Comments on: Brothers and Sisters, Why So Cynical?

By: Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard - Part One | The A-Team Blog

Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard - Part One | The A-Team Blog — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 02:43:57 +0000

[…] 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. […]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:02:52 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:50:06 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:40:38 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:11:58 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:46:34 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:11:37 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0000

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.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:58:26 +0000

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!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:55:13 +0000

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.