Brothers and Sisters, Why So Cynical?
January 25, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall
The assertion that people only argue over ideas because they’re trying to maintain their power over others has been appearing again and again in the Christian material I’ve been reading lately. This idea is especially popular in emergent circles (as I previously discussed here), but I’ve been encountering it elsewhere, as well.
This claim has always been jarring to me, striking me as cynical and empty, but I didn’t have any concept to match up with this gut reaction until I heard Jay Wesley Richards speak Monday night on “The Death of Materialism” at the Stand to Reason Masters Series. He described the impact of materialism on various disciplines and then showed how this faulty basis for our society is beginning to break down as, one by one, the assumptions of materialism in each discipline are proving to be false.
That’s when it hit me: the perspective that all arguments over beliefs are merely power plays is a very materialistic (i.e., the natural world is all there is) view. If we’re merely animals and there is no spirit, moral law, or ultimate standard for truth and goodness, then explanations for our behavior must be limited to primal reasons. When animals fight, they’re fighting for ultimate domination for the sake of domination and all of its perks. But is that the best explanation for the arguments of humans over ideas? Only if we, too, are merely animals, as materialists claim.
But what if there is more than the natural world? What if there is such a thing as ultimate truth, beauty, and goodness? What if we’re more than animals? What if God exists and we bear His image–an image which includes a love for His truth and a desire to honor His name? If that is the case, then our behavior can be explained by something more than the materialist can imagine–a sincere love for God and Truth motivating us to enter the struggle to determine and defend both. The materialist can’t comprehend the idea that human beings care more about truth than they do about power. For them, there is nothing beyond mere power. But shouldn’t we, as Christians, see clearly that there’s more to what’s going on than power plays?
How has the Church been lured into this materialistic thinking? How did we come to view the world through the same eyes as the materialists? Many of us have been listening too hard and too long to the wrong voices, people.
Related posts:
- Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard – Part One
- The Wedge
- Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard – Part Two
- The Left’s Fear of Resource Depletion
- All Human Rights are "Religious Fundamentalism"
- Design and Knowledge
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Philosophy
content rss
January 25th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Excellent points Amy. I'm also struck by the puzzle that these folks set for themselves (the folks who say all reasons and arguments are merely masks for power, they are descendents of Nietzsche, Foucault, and, Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic).
How do they account for their own theory about other people's theories, reasons, and underlying movitations? There is a serious self-referential problem here because if their theory is true than their own position is not a sincere pursuit of truth but a reach for power, over us, and so those listening should reject it.
If they're right, they need to come up with a persuasive account as to why their own thinking is immune from what they seem to claim is universally true about human behavior.
January 25th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Exactly who is it that you are referring to as saying that all argumentation is a power play? I know that is the stance of theoretical, academic postmodernism, but I don't know it to be the stance of any so-called postmodern Christians. Some might argue that most, or the vast majority, of argumentation is a power play, but not all.
I would be in sympathy with that view given my Reformed perspective on human depravity.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
I agree that reducing all interactions — whether they are familial, international, ecclesiastical, interpersonal, etc. — to issues of power is dangerous. (Most reductions are dangerous, in my opinion.) But I wonder if there is something that we can positively appreciate from thinkers such as Foucault without having to accept their arguments in their entirety. (I haven't read Foucault, but have had discussions with a PhD student reading him and have read books referencing his arguments.) I think it is relevant to at least be aware of power dynamics when looking at any conflict. Even in examples of conflict between Christians who express the reality of ultimate truth, issues of power are at play.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
I'm kind of with the Foolish Sage on this. Does it have to be all or nothing? Why do we have to categorize all argumentation over ideas attempts to secure power or not? Wouldn't a more reasonable assertion be, “Some attempts at argumentation are motivated by the desire for power… but not all.”
Amy, you say, “The materialist can't comprehend the idea that human beings care more about truth than they do about power.” I don't know if I agree with this. I can think of a lot of peole and a lot scenarios where the ability to influence others is much more desirable than the truth…even in the church. I also hope we Christians compehend that the depth of our sinfulness can clothe attempts to gain power as innocently seeking the truth. I think it cuts both ways.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Everyone, I'm talking about people who refer to this arguing-over-doctrine-is-a-power-play as generally being the case. This view is gaining popularity in our culture in general, and the view didn't come from nowhere. As Micah pointed out, these ideas have a history. I'm trying to point out the roots of this belief (materialism) because I think sometimes we accept views of the culture without analyzing them to see where they came from and whether or not they reflect the truth of the Christian worldview at their core.
“'The materialist can't comprehend the idea that human beings care more about truth than they do about power.' I don't know if I agree with this.”
The materialist philosopher can't explain how such a thing can be, even if he observes it. Therefore, he finds materialistic explanations (such as power plays) to explain what's really going on when people are arguing about what's true and what should be believed.
“Some might argue that most, or the vast majority, of argumentation is a power play, but not all.”
I think people have taken on this idea in varying degrees in addition to a belief in spirit, God, and truth (without seeing the contradiction); but if they're arguing that this is the root of our behavior, they've accepted a principle that's based on materialist assumptions.
Might some arguments be an attempt to gain power? Of course. My refutation is directed towards those who say we shouldn't argue about doctrine because the root of these arguments is a desire for power, even if some love of truth is involved. From what I've read by McLaren, that is his position. I haven't seen this in a Reformed context. Applying a materialist explanation to the root of our behavior is a different claim from saying that we do is tainted by sin.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
There is a serious self-referential problem here because if their theory is true than their own position is not a sincere pursuit of truth but a reach for power, over us, and so those listening should reject it.
That is a great point Micah–thanks!
January 26th, 2006 at 6:53 am
Amy,
Thanks for this interesting discussion. You've brought up an angle on this that I'm sure is valid and needs to be kept in mind.
I'm no fan of McLaren, but I doubt that he would actually claim that all theological debates are a struggle for power, even if he thinks that more are than you think. Can you provide a citation to where you've seen him say what you're saying?
And I'll reiterate that my Reformed theology leads me to suspect (especially in my own heart) that far more of our debates involve our own ego-pushing than we'd like to admit. In fact, a puritan view would tell me that even at my “purest” moment I should always suspect that there is some taint of sin's influence.
I don't think that should cause us to discard all debate, but rather to keep us humble, always examining our hearts in these things. If I'm furiously typing a post comment because what the other person wrote makes the hackles on my neck rise, perhaps I need to take a step back and check whether I really am just being “zealous for the truth.”
January 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am
The ascription of argumentation to power plays is one aspect of a more common way of thinking to which C.S. Lewis gave the name Bulverism. This is an attractive way of dismissing an argument without taking the time to do the work of demonstrating where an argument has gone wrong. The problem, I think, is that too many people don't take the time to get to the core issues of a dispute and frequently debate second and third things rather than first things. This is a common practice in politics (even if the paranoid lunatics on the left do it more often) and happens in other areas of life as well.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Rejecting arguments merely because they are “power-plays” is one thing and as has been discussed here, easily shot down since it creates a series of self-fulfilling prophecies. Still, I find the observation about power dynamics within arguments helpful. It is more of a lens than anything else. Disagreements do end up being about power, for the one (person or idea) who is decided to be right ends up having power over the one that is wrong. This does not need to mean that the right will oppress the wrong, but that the right will have more validity and authority. For example, the debate over Arianism or the conflict between the Vatican and Gallileo led to one group having power over the other.
Take for another example, perhaps the most famous argument within the Early Church: what to do with all these Gentile converts? Does the church require them to become cultural Jews in order to be members of the Church, or can they keep their cultural practices? There was a power struggle between the Judaizers and Paul in Galatia. That is not a cynical observation — it does not say either group simply wanted to be in control. No, I believe both groups were sincere that they best understood what it meant to follow God. And I believe this despite the strong language Paul uses against his opponents. We can see the power struggle emerge as it was a real debate over whose values and ideas would set the direction for the Church. Perhaps some were simply wanting control, but I'm not that cynical.
From what I understand of Foucault, he sees most conflicts as power struggles and wants to do away with them by disempowering the powerful and empowering the unempowered. We may disagree with his conclusions, but something deep inside that idea smacks of the gospel to me. Jesus Christ made himself weak and showed what real power was about. He empowered the outcasts by bringing them from the fringes into the center of the kingdom of God. Jesus didn't usurp, but served. In some ways he acheives what Foucault hopes for, but through means Foucault wouldn't imagine.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Mark, unfortunately, I borrowed the books I've read by McLaren, so I don't have any here I can quote.
I absolutely agree that we need to watch ourselves and be humble, but McLaren seems to go beyond this warning to say that it's better to not argue over doctrine because it's largely only a power play (even if there are elements of other things involved).
Sometimes they don't come out and say this directly. Sometimes it's implied, as all discussion concerning the topic is about power and humility, and no mention whatsoever is made about a concern for truth (on either side). Let me give you an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. Here's a quote from If God is Love by Gulley and Mulholland:
Why does this toxic faith persist [of believing that not everyone will be saved]?…We cling to toxic faith because it permits us to hate and mistreat people who mystify or hurt us…[it] persists because the Church has found it an effective means for maintaining power and control.
When you hear statements like this enough, you start to see a pattern.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
The instance of McLaren doing this that came to mind for me was the entry on “Categorical Imperialism” in A is for Abductive. I have also seen the “fear” card trumpeted by McLaren from time to time, most recently in his blurb for Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? (Answer: not I. I just think that postmodernism is wrong). In each case, attributing critique to fear and power plays is an ungenerous move.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
This often goes beyond the idea that arguing for ideas is caused by power to the idea that we choose our very beliefs based on what will give us power. Then the argument is made that we should have different beliefs because these other beliefs aren't based on having power over others–they're humble beliefs, and not just humble attitudes about the beliefs.
You can see, then, how the issue of power is most important, and the question about truth almost seems irrelevant.
February 18th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I see it less about whether or not it is a “materialist” argument than it being a flawed argument. Saying that all arguments are power driven is not falsifiable, and therefore untestable. We're debating mental constructs that can't be measured or tested. But that doesn't mean that all is hopeless.
I believe that the arguments for stopping debate about the emergent church have some gravity. Clearly, we have two sides that have rationally come to conclusions. The difference is that each side has different values and therefore sees the issues having different weight. My biggest concern is that there has been so much criticism by emergent churchers of mainline Christianity that they have no vision for what they really want. You cannot create something simply by saying well it's not going to be like this or that. You have to clearly and succinctly define it for what it is.
I think the emergent church has grown frustrated over having to defend itself and is willing to use any argument to protect itself (the power argument). But what they must realize is that their movement began with cynicism and as long as they don't specify what they believe they will continue to be attacked as being “less faithful to Christianity.” I'm hopeful that the emergent church will develop into the niche that tradititional Christianity has failed to fill.
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
[...] In the past, I’ve connected the origins of this increasingly popular view of “might makes wrong” with materialism (the perspective that there is no God or spiritual world). Materialism is the root of relativism, for one can’t know right and wrong in a world where such things are created arbitrarily by societies and don’t really exist apart from those societies. In a materialist, relativist world, one would have to explain situations and develop “moral” opinions based on physical, observable things like power or possessions since nothing else can be judged. [...]