Thanks so much, David. These are such important matters.
It's always difficult summarize a book-length argument, but I am not sure you have given a fair account of my book in a couple respects. (Though even if you did give a fair account, it would still also be fair to point to ways that the book could be, or has been, misunderstood or misapplied.)
I don't think a reader of this summary would know that I develop a rather careful distinction in the book between force, coercion, and violence, and that much of the rest of the book hinges on keeping these distinctions clear. I find that many of my interlocutors simply fail to observe these distinctions and collapse these meanings without defending that collapse. I believe you enact that collapse, simply at the level of vocabulary, in this post. (I do think there is a very serious counterargument to be made against my distinctions, and I'm sure you want to make it, but please do make it rather than assuming it!)
I don't think a reader of this summary would know that I place Genesis 3 within a two-chapter-long exploration of idolatry and injustice as the basic distortions of human imagination and therefore power. (See also my book Strong & Weak and also my subsequent presentations, which I admit I haven't put into handy written form, where I trace violence and more generally violation of human dignity to the quest for authority without vulnerability, also known as "control," in many presentations explicitly connecting this to phenomena like the transatlantic slave trade and its economic antecedents in the profitability of cash crops along the Atlantic seaboard.)
I don't think a reader would realize that I devote a whole chapter to how institutions go horribly wrong and become instruments of violence (slavery being the quintessential example, which I examine at some length).
You are right that I don't make a sharp distinction between godly and worldly power — and I should say that one reason I don't is that I think this lends itself so easily to those who want to be on the side of "godly power" deceiving themselves about the ways that they in fact can become implicated in forms of idolatry and injustice that are justified in religious terms (and may be ostensibly or even ostentatiously nonviolent—the abusive behavior of John Howard Yoder and Jean Vanier come to mind, alas).
But I do not agree that because I don't make that distinction, a reader who has carefully read Playing God (and its followup book Strong & Weak) will not be able to "recognize the possibilities for Christians using worldly power in God’s name to impose their will and perpetuate the ills of colonialist violence, in the patterns of Christian mission of the past." That does not comport with the conversations I've had with readers of the book, literally none of whom struck me as susceptible to taking up and wielding imperial power, certainly not blithely or ignorantly. (I have had a few conversations with highly placed officials in the US government—in multiple administrations with different political points of view—who clearly wrestle deeply with the complexities of their position and certainly recognize its dangers, whatever you or I may think of how they have actually disposed of their power.) Now, there are many, many Christians who DO strike me as susceptible to that, but as far as I've ever been able to tell, they have not read my books. :)
I just want to reiterate, what I said in the book, that I much respect both the scope of coverage and the lucidity by which you researched and wrote ‘Playing God’ ten years ago. Like with the other two interlocutors on power I engage inn this part of the book (Diane Langberg and Dominique Gilliard), I appreciate the quality of your treatment and the influence (not exclusively but especially on evangelicals) this book had.. ‘Playing God’ remains a very helpful and landmark book (especially for evangelicals) on the subject of power. It’s why I wanted to engage it.
I also recognize your differentiations between force, coercion, violence in ch. 8. It’s complex and good. It very much resonates with the limits on worldly power that I propose in Reckoning With Power as important if worldly power is to do any “preservatory” work within the world. Although I might be a little more friendly towards Foucault and his illuminations on power than you, that chapter reveals that you and I have a lot in common when it comes to placing limits upon coercion, assymetric “power over.”
It's unfair of me to expect you, or other readers of this post, to have read my book ‘Reckoning With Power,’ which gives so much of the background that leads into my critique of you and the other interlocutors. I much agree that you go deep into the Genesis 1-3 account in your book (it would take another 2 posts here to truly treat it well). There does remain significant differences there between the way you narrate power in Genesis and the way I do (with help from some Anabaptist OT scholars). The bottom line is that you see power as one and I see it as two. You see the issue of power as the right use of it, out of right relation to God, in the image of God, and I see it as agency, who has agency with regard to power. As opposed to the right use of the power, I see giving up that agency, yielding to the agency of God, “under” which we then can cooperate “with” God and His working, and participating with the power of God unleashed in the person and work of Jesus Christ, a completely re-reorderd agency in relation to God. Have I got that right? Can we at least agree on this? Because I really do see it as an issue worth discussing.
You say the “sharp distinction between godly and worldly power … lends itself so easily to those who want to be on the side of "godly power" deceiving themselves.” I think you’ve located the real rub here between us, but also why this issue needs discussion at a time when clergy abuse and Christian Nationalism is running rampant, especially among our evangelical worlds. I think there’s no way out of this deception while holding onto individual agency over the power of God – and or the power supposedly God has given us? While you think we can escape the deception by becoming better persons and better users of power doing it in a way that models God. Have I got this right?
All this to say, with all the respect in the world for you, I appreciate your work. I have honestly tried to represent it as accurately as I could given the space I had. And I think this discussion is worthy. Thanks for responding. And, if you’d like to come on our podcast (Theology On Mission podcast), I commit to honoring your work carefully. We’d love to have you on!! (as always you can reach me HERE https://www.seminary.edu/faculty/david-fitch/).
I think a great place for Christians to start to understand a healthy Public Theology is to understand the thick communitarian ethics of Michael Walzer and the distinction between the "right" and the "good" in Habermas. I try to show how to do this on my substack essay below. I would love your input. https://bradhightower.substack.com/p/a-pluralistic-public-theology
Brad ... I admit I haven't kept up with Walzer since his "thick and thin" days ... my reading of Chantal Mouffe, Ernst LaClau has convinced me that local communitarian politics requires practices grounded in a narrative outside the individualism(s) of liberal democracy. Just like much our churches today, local communities will either get absorbed into the consumerist individualism, or become ideologized by the national politics without a center that is different. I think Walzer remains devoid of such a center? The same with Habermas' 'communicative action? ... Have you encountered Radical Democracy political theorists in your reading? Have you read Hauerwas/Roman Coles book where they go back and forth on these themes ... the book is titled 'Radical Ordinary'... I think Stanley's massive critique of liberal democracy has kinda aged out ... given the emergence of Trumpian Nationalism ... authoritarianism ... and yet we also see the inherent weaknesses of liberal democracy itself unable to meet the challenges (something Stanley was pointing to 30 years ago)... So I very much appreciate your forcing me to remember and think through Walzer and Habermas all over again.
Yes, I totally agree the anthropology of capitalism and guys like John Locke and Adam Smith of atomized, self-interested individuals making "rational" decisions must be fought at every turn. A radically revised theological anthropology that criticizes classic liberalism is an important part of the equation. I think this falls under the category of "criticism." Part of my criticism of the "world as it is" includes a critique of the world systems default view of human nature as "rational", self-interested individualism. I think we are totally on the same page here. I kinda touch on this idea here. https://bradhightower.substack.com/p/are-evangelicals-the-worldly-ones
Thanks, Brad — this actually illuminates an important limitation of my own work, which is that of all the major arenas of culture, politics and public life (understood as participation in the civitas and the various levels of the modern nation-state) is the one area where I just truly, honestly have little or nothing substantive to contribute. Of course I try to keep up with some currents in public theology — for what its worth I feel a lot of resonance with Oliver O'Donovan's work, though once I'm done reading him I have a hard time remembering or articulating what he said that I found so compelling! But I just do not have the interest or aptitude to participate in anything close to political theology.
This might seem to be rather a liability for someone who wants to talk about power, and I think it is probably the source of some of the frustration that folks like David feel with my work. But on the other hand, my own view is that too many Christian reflections on power become fixated on the specific form of power claimed by the nation-state (I follow Weber in seeing this as the claim to a legitimate monopoly on force) and all that is downstream of that. I am far more interested, personally, in the power of a university professor, or a recording artist, or an entrepreneur, or a product manager in a tech firm — or a pastor. I do not see these as operating interchangeably with or analogously to the kind of power wielded by the state in its legislative, executive, and judicial functions, though of course I understand that all those vocations interact with the state and the broader civitas in various ways. (In this sense I do probably have some affinity for Walzer's idea of spheres, and certainly I am simpatico with Catholic Social Teaching's emphasis on subsidiarity, community, and solidarity, along with the Reformed idea of sphere sovereignty.) So while I admit that I have a huge missing area of competence when it comes to the right use of power qua state-sponsored coercion/force/violence, I also hope I can make a contribution in an area where I see many, many discussions of power overlooking what I'd broadly call "creative power"—the power to bring something into being out of nothing, which the state will never have in its proper function but which image bearers exercise (as sub-creators) all the time.
Andy, I have learned much from ODonovan, Kuyper, spheres of sovereignty. And of course I have come out the other side of those thinkers believing they lead to significant problems with the way Christians engage culture with excess and untethered expectations in political, business and other arenas. I think I could even make an argument ... that there's a relation between the "Severn Mountains" dominionist theologies and the sphere sovereignty theology of Neo-Calvinism. But it's not a direct link (although there are some weird one off linkages). All this to say .. we have much to talk about, and your main theme "power as creative" is one I would really like to explore ... We'll get you on the podcast eventually. Blessings my friend.
Andy, Thanks for the response. I feel in light of the current global battle between authoritarianism and democracy we need to get interested in the power of the state especially when religious people are on the wrong side of "what is the role of the state" question. In the US, evangelicals are the problem which could lead to horrible injustices for immigrants and the LGBTQ community. Here is a article from a friend of mine. https://michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/help-georgian-democrats-now-before
I appreciate your contribution to the conversation about power. I resonate with Crouch’s views on most of what he’s written in the past. But his understanding of power being given to humans in Genesis 1 needs a couple nuances:
(1) That which you articulate here, that power is twisted in Genesis 3 and thus must be redeemed in (and only in) the power of Christ, which is power “with” not power “over.”
(2) It must be recognized that in Genesis 1, God does indeed give the humans power to “rule” or “have dominion.” But over what? Over the rest of the creation, NOT over one another. Humanity, male and female, are the rulers, in community, over everything else.
But this begs a new question:
With the original mandate to rule over the creation (which has never been rescinded) combined with the effects of the Fall that makes humans want to rule over each other, how do we cooperate well to rule over creation? How do we participate in institutions for the flourishing of all (for the common good) when we all (no matter how close we think we are to Christ) are suffering from the noetic effects of sin?
Fitch -- your distinction between the two powers is crucial to understanding and exercising power. For there are two kingdoms and only two kingdoms in this world: God's kingdom or anything else. Likewise, only two ultimate forms of power: God's power to lift up or all other forms of power over others. Thanks for articulating this clearly.
The idea of necessarily being “in Christ” for power to have a positive value, if that is what you’re suggesting, reminds me of the total depravity idea of reformers such as Calvin…as if someone cannot use power for the good of others less he/she is a Christian. (perhaps misunderstanding your view of two kinds of power, however.)
Crouch’s understanding of power appears to resonate with the understanding and practice of power utilized by The Family, the Christian. Political organization that is chronicled so closely by Jeff Sharlet. Do you know if there are any connections between Crouch and this group?
Thanks for this interesting post. Apologies in advance for commenting when I haven't read your book (yet!), but what struck me as a read was 'What about Jesus saying he came "not to be served but to serve"?'
Where does that fit into Andy Crouch's view of power?
I guess it's included in with your understanding of Godly power with/under?
Thanks so much, David. These are such important matters.
It's always difficult summarize a book-length argument, but I am not sure you have given a fair account of my book in a couple respects. (Though even if you did give a fair account, it would still also be fair to point to ways that the book could be, or has been, misunderstood or misapplied.)
I don't think a reader of this summary would know that I develop a rather careful distinction in the book between force, coercion, and violence, and that much of the rest of the book hinges on keeping these distinctions clear. I find that many of my interlocutors simply fail to observe these distinctions and collapse these meanings without defending that collapse. I believe you enact that collapse, simply at the level of vocabulary, in this post. (I do think there is a very serious counterargument to be made against my distinctions, and I'm sure you want to make it, but please do make it rather than assuming it!)
I don't think a reader of this summary would know that I place Genesis 3 within a two-chapter-long exploration of idolatry and injustice as the basic distortions of human imagination and therefore power. (See also my book Strong & Weak and also my subsequent presentations, which I admit I haven't put into handy written form, where I trace violence and more generally violation of human dignity to the quest for authority without vulnerability, also known as "control," in many presentations explicitly connecting this to phenomena like the transatlantic slave trade and its economic antecedents in the profitability of cash crops along the Atlantic seaboard.)
I don't think a reader would realize that I devote a whole chapter to how institutions go horribly wrong and become instruments of violence (slavery being the quintessential example, which I examine at some length).
You are right that I don't make a sharp distinction between godly and worldly power — and I should say that one reason I don't is that I think this lends itself so easily to those who want to be on the side of "godly power" deceiving themselves about the ways that they in fact can become implicated in forms of idolatry and injustice that are justified in religious terms (and may be ostensibly or even ostentatiously nonviolent—the abusive behavior of John Howard Yoder and Jean Vanier come to mind, alas).
But I do not agree that because I don't make that distinction, a reader who has carefully read Playing God (and its followup book Strong & Weak) will not be able to "recognize the possibilities for Christians using worldly power in God’s name to impose their will and perpetuate the ills of colonialist violence, in the patterns of Christian mission of the past." That does not comport with the conversations I've had with readers of the book, literally none of whom struck me as susceptible to taking up and wielding imperial power, certainly not blithely or ignorantly. (I have had a few conversations with highly placed officials in the US government—in multiple administrations with different political points of view—who clearly wrestle deeply with the complexities of their position and certainly recognize its dangers, whatever you or I may think of how they have actually disposed of their power.) Now, there are many, many Christians who DO strike me as susceptible to that, but as far as I've ever been able to tell, they have not read my books. :)
Dear Andy,
Thanks much for engaging me on this post.
I just want to reiterate, what I said in the book, that I much respect both the scope of coverage and the lucidity by which you researched and wrote ‘Playing God’ ten years ago. Like with the other two interlocutors on power I engage inn this part of the book (Diane Langberg and Dominique Gilliard), I appreciate the quality of your treatment and the influence (not exclusively but especially on evangelicals) this book had.. ‘Playing God’ remains a very helpful and landmark book (especially for evangelicals) on the subject of power. It’s why I wanted to engage it.
I also recognize your differentiations between force, coercion, violence in ch. 8. It’s complex and good. It very much resonates with the limits on worldly power that I propose in Reckoning With Power as important if worldly power is to do any “preservatory” work within the world. Although I might be a little more friendly towards Foucault and his illuminations on power than you, that chapter reveals that you and I have a lot in common when it comes to placing limits upon coercion, assymetric “power over.”
It's unfair of me to expect you, or other readers of this post, to have read my book ‘Reckoning With Power,’ which gives so much of the background that leads into my critique of you and the other interlocutors. I much agree that you go deep into the Genesis 1-3 account in your book (it would take another 2 posts here to truly treat it well). There does remain significant differences there between the way you narrate power in Genesis and the way I do (with help from some Anabaptist OT scholars). The bottom line is that you see power as one and I see it as two. You see the issue of power as the right use of it, out of right relation to God, in the image of God, and I see it as agency, who has agency with regard to power. As opposed to the right use of the power, I see giving up that agency, yielding to the agency of God, “under” which we then can cooperate “with” God and His working, and participating with the power of God unleashed in the person and work of Jesus Christ, a completely re-reorderd agency in relation to God. Have I got that right? Can we at least agree on this? Because I really do see it as an issue worth discussing.
You say the “sharp distinction between godly and worldly power … lends itself so easily to those who want to be on the side of "godly power" deceiving themselves.” I think you’ve located the real rub here between us, but also why this issue needs discussion at a time when clergy abuse and Christian Nationalism is running rampant, especially among our evangelical worlds. I think there’s no way out of this deception while holding onto individual agency over the power of God – and or the power supposedly God has given us? While you think we can escape the deception by becoming better persons and better users of power doing it in a way that models God. Have I got this right?
All this to say, with all the respect in the world for you, I appreciate your work. I have honestly tried to represent it as accurately as I could given the space I had. And I think this discussion is worthy. Thanks for responding. And, if you’d like to come on our podcast (Theology On Mission podcast), I commit to honoring your work carefully. We’d love to have you on!! (as always you can reach me HERE https://www.seminary.edu/faculty/david-fitch/).
Andy,
I think a great place for Christians to start to understand a healthy Public Theology is to understand the thick communitarian ethics of Michael Walzer and the distinction between the "right" and the "good" in Habermas. I try to show how to do this on my substack essay below. I would love your input. https://bradhightower.substack.com/p/a-pluralistic-public-theology
Brad ... I admit I haven't kept up with Walzer since his "thick and thin" days ... my reading of Chantal Mouffe, Ernst LaClau has convinced me that local communitarian politics requires practices grounded in a narrative outside the individualism(s) of liberal democracy. Just like much our churches today, local communities will either get absorbed into the consumerist individualism, or become ideologized by the national politics without a center that is different. I think Walzer remains devoid of such a center? The same with Habermas' 'communicative action? ... Have you encountered Radical Democracy political theorists in your reading? Have you read Hauerwas/Roman Coles book where they go back and forth on these themes ... the book is titled 'Radical Ordinary'... I think Stanley's massive critique of liberal democracy has kinda aged out ... given the emergence of Trumpian Nationalism ... authoritarianism ... and yet we also see the inherent weaknesses of liberal democracy itself unable to meet the challenges (something Stanley was pointing to 30 years ago)... So I very much appreciate your forcing me to remember and think through Walzer and Habermas all over again.
Yes, I totally agree the anthropology of capitalism and guys like John Locke and Adam Smith of atomized, self-interested individuals making "rational" decisions must be fought at every turn. A radically revised theological anthropology that criticizes classic liberalism is an important part of the equation. I think this falls under the category of "criticism." Part of my criticism of the "world as it is" includes a critique of the world systems default view of human nature as "rational", self-interested individualism. I think we are totally on the same page here. I kinda touch on this idea here. https://bradhightower.substack.com/p/are-evangelicals-the-worldly-ones
Thanks, Brad — this actually illuminates an important limitation of my own work, which is that of all the major arenas of culture, politics and public life (understood as participation in the civitas and the various levels of the modern nation-state) is the one area where I just truly, honestly have little or nothing substantive to contribute. Of course I try to keep up with some currents in public theology — for what its worth I feel a lot of resonance with Oliver O'Donovan's work, though once I'm done reading him I have a hard time remembering or articulating what he said that I found so compelling! But I just do not have the interest or aptitude to participate in anything close to political theology.
This might seem to be rather a liability for someone who wants to talk about power, and I think it is probably the source of some of the frustration that folks like David feel with my work. But on the other hand, my own view is that too many Christian reflections on power become fixated on the specific form of power claimed by the nation-state (I follow Weber in seeing this as the claim to a legitimate monopoly on force) and all that is downstream of that. I am far more interested, personally, in the power of a university professor, or a recording artist, or an entrepreneur, or a product manager in a tech firm — or a pastor. I do not see these as operating interchangeably with or analogously to the kind of power wielded by the state in its legislative, executive, and judicial functions, though of course I understand that all those vocations interact with the state and the broader civitas in various ways. (In this sense I do probably have some affinity for Walzer's idea of spheres, and certainly I am simpatico with Catholic Social Teaching's emphasis on subsidiarity, community, and solidarity, along with the Reformed idea of sphere sovereignty.) So while I admit that I have a huge missing area of competence when it comes to the right use of power qua state-sponsored coercion/force/violence, I also hope I can make a contribution in an area where I see many, many discussions of power overlooking what I'd broadly call "creative power"—the power to bring something into being out of nothing, which the state will never have in its proper function but which image bearers exercise (as sub-creators) all the time.
Andy, I have learned much from ODonovan, Kuyper, spheres of sovereignty. And of course I have come out the other side of those thinkers believing they lead to significant problems with the way Christians engage culture with excess and untethered expectations in political, business and other arenas. I think I could even make an argument ... that there's a relation between the "Severn Mountains" dominionist theologies and the sphere sovereignty theology of Neo-Calvinism. But it's not a direct link (although there are some weird one off linkages). All this to say .. we have much to talk about, and your main theme "power as creative" is one I would really like to explore ... We'll get you on the podcast eventually. Blessings my friend.
Andy, Thanks for the response. I feel in light of the current global battle between authoritarianism and democracy we need to get interested in the power of the state especially when religious people are on the wrong side of "what is the role of the state" question. In the US, evangelicals are the problem which could lead to horrible injustices for immigrants and the LGBTQ community. Here is a article from a friend of mine. https://michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/help-georgian-democrats-now-before
I appreciate your contribution to the conversation about power. I resonate with Crouch’s views on most of what he’s written in the past. But his understanding of power being given to humans in Genesis 1 needs a couple nuances:
(1) That which you articulate here, that power is twisted in Genesis 3 and thus must be redeemed in (and only in) the power of Christ, which is power “with” not power “over.”
(2) It must be recognized that in Genesis 1, God does indeed give the humans power to “rule” or “have dominion.” But over what? Over the rest of the creation, NOT over one another. Humanity, male and female, are the rulers, in community, over everything else.
But this begs a new question:
With the original mandate to rule over the creation (which has never been rescinded) combined with the effects of the Fall that makes humans want to rule over each other, how do we cooperate well to rule over creation? How do we participate in institutions for the flourishing of all (for the common good) when we all (no matter how close we think we are to Christ) are suffering from the noetic effects of sin?
Fitch -- your distinction between the two powers is crucial to understanding and exercising power. For there are two kingdoms and only two kingdoms in this world: God's kingdom or anything else. Likewise, only two ultimate forms of power: God's power to lift up or all other forms of power over others. Thanks for articulating this clearly.
The idea of necessarily being “in Christ” for power to have a positive value, if that is what you’re suggesting, reminds me of the total depravity idea of reformers such as Calvin…as if someone cannot use power for the good of others less he/she is a Christian. (perhaps misunderstanding your view of two kinds of power, however.)
Crouch’s understanding of power appears to resonate with the understanding and practice of power utilized by The Family, the Christian. Political organization that is chronicled so closely by Jeff Sharlet. Do you know if there are any connections between Crouch and this group?
There is no connection there.
That is good to hear. Because that group does have influence in a lot of Christian circles.
Thanks for this interesting post. Apologies in advance for commenting when I haven't read your book (yet!), but what struck me as a read was 'What about Jesus saying he came "not to be served but to serve"?'
Where does that fit into Andy Crouch's view of power?
I guess it's included in with your understanding of Godly power with/under?