Second Terrace

democracy and authoritarianism

I had an interesting discussion yesterday. "Interesting" here is a euphemism.

 

I had proposed that in looking at contemporary moral problems, that we should deepen and broaden our gaze -- well beyond the "hot-button" issues that have been exploited by partisan politics for about five decades.

 

One issue has to do with the American form of government. We are a constitutional republican democracy. The constitution makes it clear that the government derives its power from the consent of the people governed -- hence, "We the People," etc.

 

I proposed that such a political system is a superior, and more moral, form of government than any other in history.

 

In general, all other forms give power to individuals or small groups who do not have the consent of the governed. These systems are "authoritarian."

 

Authoritarian governments come in different forms: monarchies, oligarchies, plutocracies, and theocracies.

 

What is troubling is that there are many American Christians (Protestant Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox) who prefer authoritarian systems over democracy.

 

They do this for various reasons. Democracy itself is blamed for allowing, even encouraging, the advance of secular modernism. Democracy, it is said, advances the loss of Judeo-Christian morality and the rise of atheism.

 

"If only we could have a Christian king, or a tsar, or some kind of theocracy," the thought goes.

 

This thought is hardly unprecedented. It has a long and terrible history. People who have advanced this thought, more or less innocently, have unwittingly aided and abetted the rise of tyrants who may have started out benefiting their Christian sponsors but ended up betraying them, too -- eventually sending them off to concentration camps, canceling their own liberties of speech, freedom of movement, and even religious assembly.

 

Christians who support authoritarian politics (that is, who adopt the ideology of authoritarianism) are naive.

 

And they are also engaged in immorality. Democracy -- as secular and liberal as it indeed is -- is based on the fundamental idea of individual liberty. This priority of individual concern is deeply related to, and completely reliant upon, the "personalism" of the New Testament.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" is an essentially Christian statement. It could never have been possible without the Lord saying "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me."

 

Christians should be thankful that they live in a democracy. Yes, it is a "liberal democracy," as democracies must be. There is no such thing as a democracy that prefers or advantages Christianity. A democracy cannot permit or tolerate the establishment of any religion: it must be essentially "secular."

 

Democracy must, for it to remain democratic, separate church and state.

 

The church has no business colluding with the state, as the state must wield violent and dominating powers of coercion, even the power to inflict death. The early church, in its first generations, refused to permit its members to enlist in the government just because that required participation in death.

 

Many Christians forget this -- or, more likely, they deliberately disregard that historic truth: the "Seven Mountains of Influence" folk (C Peter Wagner's "New Apostolic Reformation" group) ... Roman Catholic Neo-Integralists like Adam Vermeule at Princeton ... Orthodox monarchists (or "neo-tsarists") ... so-called "Christian Nationalists" (which is a terrible oxymoron).

 

I worry that too many of my fellow clergy and co-religionists are so tired and fearful of modern challenges that they pine away for some easier, more "Christian-friendly," society. Like a nice theocracy. The trouble, though, with "theocracies" is that there is the real "Theos" is never present, but is represented by tyrants who might give ceremonial lip-service to God, but don't really know Him.

 

I suggest to clergy and laity, hierarchs, prelates, and big-box church CEO's that it is a far, far better thing to be Salt and Light in the world as it is, rather than wishing for a fantasy. It is better to make like the catacomb Christians who really did turn their world upside down, than to play, like basement nerds, ecclesiastical D&D.

Seminaries ought to spend a lot more time in theological education preparing new clergy for a confident, winsome witness to the Gospel in liberal democracy. They should get away from fostering a cult of grievance and withdrawal. In my own community, Orthodox seminaries should never promote the unhelpful cliches of the so-called "culture wars" or ridiculous notions like "soft totalitarianism." Is it too much to expect that seminaries, at least, ought to be able to distinguish socialism from communism, to critique materialistic philosophies (both communism and capitalism). Instead of hiding behind the white picket fence of hot-button issues, or complaining about universalism and the penchant of certain authors for their rhetorical style, it would be more profitable to ask why infernalism has become such a positive emphasis. Or how trinitarian kenosis has become eclipsed by power and domination. Or how the aristocracy has made so many inroads in a community that originally formed around a penniless itinerant prophet.

These questions should be more prominent in "priestly-formation." Better this than edifice-complexes and marching off to insurrections.

I am burdened with the anxious sense that Orthodox seminaries have abdicated their responsibility of authentic prophetic critique, and have latched on simplistically to the easy and broad path of fundamentalist complaint. 

The fundamentalist theocratic agenda is a deliberate preference for authoritarian ideology. And, it must be said, ideology always displaces theology. The desire for a "Christian strong man" is not only unpatriotic. It is also simplistic fantasy.

 

The trouble with political fantasies is that the antichrist feeds off such fever dreams.

 

So, I proposed that any attempt to supplant American democracy with a more authoritarian form is immoral.

 

Not surprisingly, a few correspondents carted out that old and boorish non-rebuttal (and very non seqitur) "I don't know what authoritarianism means."

 

Well, now you do.

on violence, masculinity, and the righteousness we've forgotten

False masculinity and violence

We in the Christian community, especially clergy (and in my case, Orthodox Christian clergy), need to have a long and deep conversation about masculinity, what it should be and what it is not.

There are Christian writers who suggest that males growing up in America are somehow neglected, somehow repressed in their masculinity. Somehow they suffer because their "boyhood" is not celebrated enough, because they haven't been encouraged to go out and play in the dirt, play cowboys and indians with popguns and later, discouraged from wielding and shooting their weapons of choice.

There are some Christian writers who insist that men possess a divine right to dominate their relationships, especially with women and their families and institutions -- a domination that others like me who recognize as oppression and tyranny.

And there are Christian writers who encourage this mythical arc of grievance, these narratives of self-pity, and identify the "enemy" of masculinity as the liberal secular order of egalitarianism -- an order that displaces the male with "others." And since the male-dominant order is said to be divinely-established, the liberal secular order should be resisted and replaced.

Such writings, which may be putatively "Christian" and are merchandised by Christian publishers and websites, are not actually Christian.

Christian masculinity is not defined by oppression and domination -- even in its own New Testament setting. If headship is discussed, it is immediately re-defined and radicalized as complete self-sacrifice and denial of ego. At no moment is the Christian male ever permitted to demand his own position of power or his own "rights."

Simply put: there is no such thing as "Christian male libertarianism."

The masculinity that is thrown around in discussions of "complementarianism" and "headship" is most often a complete distortion of the simplest meaning of discipleship, of following Jesus Christ and bearing His Cross.

In this culture of grievance and extremism and the weekly tragedy of mass shootings, in which young adult males fester and languish in Discord and 4Chan sites, where they gather into fascist cults and willingly commune with cults of nihilistic violence,

We clergy need to step up to our moral responsibility.

We need to tell young adult males that they are replacing the Gospel with a religion of grievance and nihilism.

We need to redefine Christian masculinity in terms of meekness, servanthood, and the kenosis of bearing one's cross.

We need to preach against the cult of domination and violence and extremism as the "new pornography" -- because that is exactly what those themes are.

We need to foster a culture of peace and true righteousness -- a righteousness defined not by the simplistic notions of the culture wars, but a righteousness defined by the Sermon on the Mount.

Why, why have so many of us in the pulpit on Sunday mornings spent so much time railing against liberalism and secularism, CRT and BLM, and not nearly enough time teaching about the Beatitudes?

I think we preachers, all of us, are guilty of allowing a corrupt definition of righteousness to fester and rise, a definition that contradicts the Gospel and is mostly a libertarian promotion of self -- self-identity, self-pity, self-costuming, self-arming, self-defending, self-vengeance-taking.

Righteousness (and its counterfeits)

Righteousness.

Now there's a term that conjures up, all too often, images of judgementalism and legalism. A litany of "Thou shalt not's." The infamous "Church Lady" on SNL. Ragged apocalyptic echoes of Michael York acting out John the Baptist in the desert.

These are, it can be argued, very "Old Testament" images of righteousness, and they don't even do the Old Testament justice.

Not only is the term "righteousness" misinterpreted, so is the Old Testament in general. For Christians, the event of the Incarnation changed everything. The LXX and the Masoretic text, from that moment onward, were to be interpreted Christologically. "Enemies" in the Psalms could no longer be interpreted as human, but only as the spiritual oppression of the demonic (without any attempt at ontological definition). Genesis could no longer be confined to the human materialistic conventions of science and history. There could no longer be a "literal" interpretation of the genocidal accounts in the Pentateuch, Judges (especially), and I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, I & II Chronicles.

Everything had to be subjected to a deeper, higher, more spiritual interpretation, only in terms of the Godman, Jesus Christ, the Ascended Lord.

And this Lordship is of a radically different governance. It is not the power of coercion and death-wielding. And it is the revelation of what "Judge" (i.e., "shaphat") really means -- not how it was almost always reduced to in history, like Gideon and Ehud, and especially its worst reduction of all, the "king."

"Judge" means "establisher of righteousness" and "restorer of justice." The meaning of that term is a far, far larger concept than the weak Western courtroom image of a black-robed figure, wielding a gavel, handing down impartial (hopefully) decisions of guilt or innocence.

The righteousness of the Old Testament is also a concept that is far larger than the cartoonish images that we associate with legalism and fundamentalism (of all religious stripes).

Righteousness, of course, is climactically defined by the Lord in the Sermon on the Mount. But it should have come as no surprise as it grew in meaning, depth, and scope through the ages of the Old Testament, as can be seen here.

The righteousness proclaimed by the Prophets is a far more humanistic theme than what is usually depicted. And it is only an assumption (and I think a very wrong one) that we depict John the Baptist as a half-crazed wailer in the desert, shrieking like an amalgam of Savanorola and a hellfire-and-brimstone camp meeting preacher.

Are we that sure that the Forerunner, the Friend of the Bridegroom is not meek as the One Who said “Blessed are the meek”?

And here is the exact point at which we clergy have not stepped up to our moral responsibility.

We have preached a "righteousness" that is too individualistic, too subjective, too confined to what many call the "mystical."

We have modeled a "righteousness" that is too much on display as an outward, costumed antagonism against "society," at the expense of the winsome persuasion, in love and servanthood, as "salt and light" in the neighborhood of our world.

We have reveled in dark utterances like "death to the world," wrongly-interpreted apocalyptic texts and feasted on schadenfreude-laden eschatologies.

How is it possible that out of the same mouth can proceed “Death to the world” on one side, and “Beauty will save the world” on the other? Not to mention “For God so loved the world.”

We have told the world that since it's going to hell, and that we are the ark of salvation, then it doesn't matter how high we perched the door of the ark and how steep we've made the ramp up to it. We compass sea and land to make one convert, and when he is made, we've made him twofold more the child of hell than ourselves.

What is the righteousness that the prophets (and their successors, the Apostles, and the Fathers and Mothers of the Church) prophesied upon and called society toward?

The standard of judgment is and always has been the Personality of the Holy Trinity itself.

And that Personality is full kenotic love, of self-donation without reserve. A servanthood, feet-washing love.

And the Creator desires that this Personality be reflected, mirror-like, in Creation and especially in His Image.

So real, true Righteousness must be the objective of our preaching. Righteousness is the peace that passes understanding. Righteousness is mercy and forgiveness. Righteousness is the establishment and restoration of justice. Righteousness is the stewardship -- not consumption -- of the Six Days of Creation, the land and sea and the air and everything that is situated therein.

Righteousness rejects violence. It will never bless guns or tanks or submarines. It rejects the sword -- and everything that this sign of death symbolizes.

Righteousness is a spirituality that knows no clear divide between the individual and the social. Righteousness rejects any materialistic economy.

Righteousness admits only the hierarchy of servanthood, the first being last, just as it is so in the celestial hierarchy. There can be no Christian imposition or coercion from above.

Righteousness is hopeful of human endeavor and work in the world.

We are horribly wrong in condemning any progress in civilization as hopeless or meaningless. We have no God-given warrant for saying that peace is hopeless until the Second Coming: Jesus is present with us, and He said "Blessed are the peacemakers" for the here and now. We default on the Great Commission when we do not try and hope for peace at every level -- in our personal relations, in our neighborhoods, in the nation and the world.

"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness" is an imperative that extends far beyond and above the stereotypes of the culture wars.

Expedient politics can never be the object of true righteousness (even under the rubric of “the common good”). True righteousness can never participate in “single-issue” or extremist politics: we teachers and preachers and authorities will have to answer for each and every earnest soul who has been earnestly wrong, and marched down the evil road to violence.

Because of what we've said. Or left unsaid.

But it is indeed and always has been the "substance of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen."

It is indeed the city that we long for, the New Jerusalem descending.

It's high time we all preach that way.

notes on righteousness in the Old Testament

Righteousness in the Old Testament

“Generally, the righteous man in Israel was the man who preserved the peace and wholeness of the community, because it was he who fulfilled the demands of communal living. Like Job, he was a blessing to his contemporaries, and thus צדק is sometimes correlated with “mercy” (Hosea 2.19). He cared for the poor, the fatherless, the widow (Job 29.12-15; 31.16-19; cf Deuteronomy 24.13; Proverbs 29.7), even defending their cause in the law court (Job 29.16; 31.21; cf Proverbs 31.9). He gave liberally (Psalm 37.21, 25-26; Proverbs 21.26), providing also for the wayfarer and guest (Job 31.31-32), counting righteousness better than any wealth (Job 31.24-25; Psalm 37.16; Proverbs 16.8). He was a good steward of his land (Job 31.38-40) and work animals (Proverbs 12.10), and his servants were treated humanely (Job 31.13). He lived at peace with his neighbors (Job 31.1-12), wishing them only good (Job 31.29-30; cf 29.24). When he was in authority, his people rejoiced (Proverbs 29.2), and he exalted the nation (Proverbs 14.34). He was a joy to his family (Proverbs 23.24), his path was like the dawn (Proverbs 4.18), and his very memory itself was a blessing (Proverbs 10.7). When it went well with him, the whole city rejoiced over his welfare (Proverbs 11.10). He was an immovable factor for good (Proverbs 10.25, 30; 12.3, 12), who knew blessing (Proverbs 10.6; Isaiah 3.10) and long life (Psalm 92.12; Proverbs 10.16; 11.19; 12.28), posterity (Psalm 37.37-38) and prosperity (Proverbs 13.21, 22, 25; 15.6), the fulfillment of his desires (Proverbs 10.24, 28; 11.23), and deliverance from trouble (Proverbs 11.8; 12.21; 24.16). He lived in peace and prosperity, because he upheld the peace and prosperity -- in short, the physical and psychical wholeness -- of his community by fulfilling the demands of the communal and covenant relationship (cf Psalm 15.2-5; Isaiah 33.15). For this reason צדק sometimes stands parallel with שלם (Isaiah 48.18; 60.17; cf Psalms 72.3, 7; 85.10). For this reason it can be translated “prosperity” (Proverbs 8.18). And for this reason, too, its meaning can be “truth” (Psalm 52.3; cf Proverbs 12.17), for right speech upholds the covenant relationships existing within a community (Psalm 15.2-4; Proverbs 8.8; 10.11, 20, 31; Isaiah 59.4; cf 45.19); it is righteousness.”

-- E R Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the OT,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville TN: Abingdon Press, 1962), p 81

“... the demands of communal relationship are determinative. That which is right in a legal sense is that which fulfills the demands of the community relationship, and the sole function of the judge is to maintain the community, to restore right to those from whom it has been taken (2 Samuel 15.4; Psalm 82.3). Thus righteousness as a forensic concept is not an impartial decision between two parties, based on a legal norm, such as is known in Western law, but protecting, restoring, helping righteousness, which helps those who have had their right taken from them in the communal relationship to regain it. Righteousness is the fulfillment of the communal demands, and righteous judgements are those which restore community (Exodus 23.7-8; Deuteronomy 1.16; 16.18, 20; Psalm 82.3; Proverbs 17.15, 26; 18.5; 24.24). Thus the constant plea of the prophets is for righteousness in the gate, for a restoration of the foundations of the communal life (Isaiah 5.23; 29.21; 59.4, 14; Jeremiah 22.3, 15; Amos 5.12; Habakkuk 1.4; cf Psalm 72.2; Proverbs 31.9). In such contexts there is no difference between ethical and legal standards. They are one, both equivalent to the demands of community. 

Not only was it the function of the judge to uphold the community in Israel, however. This was one of the main duties of the king. He, too, was responsible for protecting and restoring the right (cf Hosea 13.10). This was his covenant duty, to preserve righteousness, and in so doing, he himself was righteous (2 Samuel 8.15=1 Chronicles 18.14; 1 Kings 10.9;=2 Chronicles 9.8; Psalm 45.6-7; Proverbs 16.12; cf 2 Samuel 23.3-4; Isaiah 16.5). Thus in Psalm 72 we have a picture of the peace and prosperity wrought by a king who judges righteously, and Jeremiah’s appeal to the despotic Jehoiakim is for justice and righteousness (Jeremiah 22.3, 15). Further, when the Messiah comes, his kingdom will prosper through righteous judgments (Isaiah 9.7; 11.3b-5; Jeremiah 23.5-6; 33.14-16; cf Isaiah 16.5)”

-- E R Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the OT,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville TN: Abingdon Press, 1962), p 81