In his new book To Change the World, leading faith-and-culture scholar James Davidson Hunter describes the misplaced efforts by both conservative and progressive Christians in recent decades to change culture through law and politics. In my view, Hunter’s deconstruction of the Church’s complicity in fostering unproductive culture wars is nothing short of prophetic. But what does Hunter offer in place of political change? The phrase he wishes to promote is “faithful presence.”
“Faithful presence” does not imply that Christians should withdraw from law and politics. Indeed, Hunter also critiques the “neo-Anabaptist” approach to culture, which is at turns loudly combative and unrealisticly pacifistic. “Faithful presence” does mean, however, that the Church should not seek to “transform culture” by winning in the judicial and legislative arenas.
There are two reasons why this Quixotic quest should be abandoned. First this quest is, in fact, Quixotic; culture simply does not “transform” when laws change, at least not in the way that Christian culture warriors suppose is the case, and certainly not in ways that anyone can confidently predict. Second, this kind of quest is not consistent with the missio Dei.
This latter point, I think, is one that Christian and other religious legal scholars should explore more carefully. How did legal and political change become so central to the mission of the Church? Why does the political discourse in American Chrisitian churches, at least at the popular level, so rarely rises above the bar set by the Fox News Channel? Why do many of the messages we receive in our email inboxes from parachurch organizations read like paranoid radical libertarian hate mail (or, if the organization is “progressive,” like Marxist propaganda)? Is this what we believe life, death and resurrection of the Son of God, and the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, are all about? As religious legal scholars, how can we help shape conversations about law and culture in ways that reflect a humble “faithful presence” rather than a drive to “win” at all costs?
Hunter predicted that his proposal would generate significant opposition, in no small part because the warrior mentality is now so engrained in our spiritual DNA. Not surprisingly, for example, in a response to Hunter’s book in Christianity Today, Chuck Colson dismissed the notion of “faithful presence” as “quietism.” This sort of response baffles me. Whatever happened to Romans 12:18: “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone“? It seems the Apostle Paul lacked a sufficiently Kuyperian / neo-Calvinist take on culture and politics.
I do, of course, appreciate the push-back that some great moral movements in history were motivated by a form of religious engagement that seemed like more than “faithful presence.” The abolition of African slavery is Exhibit A in this regard.
And yet, upon closer examination, slavery is a curious case because the justification for slavery in the American South became increasingly “Christian” as the country careened towards the Civil War. What if the Southern Presbyterians had exercised “faithful presence” in the antebellum years, rather than insisting that African slavery was part of God’s providential design and branding the abolitionists heretics? The drive to eliminate American slavery was not a case of Christian abolitionists fighting against pagan or atheistic slave owners. It was, tragically, in addition to all its other historical, economic and political dimensions, a contest of competing Christian theologies. It seems to me that this cannot be compared to what the Church’s political presence should look like in response to openly anti-Christian culture. (Anyone who argues for slavery as a case study in Christian cultural engagement should read John Patrick Daly’s book When Slavery Was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War.)
In short, “faithful presence” seems to me exactly what Christian faith requires
5 replies on “Faithful Presence”
I found the “faithful presence” thing a little hard to figure out in terms of what it means at a practical level. The difference between “presence” and “absence” is easy, but what would a “faithful presence” look like for the Christian passionate about law and politics? Would it look much different than the Religious Right or Religious Left? Is it just more thoughtful?
JHM — great question. I agree, the “boundary,” if we want to use that word, between “faithful presence” and other forms of cultural engagement is fuzzy at best. But let me offer a couple of illustrations that for me at least illuminate the difference.
Here, I think, is a narrative that goes beyond “faithful presence” into something unproductive:
When I think of the opposite of “faithful presence,” what comes to mind first is Colson’s infamous First Things diatribe in 1996, in which he stated:
To me, this is a place at which “faithful presence” clearly and obviously crosses over into something very different, very frightening, and very, very wrong.
As one good example of the sort of rhetoric and spirituality this kind of deeply misguided view of cultural engagement creates, here’s something from a Family Research Council email I received a while back relating to the California gay marriage issue, under the heading “Here Come the Grooms”:
These folks really believed that a change in the law of California could “undo thousands of years of natural marriage” and trigger massive social chaos! Somewhere along the line, they forgot that “marriage” is first something inherent in the created order, second a sacrament, and only derivatively something encoded in civil law. Even a law purporting to outlaw marriage altogether couldn’t “undo thousands of years of natural marriage” any more than a law purporting to criminalize gravity could “undo billions of years of gravitational forces.” How did law become such a power for these folks?
Here is another example, from a Concerned Women for America website on the Matthew Shephard Act:
The CWA site, consistent with other religious right organizations, informed the faithful that gay people were trying to control their minds. And people ate it up.
Put together things like Colson’s “revolution” quote, the FRC “social chaos” email, and the CWA “thought control” website … and it’s no wonder that many ordinary people are frightened by what has become of religious cultural engagement — and no wonder that wiser people such as Hunter want to find a more balanced and patient approach.
Now, here is something I think is a great example of “faithful presence”: The Institute for Global Engagement. Here you won’t find alarmist rhetoric or shallow thinking. There’s a scholarly journal, monographs, respectful dialogue, and active diplomacy, from a religious / Christian perspective, focused on the poor and marginalized, yet pragmatic and realist.
Maybe I’m wrong, but to me the sensibility demonstrated by IGE is the kind of thing we should be about.
“Faithful presence” has a beautiful way of calling us into faithful living while trusting God’s sovereignty. This morning I was journeying through Habakkuk with a few friends. Habakkuk, the questionnaire of God’s justice, could have easily been tempted toward a “hurried presence” or a “fearful presence” like many Christians in our world. However, two phrases were brought to my attention by the Holy Spirit as we read together. The first was “The Sovereign LORD is my strength;”…the second was, “but the righteous will live by their faithfulness.” I can see how living in a place of “faithful presence” allows us to live gracefully and peacefully towards all those around us while still actively engaging in God’s mission of bringing heaven to earth. Thanks, David, for bringing Hunter’s thoughts before us.
OK, I think I’m getting a better handle on the “faithful presence” thing, but I have questions about your counter examples.
Regarding Colson’s comment, how would a German Christian of the 30s and 40s practice “faithful presence” in the face of Nazism. I would think that during that time revolution as a last resort would have been a justified thought by Christians. It’s an example I have been thinking about lately (“what would I have done?”) and one that is historical, even if extreme.
Regarding the FRC and CWA quotes, these seem like typical American political rhetoric. It seems to me that our culture is so snippet/drama focused you have to say extreme things to 1) get the message in the media where people can hear it and 2) get people off their couch and actually do something. This is why Fox News and MSNBC exist. So is the issue here a lack of “faithful presence” or perhaps more an instance of using the “world’s” tools and being too pragmatic instead of taking the “high road”? I guess some of what I’m wondering is if it’s a quantity problem (we’re too dramatic and political) or a quality problem (we’re totally thinking wrong, on the wrong side of issues, etc.)?
In the USA Colson’s dilemma is a real one, and we can’t really blame him for being upset. We set up our gov’t deliberately as being one which can exist only by the consent of the governed. While we tried to achieve this goal through peaceful elections, the fact that we started the whole shebang with armed revolution kind of makes the whole project problematic.
I don’t interpret the bible to demand abstention from arms, but I do agree the bible suggests the fallen soul too easily trusts in arms.
As for the CWA, etc. rhetoric–that is a problem. The issues these people point out are genuine, and because of our cultural pluralism, it is often thought that screeching is necessary in order to be heard.
Perhaps what these press releases should say is “Christians, nothing that a politician does will ever tear down or thwart God’s work. Nonetheless, it is your absolute duty to vote against these measures.” Keep the rhetoric reasonable and stop fearing that donations will slow down as a result. The people with the megaphones have to start trusting God first, if they really want their hearers to do the same.