Reviews for Power and the people: readings in American politics

The average rating for Power and the people: readings in American politics based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2015-05-10 00:00:00 Kay Barkshadt Cross Cultural Paul: Journeys to Others, Journeys to Ourselves is not so much a resource on the Pauline corpus as it is an exploration of our interpretive processes (certainly regarding how we read scripture). The title emphasizes Paul’s particular place in the movement from a Jewish context to the gentile world (regarding the progression of the Christian mission), and looks to examine his writings from the context of different cultural expressions. There are three authors. Each author was responsible for 2 chapters each, one examining Paul’s theological perspective from the lens of their own cultural heritage (the River Plate Region/Latin American, American, Chinese), and then secondly examining Paul’s theology and teachings from the lens of a culture that sits outside of their own heritage (African, Native American, Russian). The end result comes across as a bit of an experiment, but the journey proves to be incredibly worthwhile and revealing. The subtitle suggests that a engaging in a cross-cultural movement to others is also a means to understanding ourselves better (and our tendencies, preconceptions, belief systems). The time and attention that each author gives to clarifying their limitations and understanding the tensions and problems that exist in attempting to speak their own preconceptions and tendencies in to a foreign culture shows this entire process to be one that requires a certain humility and grace. In the conclusion of the book it states, “Just about everyone hedges their bets, tries alternatives when conventional wisdom fails, and looks for shortcuts that contradict what they otherwise believe is the tried and true road to success. Nevertheless, a culture’s way of projecting the good life and how to achieve it- reinforced in parental admonitions, cultural clichés, public and private education, and popular culture- has a powerful shaping effect on expectation and practice. When we dissent from the conventional wisdom about success, it is often only by adjusting or qualifying our more basic agreement with what our culture or subculture tells us.” The major themes that appear to move across cultures are expressed in what could be considered to be three primary areas: eschatology (having a vision of the future and the depiction of this forward vision in present practice), nationalism (which includes the relationship between personal and communal identity and a discussion of the positive and negative perceptions), and approaches to suffering and blessing. These three things form the basis for how a culture measures and determines success and happiness. As the above quote illustrates, our underlying beliefs shape (in a powerful way) who we are and how we interpret the world around us. It also shapes how we will read Paul’s letters and view his theology. In each particular case the authors speak of the challenge of bridging Paul’s own understanding of the Gospel (and his particular Christian worldview) in a way that can fit and make sense from within their own culture. There are two aspects of this process that stand out. The first expects that in all cases, when we are approaching a discussion of God and theology, we inevitably face moments where we must “adjust” (as the above quote shows) our views by challenging our “more basic agreement with what our culture or subculture tells us”. Secondly though, any Christian movement must recognize that discussions of God and theology must also speak directly into (and make sense to) the world in which we live. This expects that any discussion of God/theology must happen from within a particular openness to being challenged and to challenging others. The premise of the book’s own process is set from within this sort of framework and expectation, and is done so from the realization that this is the process that Paul himself engages in from his own movement from Jew to Gentile. In truth, Paul is represented as a Jew, but he carries a very intentional conviction that his Jewish heritage is not intended to do away with the gentile culture. Again in the conclusion it writes, “If we follow the interpretation of many scholars today, who see Paul affirming in Romans 11 an irrevocable divine election of (ethnic) Israel, then it matters theologically in Paul that Jews remain Jews (that Israel remains Israel). It also matters that gentiles remain gentiles.” Cross cultural movement is both about celebrating culture as the context in to which the Gospel is speaking to, and likewise about recognizing how the identity of a culture can speak and illuminate the Gospel from within its creative core. “For Paul, the gospel cannot be identified with what society considers at a given time to be obedience to God. Freedom in obedience must be measured against the Gospel message and discerned concretely in specific circumstances.” Even further it goes on to suggest, “Unless we imagine that the Pauline ideal of a human being in Christ is so unique that it transcends human culture altogether, any critique of a given cultural type must be attentive not only to points of contrast with Paul but also to points of similarity.” This pushes us to be self aware of our own context for interpretation of the Pauline theology, and encourages us to give grace and understanding to cultures that may interpret it through a different lens. Aside from challenging our basic tendencies for exercising limited approaches in interpreting theology/scripture (to our own context and the context of others), the book develops an intriguing dialogue about the different cultural approaches themselves. Each writer comes with a degree of Western influence, a fact that makes the conversation that much more interesting. For me, I would have loved to read the chapter on the Russian/Eastern Orthodox approach before moving to the more familiar American tendencies. One of the most basic understandings of cultural divide comes in the East/West dichotomy. Weiss (a Latin American) engages with a commentary on Russian/Orthodox thinking that highlights the differences in approach, and likewise the impact this has on how this approach deals with the Pauline thought. In Russian Orthodox thought there is an emphasis on Christ as the full representation of humanity and humanities creative process. Similar to the Chinese ethic, there is resistance against dividing the earthly and heavenly realm (and the divine/human aspects of Christ). In Eastern Orthodox thinking, our fallen nature is not expressed through the traditional reformed doctrine of total depravity that “personalizes” the nature of sin as a negative perception of humanity and frames the human response as an inability to do good in the eyes of God. Rather it is expressed through the great enemy called “death” which has permeated the entire created order. In this sense humanity is connected with the whole of the created order as inherently “good” and whose creative ability has been inhibited by the persisting place of sin, which has damaged the created order. Weiss writes, “In their (Russian/Eastern Orthodox thinking) relationship with God, human beings are free not just in the sense that they can turn toward or against him, but also as “being able to co-operate with God, to create the good and produce new values” This is contrasted with a Western idealism and Protestant Reformed theology that (for them) confuses God’s hopeful and intentional activity of restorative purpose with an entirely negative view of the created order (including the person). For Russian culture, the Pauline teachings that speak in universal terms and reference the “whole” of the created order are the pieces that remain as the most important. In a similar fashion, Yeo writes of the Chinese culture as a further expression of this Eastern tendency. In reference to the concept of “Li” in Chinese culture, all are born good and with the same ability to cultivate good, even if all do not necessarily do so. As an example of the difficulty in cross cultural movement, one of the challenges that Paul’s own theological approach presents (framed from within his mission to bring freedom and identity to the gentile world) is that, in the opinion of Yeo (speaking of the Chinese culture in particular), his system seems to stand somewhat opposed to some worldviews. For the Chinese, “to be human is to be holy”. To be holy in Paul (sanctified) is to become authentically human (as the image of God). This is the difference between a cosmological and social-political perspective and a theological and Christological perspective. Yeo goes on to say, “The primary difference between Confucian (the primary Chinese practice of Daoism) and Pauline ethics concerns the use of rules/law to gain a sanctified life or life of perfection.” It is interesting to understand that there are similarities in Eastern tendencies within the Russian and Chinese culture, but there also remains differences in how they interpret the predominating positive and optimistic view of the human person. And yet both find their own difficulties in interpreting Paul in to their cultural understanding. It was helpful for me to bring this East/West divide in to my understanding of Western tendencies (specifically from within the defining points of American culture), which for Cosgrove is defined as a self reliance dogma. The human rights tradition arose in the West as “a challenge to what was perceived as unjust distinctions in social status, something that would appear wholly justified and positive as a cultural movement.” However, there are immense complications that arise when measuring American idealism (and in the interests of this book measuring American idealism with an appropriate Pauline theology) against not just Eastern cultures, but also the cultures of the African American and Native American peoples. It is fascinating to consider how the East/West divide represents itself in many ways (even if through slightly different fashions) on our own soil throughout American history. In respect to Paul, “The flaws in typical American idealism is that it believes everyone is morally deserving of their wealth and accomplishments, that everyone has equal economic opportunity, and that one does not need to depend on another for assistance in achievement.” Cosgrove considers this as a “moral deception”. A sense of idolatry that provides us with “a moral cover”. “The “justice of God is exchanged for a god who justifies rationalizations that serve our own self interests. For Paul character is not the starting point, suffering is.” American religious approach has adopted a strong sense of a particular eschatology, one which largely recognizes the corruption of this world, and the future activity of God in destroying and recreating this corrupted created order. As Yao points out, in Confucianism it is unnatural to speak of an eschatology. “People are called to imitate the golden age which lies in the past, not the future.” As well, the dialogue between Christian salvation as “social tranformation” versus individual salvation is one that was “ill suited for Chinese culture.” Yao goes on to say that “Committed Christian missionaries were creating schisms in China, even amongst themselves.” In China missionaries tried to reach the “common people rather than the scientific or technological advancement or intellectual elitists”, and in the process ended up fostering an environment of religious confusion. Pushing further, the Western approach to individualism flies in the face of the Chinese approach to family. “For the Chinese family is a responsibility under which one develops and grows. It is not, as in Western thought, seen as a negative on personal freedom.” What is sad to read is that intrepreting Paul to the Chinese culture had to overcome years of anti-Chinese Christianity. The image of the Nestorian Christians remains as a reminder of this central problem. All of these things also come alive in the particular culture of a Native American culture, a culture that is probably more readily familiar to the North American context. Yao chose to comment on the native American culture from his Chinese heritage, and there are a lot of similarities and challenges. He writes, “Euro-Americans tend to prioritize and subordinate all aspects of existence to temporality, thus emphasizing progress, history, process, and evolution. They tend to understand sacredness in term of time, such as in the cycle of days, months, and years. The liturgical meaning of events is established by time. For American Natives affinity with the land gives sacredness to space. Time is sacred only in relationship to space.” Similar to Chinese and Russian cultures, Natives did not see themselves as the center or pinnacle of creatures. They see a “whole” of creation and a Creator that tends to a created order. The dominion model of humanity’s relation to nature seems more modern and Western than ancient. Likewise, death is the destructive force that affects all things equally in Native theology, as it is in Russian Orthodox. Because of the these differences, Natives have been largely misunderstood in American culture. American government opposed native culture as dangerous, and passed the “religious crimes code” as a way of forbidding the practice. This led the way for a complicated missionary focus on convincing the native cultures that their spiritualities were depraved, offering no hope for the future. For them to be a Christian meant to stop being native. (there is no real scholarly input on native approaches to Paul to this day) As an example of how Yao speaks to the cross cultural movement of the Gospel, Yao writes on the Native culture, “If Paul’s monotheism is not philosophical but soteriological monotheism, it may be close to traditional Native cosmologies. Natives see all things as “good”. Paul sees only Christ as “good”. However there are many examples of glorified “beings”, and “angels of God” to be found in Jewish tradition. Paul “lives in a Jewish environment where the idea of an angel-like figure being divine or God taking on a human appearance was not regarded as a threat to monotheism.” As well, it is important to recognize that the Native culture are not necessarily participating in idol worship. Yao points out that they do not worship the sun, but rather see it as the reflection of the sacred, the creator. There is room in what appears as a polytheistic approach for a monotheistic conviction. One of the final two points of the cross cultural context that the book speaks to is the idea of Nationalism and suffering and blessing. In African American history suffering pervades as a predominant theme, and nationalism arises as a complex solution. Cosgrove, in his commentary on African American culture, suggests that “Paul’s place could be to shore up and heal the relations between the Jewish and gentile wings of the church. It is because God is one that we can already say as “Jew and gentile” we belong to one another by origin and destiny. (Blacks and Whites must be one).” The long history of failure in cross cultural movement regarding African American culture lies in the interpretation of Paul’s theology as a support for slavery, and then in the other direction as a support for freedom. And yet, as Cosgrove points out, Paul’s theology would seem to desire to speak something entirely unique in to this messy history. Cosgrove writes, “Paul does not give up his cultural identity as a Jew along the way. For blacks, Paul does not exclude ethnic difference, but preserves it.” If Israel had wholly embraced Christ there would have been “no room for Paul’s mission to the gentiles”. In Paul, God “hardens Israel” seemingly so that the Gospel could become a cross cultural process. “This is all wrapped up in the tension between sameness and otherness. Separatism or integration. Nationalism, which Martin Luther King eventually adopts.” This brings up the question of whether nationalism is negative or positive. In each culture it seems to have a confusing polar identity. How do we distinguish it from the Eastern practice of nationalistic (purpose) and the Western practice of manifest destiny (dominion). I really enjoyed the dialogue around the idea that nationalism must exist as both a positive and a negative in order for it to be appropriate in a helpful way. A culture which forces another to be assimilated to the point that they lose their identity entirely is not reflecting a Pauline approach. And yet, a culture that resists any degree of assimilation is also not what Paul speaks about in his letters as the predominating value. In the African American example, the story of Black history is one of a people who continue to learn how to keep a firm grasp on a seperatist nationalistic identity that allows them to find strength in their “African” heritage, but also to assimilate to the “American” culture at the same time. This is a reflection of a strong Pauline identity. Whatever culture we are looking at, we can gain comfort in understanding that “Paul’s grand narrative envisions the unity of Jews and gentiles according to God’s impartiality.” Paul is not imperialistic, and does not practice coercion or violence in promoting the Gospel. Salvation comes to all, including creation. As well, “for Paul, the task of a human life is learning to hope. This poses an extraordinary challenge for people who are used to getting what they want now (such as in American culture), or at least to demanding it now, and who therefore tend to define their life goals in terms of what they think they can reach by their own effort in the relatively near future.” In interpreting Paul, cultural expressions to bring to light different approaches. Russian thought is more intuitive, while Western (American) is more intellectualized. There is a pessimism in Latin American thought that comes out in a sort of fatalistic determinism. “In Latin America death is an event to be lived intensely, to be celebrated.” People are not remembered on their birth days but on the day they died. For the Latin American, one is control of their destiny. Fate is the fixer of how and when we live and die. Life and death are livable because they are fixed. Similarly, American thought also perceives life in a sort of deterministic fashion, however there is not much a focus on death as there is on life. In Russian and Chinese and Native American thought, death is the reality of a sin that can lead us to live in to the possibility of beauty, goodness and creativity. In whatever culture we are living, there is “no place in Paul’s worldview for benign neutrality or free rational inquiry as the path to truth. There are two descriptions of Lordship for Paul, sin or Christ.” The nature of the Christian faith remains one in which Christ must and does speak. This is the promise of the Gospel. The question for us all is how is Christ speaking in to our context in a way that can challenge our traditional ways of thinking and also bring life to our traditions themselves. In many ways these cultural views represent Paul’s own journey of cross cultural contextualization, a process which saw him growing his own theology in different contexts. The amazing thing in all of this is that despite the divisiveness that has existed throughout history, whether in African American slavery, Native American abuse, or the inconsistent and confusing missions to China, we can still be hopeful that the Pauline teaching can help us find commonality, both in our human expressions and in Christ. The great divide in East/West still remains, but we can be thankful that God can still be seen at work in both worlds.

Review # 2 was written on 2014-06-28 00:00:00 Randy Gibson Wow, this book is incredible. It comes from multi-cultural authors who write about the cultural biases in reading the epistles of paul from their home country and their foreign home/culture. Simply amazing and unique