to be fair, I do appreciate Calvin’s understanding that we are embodied creatures and our bodies are important, unlike the Christian strain that is so platonic and only focused on our soul(er, form) that will one day be freed from our body and will get to go to heaven. Christ said the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! It is here, but not yet- but even when it is fully here, it will be a physical kingdom, not simply spiritual. But forgive me; I’ve run off on a non-related tangent.  I just hope Calvin does not fall prey to the patterns and habits of educational institutions in the world, and instead holds to a more Christian understanding of what it means to run an institution. That’s a hard balance, and I wouldn’t suggest that I would do any better. But I do hope that it is at least continually thought about.

Abstaining from Voting

I have heard numerous times during my time at Calvin, “This election is very important! You need to vote!” But rarely is it explained exactly why I should vote; it is simply assumed. The assumption is that as a Christian who lives in a democratic country, my right to vote is a blessing, and because of that, I should honor my faith as best I can by voting in a morally observant way. But what if the particular values I find intrinsic to my faith are contradicted by both the candidates? Do I pick the lesser of two evils, and find the candidate that most reflects the same convictions I do?

That is certainly an option that many Christians choose when as they decide to vote. But even if I do pick the candidate that I think is most “godly,” I know that my particular convictions are directed toward the goal of renewing the world and bringing about the Kingdom of God. Can I be sure that the candidate I vote for has that same goal in mind? As much as the candidates talk about their religious faith, is it too cynical of me to assume that they are simply using religion as another ploy to market themselves and their ideas? Perhaps they do have a genuine faith. But, at the end of the day, if it comes down to a choice between the Kingdom of God and the “Kingdom of America,” will not the President of the United States pick America? By voting for a president who will serve this country no matter what, am I not in some way placing an allegiance of country over my allegiance to God?

These are the concerns I have about participating in the American federal political system. But more than that, I am concerned that none of these options have been voiced openly in the Calvin community (at least not to my knowledge). Although those I have come in contact with have not expressed the belief that to be Christian is to vote Republican, or vice verse, it is assumed that whatever way a Christian votes, he or she is required to do so. Period.

However, there are a number of good arguments supporting an alternative Christian practice—intentionally not voting. Before I explain a few of them, let me be clear in saying that my purpose is not to say that the only option a Christian has is not voting. Neither is it to condone a lazy or apathetic attitude when it comes to the state of the world today (although a level of reasonable critique should be administered). It is not even to say that if one votes at all, he or she is wrong. In fact, I think that voting Christian-ly is certainly better than ignoring one’s faith in the “public” arena. My purpose is to open up the conversation by showing a different way of imagining one’s purpose as a Christian, and how one’s citizenship in the Kingdom of God might prohibit one from participating in the political workings of the kingdom of the world.

First, one must ask, what is the story of America, also known as the nation-state? Why did it come into being? What does it promise us? These are very complex questions to answer, and there may in fact be a multiplicity of answers depending on the interpretation of the questions, but for the sake of this article I will simply concentrate on one. The nation-state arose ultimately for the purpose of peace, gained through the notion of freedom. If we look at Locke’s description of government, he says that the purpose of government is to protect each individual’s property, which is to keep each person safe from harm, in a sense. However, the definition of freedom employed by Locke and the American myth is a negative one—individuals are freed from the interference of others to do whatever they want. This is very different from the Christian view of freedom, which has a positive goal, and claims that it is only by being bound to Christ for something—his Kingdom—that true freedom occurs. America is offering an alternative myth and an alternative definition of freedom than the Christian one. It could even be called “idolatrous.” In this view, to support America’s political system is to give validity to that idolatrous myth by participating in its rituals (of which voting is one of the most important. War, of course, is the other biggest one).

Another perspective is that voting is not just a “right,” but a sacred “rite,” implying that whether one is a Christian or not, one is religiously believing in something when one participates in voting.  Abstaining from it may be an act of witnessing to the world that our allegiance is tied to the worldwide body of believers, not to America. America is a concept of the imagination; we have to imagine that there is such a thing as borders, and that those borders separate us from “the other.” It is much easier to hate “the other” and go to war with “the other” if we have an “us vs. them” mentality.

Another aspect of politics that may prompt a Christian to abstain from participating is that voting is a strictly personal act. To abstain from it would be an effort to link ourselves communally to believers around the world, especially those believers in countries in which America is currently engaged in war.

These are a few perspectives. Now, you might be thinking, but when I vote I am really trying to love my neighbor as best as I can and imagine a nation in which all people flourish. That is a very worthy reason to vote. However,  here is my question: must the Christian’s duty to love his or her neighbor be mediated by the apparatus of the nation-state of America? Or does the church have an alternative politics that is not dependent on the nation-state to bring about the flourishing Kingdom of God?

Christianity and Politics

My interaction with American politics has certainly changed the last few years. A few years ago I had high hopes for becoming the first woman president. When Hillary was still in the running, that part of me was sadly disappointed I might lose my chance. I took a government class last year, and interacted with politics that way… but lately in my reading I have encountered a completely different way of thinking about politics. Authors such as Stanley Hauerwas, Willaim Cavanaugh, and most recently the authors of Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire, Walsh and Keesmaat, talk about America as an idolatrous version of Christianity. The nation-state demands our allegiance with our bodies in the public arena while Christianity has been privatized to the soul in unpublic places like home, or church. Unlike Jerry Falwell’s “moral majority,” this genre of thought focuses on changing people’s hearts by “being the church,” not forcing them to act in a more Christian manner by trying to change the empire’s laws.

So, as the political campaign is coming close to the climax, I find myself on a Christian college campus. I even happen to be taking a political science class, in which we will compose something similar to a wikipedia article that acts as a voter’s guide, informing the reader what each ticket’s position is on a certain topic. That article will even be published by the college newspaper. Politics is not limited to the classroom however; it is one of the top, if not the top, conversation topics.

From my association with the students, there seems to be a much larger republican population than democratic. In fact, the Republican students’ club is staging a voting drive, with forms and stickers and other political paraphenalia. Professors as well, say something similar to what Rick Warren recently said: the most important thing is to vote. This is a pivotal election, and, to give them credit, our Christian leaders feel that as educated Christian youth, we should try and renew this country by voting.

However, not once have I heard the option of not voting. Or at least, not as a deliberately subversive act; there are a good number of Canadian and international students who do not have the option of voting. Greatly indebted to Halden’s posts about this particular issue, specifically the ones discussing the book,  Electing Not to Vote, coupled with my personal dissociation from America as an alternative soteriology, it just seems almost ridiculous to me to concern myself with an empire that I don’t subscribe to and give validity to its myths.

Jim Wallis is scheduled to speak next week, and I am extremely excited about it. However, despite Wallis’ provocative title: God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get it, it seems that his leanings have been distinctly on the democratic side of things… defending Obama’s character as a fellow Christian, even if he’s not officially supporting him, etc. My hope is that the option of not voting is at least brought up into conversation. This is a very grace-filled place in all spheres, including academic and political thought.  There is determined action for the cause of the marginalized. A non-voter certainly seems to be in the margins at this point in time. Just something to keep in mind.

Another influence in this discussion has been James K.A. Smith, who has had a series of a few blogs on politics the last few weeks, particularly August 26th reference to Stanley Hauerwas’ announcement that he will vote for Obama. However today I encountered a more precise interview with Hauerwas, that is amusingly mostly about education, not about politics. Yet in the last few paragraphs the interviewer asks him about his advice regarding voting, and here is what he says:

[Don't] overestimate the importance of elections!

People forget that elections are not democracy. Elections are only the means to try to occasion the debates necessary for the discovery of goods in common that are impossible to be discovered without the debates. Elections themselves can be very coercive practices in which the majority gets to tell the minority what to do. So I think that the overestimation of elections as the defining mark of democracy, and how you even begin to think about democracy, is one of the things I would want to warn Christians about in this time.

I will probably vote this time, but I don’t always do so. I always think of Mike Baxter’s claim, “Don’t vote, it only encourages them!” But because Obama is symbolically such an important development, I’ll probably do what my African American friends tell me to do and vote for Obama. But I do think that the expectations his election encourage may become a deep problem, because there’s no way he can meet them.

This resonates with the opinion of another good friend of mine, Seth Johnson, who said, “Getting caught up believing that we can solve problems, that some miraculous man or woman will just solve stuff…
I think that unhealthy.”

Two other aspects of those quotes: Seth’s comment brings up the aspect of the election due to what Smith calls the religion of Americanism, religion that calls for a messiah. This has especially been evident with Obama this election.

But Hauerwas’ comment that his African-American friends are the ones influencing him to vote is a very respectable one.

This issue is certainly not black and white (no pun intended), and it would be ungraceful of me to propose otherwise.

Also, I recognize there might be a certain amount of dishonor read into this post being written on September 11, the day that has been inscribed on every American’s heart. I have no rebuttal for that, all I will say is that I respect virtuous people, even if I think their virtue was directed toward the wrong telos, God’s “common grace” (a phrase new to me that I picked up from my CRC friends) was certainly present in them, and they definitely deserve to hold the role of hero.

Agents of Renewal, Educating for Shalom

I am now at college. I’ve been at orientation for a week now, and in some ways, it seems way too long of a period for that sort of stuff. I would much prefer to meet my friends in the classroom than being shoved together in ice-breaker games that force us to have many conversations with many people in such short succession that nothing sticks. But, its near the end of the week and certain people are becoming more knowable to me, and vice verse.

But I know the college is intentionally spending a lot of time introducing us to the community, and that I can appreciate. The language of “conversation,” a very postmodern concept, I think, is brought out a lot. They are not trying to give us answers, or disembodied unconnected facts as I said earlier, but ask the right questions and let us wrestle with them. Their mission statement, to be “agents of renewal, in the academy, church, and world” is not seen as an simply thing, but something to be discussed and that has huge ramifications and depth. Even the word “orientation” is defined, by returning to the roots of the word, the navigational term for facing east. The orientation is meant to chart our course during the supposed next four years that we are here.

Two of the orientation days specifically have impacted me exceedingly. The first was the day we did service-learning. It was the first day I started getting to know the group I had been placed in, and I got to encounter them by seeing their selflessness and hardworking care for the poor, which was awesome. We were at a low-income housing facility, cleaning up houses that had been abandoned. So on top of getting to know the group (well, half of them technically) I encountered stories of brokenness through the objects left behind, sometimes pictures, sometimes evidences of crack. It was heartbreaking and at the same time showed me their stories, placing me in their shoes. And we were providing manpower for the organization that was severely underfunded.

The other really exciting day was the one that talked about the Reformed-ness of the school. One of my favorite authors and postmodern philosophers is Dr. James K.A. Smith, more commonly referred to as “Jamie” around here, opened the day about what it meant that we are a “liberal arts college.” One of the other professors even went so far as to say our major doesn’t matter. The language he used was so close to the language I used in my paper on classical education, it was a little scary. He stressed that its not about wealth, power or status or occupationally oriented, but that it forms the person, showing what the “good life” looks like. It shapes our desires, and forms what we love, and that love gives rise to “what really matters” and provides some knowledge. And with knowledge comes responsibility to the Kingdom.

The most beautiful part was the encounter with a movie. Film and music are highly valued here, more so in recent years than in the past. They’ve always been able to write well and succinctly, but now the focus on what’s normally referred to as the “arts” is complementing that quite well. He showed a clip from the movie, “Little Miss Sunshine,” that showed a family that wasn’t prestigious, wasn’t beautiful, weren’t successful. But they did know how to do one thing really well– Love each other. That is what the kingdom of God might look like… to use Rodney Clapp’s language, we are called to be a “peculiar people.” And we should not wait for said kingdom. As Kuyper said, “There is not one square inch of creation over which Jesus Christ does not say, that’s mine!” It is our job to be agents of renewal, bringers of shalom for that Kingdom.

Greetings from College

Note to students everywhere:

“Our prayer is that, in a world that has commodified knowledge, you will be saturated with the holistic, intimate knowledge of God’s way with the world that he has created. May your lives be characterized not by the accumulation of disembodied, unconnected facts and information but by a playful, history embrancing, this worldly, interconnected wisdom that traces the wise and loving way God engages this world in all its rich diversity.”

Loosely based on Colossians 1:9-10. Found in Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire by Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat, p. 40.