Are We Really Democratic? The Story of Primaries

Once again its election season – as if it ever isn’t election season – and questions swirl around candidates like the growing fall leaves. But there is a more, dare I use the pun, primary issue to be addressed: just how democratic are we? Typically these lines of argument come from two sources: Iran and socialists. I am neither Iranian nor am I a socialist. I do, however, recognize the flaws of our system.

These system flaws are not so much due to the procedural system, i.e. our mode of Republican representation, but rather the larger system interplay of parties, the media, and campaign election law. Currently in Russia the television media will only cover Putin’s party, giving only minimal or negative details of other parties. We rightly decry this as anti-democratic. What about our own media? The newspaper here at Miami University did an interesting little study of the primary debates – not even down to two candidates here – and found mainstream candidates received five times or more speaking time. Pollster.com notes this make-up of words spoken by candidates: “1,872 - Senator Obama; 1,766 - Senator Clinton; 1,518 - Senator Edwards; 1,281 - Governor Richardson; 1,180 - Representative Kucinich; 961 - Senator Biden; 912 - Senator Dodd; 753 - Senator Gravel.” How representative is that? And if the argument is they should receive more time because they are “mainstream” candidates, does that not beg the possibility that they are mainstream candidates because of the special treatment?

But our media is ‘free’ the argument goes, Russia Putin controls it. Does that not just make it all the more suspect? In Russia to become one-sided it requires overt control. Our media just plays the ploy willingly. They don’t even take the bribe! Whose is really worse? Our entire system is biased towards specific candidates chosen, not by any public input, but rather the perception of public input created by political and media elites. Polls do not pick front runners, media framing artificially creates poll numbers. The causal arrow is pointing the wrong way. Yet, we blindly assume that not to jump on the poll boat is to ‘throw away’ a vote. Nader made a worthwhile observation in 2000. He noted when Bush receives a lot of votes no one argues he “stole” them from Gore. But when he, Nader, gets votes, he must have ‘stolen’ them from Gore. The assumption is that the two parties ‘own’ the votes and anyone else who gets them is stealing private property.

What is the solution? Vote in primaries. Vote against mainstream candidates. Those will be nice individual protests, but what is needed is a systemwide change. As long as the system is set up to bias one, or in our case two, parties, they will continue to win. It isn’t only in Russia where they “fairly steal elections.”

What is Our Christianity

It may seem an odd question to ask, but what is our Christianity? I am not speaking here of institutional methodology. Before that question lies this more important question of fundamentals. On the one hand as Christians we are individual: faith is between me and God. Justification is singular since the time of the Jews. Yet, we are called to come together and somehow to interact with other individuals. Here is the institution. There seem to be two important junctures in this process. The first is the tenets of our individual belief with God. Before anything else comes what we believe and here is where I either am or am not a Christian. Even if we choose Christianity, however, the question is not finished. Now comes that messy institutional question: how should I relate to other self-proclaimed individual Christians. What is my relationship to others who wish to, and freely can, take the name of Christian?

The second question, of how I relate to other questions, is colored completely by the first. As much as we would all strive to see a unified body, as long as people answer question one differently there will be no unity. How, therefore, do we achieve a body in a fragmented implementation of the message of the New Testament? Is not the ultimate position to reduce ourselves back down to individuals standing before the Almighty God? Yet we have rejected this position. And we have simultaneously rejected the possibility of unity. What option is left?

The option is the mishmash we have before us: the Christian smorgasbord of variety, a flavor for every desire; if taken to its extreme we are back to complete individuality. But can we bend ourselves to the will of the collective desire of the Church? What even is the collective desire of the Church? One, I suppose, could argue that it is the institutional structure. For Catholics this would be there Pope and the hierarchy -- bending one’s will to meet the needs of the Church. Yet the Church, even the Catholic Church, changes position. So even here, how should one ‘lobby’ the Church? If one looses the lobby what does this mean?

One solution to this issue is to accept every individual as is. This would be our postmodern brethren in some respects. Nobody can find consensus so every individual can mush together what helps him. Of course, then what defines Christianity? If it is everything, then it is nothing. So we must impose structure at some level as Christians. There are some things we agree upon that are “Christian” and others which are “non-Christian.” Of course, who exactly is ‘we’? And by defining ‘we’ have we not defined ourselves?

For every “externally focused” outward looking Church the world is filled with pre-Christians and we are attempting to lasso them into ourselves. We have started to do this quite well. In the process we have lost who we are. We have left behind what defines us and ties us together! Christians should gather together for the purpose of Christianity. Not for any other purpose. Then, as one becomes a Christian he will become part of our dysfunctional body. But at least we will know what that body is. This is not a smorgasbord. As much as I want others to become part of my family, they have to be willing to be adopted. They have to accept what it means to be ‘us.’

And I think it is in this process whereby people accept certain tenets that allow them to enter our extended Christian family. It will define who we are, even while others attempt to deconstruct us. If deconstructed we will be atomized! Left wandering in the desert, only this time, alone. As wrong as our structures can get, we need them. And the structures require us. Within that interaction is what it means to be Christian.

Understanding Change in Church

Churches are undergoing a radical change! I am confident in such a statement because Churches are always undergoing change. No sooner will have one change been initiated than another will fill its void: for all of time it will be safe to print the words “church is changing.” One could become hung up on the particularistic nature of change. That is we could analyze endlessly the newest change and what it is bringing to the table, but this is patently unnecessary, and limiting. Because whatever particular change is being discussed will only last until the next change! The larger, and largely ignored, question is: why do Churches change? And can we categorize and understand those whys in a systematic manner?

Clearly, such a project is beyond the scope of a blog, but the beginnings of questioning it are not. Examine any particular church movement. One recent example is mega-church phenomenon. It is now giving way to an emergent church. Why? Some might argue that changes occur do to worldview shifts. Many might argue that the mega-church is the pinnacle of the modernist movement and the emergent is the new postmodern times finally coming to fruit. This, quite frankly, is analytic drivel! It’s a post hoc attempt to justify change as opposed to truly understand it in any meaningful way. The era of modernism may indeed have been in many eras of life been surpassed by postmodernism, yet postmodernism is passing away and in its place is arising neomoderism. Postmodernism is a dead topic used by the Church a generation too late to explain a change which would have occurred regardless of worldview.

The driving force in American culture is consumerism. We buy things. We are entertained. And if we get bored with those two we build things – big things. The mega-churches were the natural result of making church consumer minded. The unchurched were our target sales group and we pitched Vegas shows to them with some success given the number whom attend those churches. The only difference between a mega-church and a mall is that the church helps you with parking. A trend at which malls everywhere should be looking. There is nothing inherently “modern” about consumerism. It is a cultural phenomenon. What about those newest groups that grow funny beards and call themselves Emergent? Are they the escape of consumerism? No, they are merely the newest form of it.

Look at ads. What does Nike sell? Shoes or an attitude? Attitude, but, by the way to get that attitude you are going to need our shoes. Consumerism has changed and emergent churches are the first churches to import the trend. They are selling “spirituality” for the newest generation like the mega-churches sold “church” to the boomers. Neither is particularly Biblical, but that is kind of beside the point when you are trying to sell something. In the case of our newest church ‘movement’ it is spirituality. Is it radically different from selling church? No. But changes are rarely radical.

What does this tell us about change then? For one it shows that church institutions mimic successful institutions around them. There are historical reasons why the Catholic Church has a hierarchical structure. Neither is it a surprise that New World churches would be congregational. Now, in an age when the newest forms of power are wielded from sources of economic position, it is no surprise to see the CEO model Church. And just like Silicon Valley and Toyota revamped organizational structure to sell attitude, so too is the emergent church mimicking this newest organizational model. If we want to understand the future changes in the church we should look at the successful organizations of today. Because ten years from now, some minister or congregation will be barrowing the idea and church will ‘change’ once again.

The Church

Here is a particularly interesting question: the nature of the church. The purpose here is to talk about the church in its more general, larger, sense. It is to ponder what makes our evangelical or quasi-evangelical church what it is. At its most basic the church is an intersection between institutional arrangements and Christians. It is Christians carrying on their business. In the strict Biblical terms, the church is the body of believers. Yet, church as we understand it in the contemporary complexion has taking on this second element of institutional arrangements. Even for a church attempting to restore New Testament practices this second element has become intertwined into the church.

In some senses, the institutional arrangement has becoming a more primary structural force than the individual Christians in the western world. Why? Because in a marketplace or consumer culture churches are not static. In a globalized word, even if people were loyal to churches, they would inevitably move and shift. What becomes permanent in a shifting people world? Institutional arraignments. Likewise, churches – for better or worse – have allowed institutional arraignments to define them. Paradigms of church structure are always the buzz words in the evangelical world because institution is paramount.

Throughout time it seems churches have been in a two-way equation with political and cultural; effecting culture and politics, but also barrowing heavily. Is it any surprise that in the United States almost all churches are predicated around some time of voting system? Democracy of some flavor or another is the norm in our part of the world and our church institutions reflect it. But even this does not really characterize church. It is this fundamental marketplace mentality which defines churches because it is this mentality which leads to institutions. The primacy of religious institutional structure is the defining characteristic of the church. In essence, church is defined by the institutional structure it creates or steals (in the intellectual sense of the word).

Even just cursorily such a proposition seems likely. In a world where people move from denomination to denomination without thinking twice can we really positive theology or doctrine is the defining characteristic of the church? In an era where to name your church with a group is paramount to heresy can it honestly be stated the church is defined by non-institutional means? I doubt it. Church has become defined by the way it is arraigned. A family seeking a church look at the institutional structure to decide of what value it is. Therefore the church has stressed institution over doctrine. If consumers look at it providers must change – the invisible hand of the market at play.

But how should church be? What should church really look like? A beginning response might be the restoration of the New Testament. Of course this raises the question of the possibility of true restoration. Probably the most fundamental restoration would need to be a shift from institutional to doctrine and people, i.e. Christians and beliefs. Is this possible? I doubt I could offer a cogent answer. It is easy enough to criticize the numerous fallacies that arise from a market driven church and it is relatively simple to offer a normative ideal, but it is entirely different to understand the implication or possibilities of that normative position functioning in an empirical world. In essence, are we doomed to be tied inexorably to the primacy of institution?

I think it is possible, although difficult, to rise above the mentality of our political culture. It would start with reinforcing belief over institution. Institutions do not need to be the primary dialogue in our churches, because that is and will continue to be the trend anyway. Proper institutional structures should flow necessarily from proper doctrine. If the focus is on doctrine and belief, institutions will follow, but they will cease to be our defining characteristic. The discourse of churches therefore needs to be shifted as one step. Another would be a shift from corporate structure. As long as churches mimic corporations, they will tend to mimic the marketplace features in which corporations operate. This to, I believe, would be a side-effect of focusing on doctrine.

For now, regardless of normative postulating, churches are defined by institutional arrangements. Willow Creek models, emerging church paradigms and a variety of other structural positions will be fundamental to what is ‘church’ regardless to what it should be. While doctrine will seem jumbled and bizarre, institutional arraignments will be seen as the new doctrine. The post-modern church is one where meaning, like all post-modern life, has lost meaning in search of the illusive image. Instead of remaining adrift in this sea it has anchored itself to institution. This is the church.

The State

Before launching into a series of isolated topics surrounding the church and the state it seemed worthwhile to introduce the basic framework for the discussion on each in separate essays. The hope is that this will make explicit the typically veiled topic position. Here, in a condensed form, is my comprehensive understanding of the empirical thing, the state, and the normative position of what it should do. This outline is an attempt to answer the questions that inevitable come when tackling any more micro-level question: how does this fit into the larger conceptual framework? This is that conceptual framework. It is worth noting that we are talking not about what, in the United States, we call states (smaller divisions of the country), but rather to a term encompassing country.

The state, for a bit of political science terminology, is the transcendence of government. A particular government is not the state. The state is the larger concept which encompasses government. Government is a particular set of institutions and bodies. The state is all of that plus. Formally modeling the concept of stateness here is not necessary. What is more important is the scope of the state. What should the bounds of state be? Where, to use an old phrase, is the water’s edge? What defines the area of state?

It is my understanding of that the American state has been unique. Our evolution has been a unique process, an ongoing process, into the limits and boundaries of state. This American process has been to limit state activity in order to promote private activity. Like a weed the state is not easily pruned and it suffocates other forms of activity whenever it grows into a new area of life. In order to limit this strangulation the original intent of the state was minimalistic. Our smaller states were, in essence, to compete. Why? Because in competing they forced more dynamic state definition. It is easier to prune smaller weeds if the need arises. This was the intent of the constitution.

Like all things, however, this conceptualization of state ended the moment the constitution as a document was no longer merely words on a page, but ratified law. Law must be applied and many wanted law to expand – allowing for a larger conceptualization of stateness. Chief Justice Marshall opened the door for this conceptualization in a multitude of his cases beginning with Marbury v Madison. The constitution, although written, was forever to be a document in flux. What this meant is that the borders of stateness were not fixed; they would be forever floating within a range. Not quickly, or rapidly, but slowly like a glacier the definition of state could be altered.

Although we have a written constitution, this free floating border, has allowed us to fundamentally change the nature of state in our country. Slowly over time this minimalistic state engulfed all sovereigns within its path and became the monolith that it is today. In recent times the Rehnquist court attempted to cut the corners from the state – to pull it back ever so slightly. Which leaves us with the fundamental question of our time: what is the future of the state? Indeed this is the question for every time because it is, at least as long as we continue in our current manner, not a fixed pillar.

This is the brief history of the American state. But what of our normative framework? What value should be placed on the state? If the state is, as many would argue, the catalyst for positive then its growth should be praised and welcome. Conversely, if the state is truly a danger, then its increase should bring nothing but worry. The fundamental problem with the state is it forces homogeneity. It generates singularity by necessity and destroys, if I dare utter the word, diversity in its path. The state cannot allow for variation. Law is law. Once a thing has been incorporated into the domain of the state it must become fixed. Then, to change whatever this thing is, is to change the state. The larger the state becomes, the more difficult this process of state change.

An example may well illuminate the situation. When the church was considered part of the state apparatus how many churches were there? The situation tended to be limited because the state required uniformity within its domain. It required a church. Even on a topic with range, think of airwaves. Television is regulated by the state. While there is room for limited variety television, because of its domain, is television regardless of the station. Post-offices are post-offices. There is no variety. The state, as noted earlier, takes things and makes them immutable without a change to the state itself.

Where then is the normative framework it may be asked? It lies here, if the desire is for a world devoid of the most basic element of human nature – variation – then the state can achieve this. If, however, we wish to keep our humanity the state cannot become all encompassing. As the state increases, the range of variation in humanity decreases. This is exactly what is necessary in limited cases. There cannot be variation of humanity in murder, rape, and theft for instance. Here the great singularity of the state is not only necessary; it is required for society to continue. Where then is the point where the line need be drawn? Or more aptly, the wall be constructed to keep the state out? I, like the famous John Stuart Mill, find that normative point to be where my variation conflicts with your variation. Or, in his words, my freedom to swing my cane ends where your nose begins and at this point the state also begins, because here we need singularity (See J.S. Mill’s On Liberty for more).

As I look into the world of state action I am examining through this conceptual framework. It contains both empirical and normative aspects and it explains well the nature, purpose, and use of the state. As we look at the world today we need to examine it through this lens. What is the role of the state? How does this role affect our humanity? Our freedom? What actions should government take to ensure that the state stays within its domain? This is where we will be headed with the state.

Beginnings

It seems necessary to begin with, intuitively enough, a beginning. An outline of what this particular piece of bloggish writing will encompass and perhaps attempt to touch on some of the questions which this writer is hoping over time to illuminate. The title of the blog is ‘Church and State.’ But not in the traditional sense of separation thereof, instead this is an attempt to explore those very concepts. Sometimes through essay, sometimes through analysis, sometimes through satire this blog is an attempt to answer larger questions about the nature of things. It may seem ironic that a blog would attempt such a seemingly grandiose purpose. Can a blog of sorts fulfill such a purpose? I answer with a resounding maybe!

What is the outline for this little insignificant project? It arises out of dissatisfaction with the current discourse on two different, yet interrelated, topics: church and state. The church, or religion, is in a decline. First mainline Churches adopted practices which have doomed them to a slow, prolonged death. A death by strangulation of sorts, the vine which is suffocating these churches is modern liberalism coupled with an embrace of post-structuralist theory. This process has ceased to be an intriguing question. Instead, what is fascinating is the related decline of what many would have considered “fundamentalist” churches. These evangelical and quasi-evangelical churches are just beginning, abet in their own unique forms, to embrace the mainstreams positions. The result of these variables seem almost inevitable: similar consequences as have been suffered by the mainline churches.

What is perhaps different from the earlier forms adopted by the mainstream Christian churches is a third embrace by these ‘fundamentalists:’ consumerism. The evangelical / quasi-evangelical church has begun to operate like a Starbucks franchise. It has embraced the consumer mentality and advanced it in concert with an acceptance of modern liberalism and, increasingly, postmodern or poststructuralist theory. Here at Miami a colleague’s work is focused on mega-churches and consumerism. She is a psychology graduate and is not particular Christian, but she finds this a phenomenon which will shape the future of the church and I must agree with her.

The state, in many ways, is suffering a similar identify crisis as the church. The state of the 21^st century is increasingly becoming all-powerful. Both Republicans and Democrats have both come to accept the fundamental truth that big government is good government. Regardless of the desirability of this situation, it has created a new set of issues for the definition of government and state. Both are grappling with a newfound set of normative goals which would have never been considered in political theory only 50 years ago. As the state increases its size, it must decide an increasing number of issues. As government defines these issues it necessarily must make sweeping moral and social decisions and force non-conformers to the margin in its wake. The cleavages between groups will only grow as the number of areas in which government operates expands and there is no end to the expansion in site.

As these two institutional pillars in the American landscape redefine themselves, our own socio-political system cannot help but undergo a massive shift. How we understand and contextual ourselves cannot remain static as such foundational institutions reshape. It is the purpose of this so-called blog to examine these shifts, how they interrelate and react to one another, and to comment on them. Almost without question our era will be an important one. We therefore come full circle to the reason for this so-called blog. I will be analyzing these structures through essay, through comment, through satire, and a variety of textual forms. Perhaps it is only the musings of an odd man, but I hope it is more and I hope it is worthwhile for not only me, but for anyone crazy enough to read it with me.