Social Capital: Is it possible in the pluralistic society?
Learning from the successes and failures of the United States of America
Buntoro Sugianto

---

When we talked about Social Capital, we should not forget to mention the person who had brought this terminology to its prominence. That person is Robert Putnam. Putnam (2000) brought up the whole concept of Social Capital in his book, “Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community.” In this book he argued that the Americans are losing their social cohesiveness, something which he also referred to as social capital. In his own word, Putnam wrote, “social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. ” Along the same tone with Putnam, World Bank defines Social Capital as “the norms and networks that enable collective action.” World Bank notes also mentioned that it is increasingly evident that social cohesion, which refers to social capital, is “critical for poverty alleviation and sustainable human and economic development.” In short, social capital is social networking and/or norms in a community, which may influence its human and economic development.

Speaking about Christians, we also cannot forget to mention the person behind the Christian movement, Jesus Christ. Christians are followers of Christ, and therefore, are supposed to imitate Christ in every way of their lives. Although I would consider myself as a Christian as well, but sadly I have to admit that I am still (very) far away from reaching the standard set by Christ Jesus. Jesus Christ instructed His disciples to be the Salt and the Light of the world about two thousand years ago. Today, the followers of Jesus Christ, those who called themselves Christians (regardless of denominations and/or religious activity), are accounted for almost one-third of the world population according to CIA’s “The World FactBook.” So, Christianity is basically a large social network, despite the many variations inside it, with about 2 billion people strong.

It is no secret that since the past five or six centuries, the Western world, where a big chunk of these so-called Christians were supposed to live, had enjoyed a great economic prosperity while most, if not all, the other parts of the world still lived in poverty. Up to 1990s, most of these professing Christians still live in the most prosperous quarters of this world, the Western Countries – or also known as the First World. John Stott (1999), a pastor and scholar from England, in his book “Human Rights & Human Wrongs,” had carefully treading the uncharted waters of this economic inequality between the First World (“the North”) and the Third World (“the South”), in his chapter about “North-South inequality.”

Although some claimed that these Western countries achieved such great prosperity (unfairly) at the expense of the third world countries, either from direct exploitation of the third world resources during the colonial era, or merely from voluntary “brain drain,” but we cannot simply neglect the fact that the Western civilization had also been contributing to the world as a whole. Still, many claimed that it’s not enough. Regardless of the controversies, the question remained. Have the Christians really been the Salt and the Light of the world as Jesus commanded?

Well, it’s difficult to answer this question without any personal bias, but I firmly believe the answer is Yes and No! Yes, because as Stott (1999) mentioned in his essay on the North-South inequality, that there had been numerous efforts by Christians (from “the North”) to close the gap and to eradicate poverty in the past, these efforts ranged from grants, loans, foreign investments, technology transfers and many others. Although most of these efforts were made by governmental organizations led by individuals who professed to be Christians, Stott also mentioned those made Christians or Christian entities. One of the first notable joint-efforts by Christians mentioned by Stott is the manifesto from the Conference of World Evangelical Fellowship in 1983 (Wheaton 1983). It proposed for a “transformation” of the world through transformed Christians to “promote embraces both individuals and communities, and both the material and spiritual spheres of human life.” On the other hand, despite all these efforts and/or manifestos, I could also argue that Christians have not been the Salt and the Light of the world, by looking at the facts that those large number of Christians failed to influence the rest of the world (i.e. eradicate poverty), despite of the amount of resources they possessed (and their potential).

I believe that we all agree that we are blessed to be a blessing (Gen. 12: 1-3). It’s the Abrahamic Covenant which not only applicable to his direct descendants (the Jews and Arabs), but also to those who have faith in God of Abraham (thanks be to God, through our Lord Jesus Christ!). But history shows that Christians simply failed to do that, for various reasons. Some argued that it was due to distribution of wealth , is that all? How come years of effort to distribute wealth among the world, especially among the poorest country of the world often failed? Economists are still perplexed by the fact that disparity in wealth distribution exists in every country in the world. Mark Buchanan, an economist himself, had to concede and assert this inequality as merely “a law of economic life that emerges naturally as an organizational feature of a network.”

As a non-scholar and merely a student of the Word, I tried to understand the reasons for such failures and I come to a conclusion that I may be able to enrich our understanding on this issue as I tried to portray the issue from the perspectives of Christians and Christianity through the lens of history, something that I enjoyed reading and learning from. As a warning and disclaimer, my article is not intended to be a comprehensive scholarly material on Social Capital and Christianity, instead it should be treated as a mirror to remind us of our own imperfections in light of God’s Word.

The History of Christians’ Social Capital.

Without the intention to over-generalizing this complex matter, I believe that Christians in general have two different ways in addressing the issue of wealth, poverty and social capital. The first response is to gladly accept the blessings from God without much effort to use it for the benefit of others, either consciously or unconsciously. The second response is to thankfully accept the blessings from God with a purpose to use it to be a blessing for others too. In most cases in history, Christians’ response toward wealth, poverty and social capital is tangled and/or intertwined with social, geopolitical and theological issues of its time.

Social Capital was probably one of the most notable characteristic of Christian communities during the first four century of its existence. The believers had developed a strong bond and connection, as well as trust and reciprocity with one another, mostly because of the intense persecution and strong solidarity among the brethren. As the book of Acts testifies, the Church has grown steadily amid persecution and attracted thousands of people to follow the Way because of this unique nature of Christian community. But as Christianity was acknowledged to be a legal (and later official) religion in the Roman Empire by Constantine, the dynamic growth of the church suddenly ceased. The inseparable church and the state slowly corrupted the official church. By the Middle Ages, the official (Catholic) church had become a theocratic superpower which controlled governments. In fact, starting before the year 800 until few hundred years ago, all European kings had to be crowned by pope as a sign of approval from the church as well as submission to the authority of the official church, something that Noll called as a “strategic alliance” between political rulers and official church powers.

In those days, those “Christians” acquired so much wealth and used them solely for their own agenda. Many grave theological and humanitarian tragedies happened during that time were caused by these mishaps. Mark Noll (2001), an Evangelical historian and theologian from Wheaton College, argued that the first Great Schism (ca. 1054) was not only caused by theological difference between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity, but also by the stubbornness of the church aristocrats from both sides in their fight for prominence and power (and wealth of course). Noll further argued that the fall of Constantinople and some of the most saddening Crusades were driven by efforts to accumulate more wealth and power. The power play among the rulers and official church leaders had caused many common citizens to be trapped in poverty, while the royals lavished. This situation, in which many people felt discontent toward the royal and church aristocracy, undeniable had helped garner supports needed by the Reformers in their most crucial period, especially when the Reformation was still in an infant stage.

The Reformation, the New World Exploration, as well as the vicious persecution from the official (Catholic) church had eventually pushed for an Old World vs. New World phenomenon. America, as the new world, was a safe haven for persecuted Protestants who run away from persecutions in Europe. These runaway immigrants (many of them from persecuted religious groups such as: Anabaptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Puritans and many others), along with other immigrants, settled and built their own communities in the New World far-far away from their common enemy (the official church and/or the European aristocracies). It’s not surprising, because of the many common things they shared, that the small communities built by these groups had strong social bonding and trust (or social cohesiveness) within the community.

This new community, later known as the United States of America, grew stronger and stronger economically and, eventually, politically. In its early years, the people of the United States had designed their human and economic development with strong emphasis on community and democracy, mostly because of their strong solidarity, trust and tolerance. This new community also had an unusually strong support for political equality, learning from their past experience of being discriminated and/or persecuted. And this few ideas are some of the most important character of the “civic society” as coined by Putnam and his colleagues (1993) when they first came up with “Making Democracy Work” (1993: 83-120.

Sadly, just like Putnam (1995) noticed in his first “Bowling Alone” article in The Journal of Democracy, as the American society becoming more and more diverse and plural, the community succeeded in maintaining their tolerance (in terms of accepting the immigrants because of their past history as a country of immigrants) but slowly losing their trust toward other from different background. Recent socio-political grass-root movements in support for stricter immigration law as well as those who oppose it are one example of how the lack of trust is more evident. Some may argue that most if not all these movements are either politically or economically motivated, indeed economy or political affiliation may be one of many driving forces behind the issue, but I believe the issue is a lot deeper than what it appears.

As we see from the example from the United States above, somehow diversity and pluralistic society tend to rip apart the social capital of the society. But one may ask, is it applicable to the rest of the world? Putnam also further claimed that he also observed that the level of social trust and social association are “strongly correlated” across the 35 countries included in his survey. In case of the United States, one may argue that the United States has been quite diverse from its early years, how come the decline only occurs recently? To answer this question, I believe we should qualify the statement, is it true that the decline only appears in the 1990s? I do not believe so. I believe the decline of the social capital of the society in the United States had happened long ago (although in a less obvious and at much slower pace) and I am afraid that what we see right now is merely a result of a long overdue process.

Others may ask, why is it happening more rapidly recently? One important factor for this rapid change is the pace of diversity itself (which happens mostly through legal and/or illegal immigration) which also accelerated very rapidly in past decades or so. The economic factor as mentioned briefly above is also quite evident, especially when we see the jargon from those who insist on stricter immigration law, in which many of them claimed that government is allowing the immigrants to steal jobs from legal citizens and/or residents. Socio-political factors are also important driving forces to this issue. Many claims that conservative white Americans (who are often linked to the Republican party) tend to support the immigration control more, while Blacks and other minority groups (who are often linked to the Democratic Party) tend to do otherwise. And with the upcoming General Election in 2008, the issue is getting more and more politicized by both sides to gain an upper hand in the coming election.

But if one must ask, what is the real reason for diversity to affect many different facets of life? I like the way Putnam (2007) put it in his thesis on Scandinavian Political Studies, he claims that diversity brings out “the turtle in all of us.” Putnam explained this concept nicely by stating that “inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends,” just like a turtle hides from anything that comes near it. Doesn’t it feel close to home?

How do we become like that? I guess the answer once again can be drawn from the definition of the social capital itself. As a social network, social capital requires the member of its network to share the same value and/or worldview in order for the social network to be able to perform best. The norms of this social network also depends on the value held by its member, therefore the more diverse the value held by the members of the society, the harder it is to set an acceptable value and/or norms for all. It’s not surprising that Putnam’s research shows that as the United States become more diverse and plural (not only in race and/or skin color but also in values and norms), more and more Americans “expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

Another interesting twist involving social capital in a pluralistic society is that a pluralistic society can have several valid “social capitals” according to their subcultures. It’s not surprising that even in the United States, it is possible to have vibrant and lively Christ-centered communities with their own social capitals, as well as strong and secretive cells of radical extremists, whether for religious or political cause. Putnam (2007) also seemed to agree that even terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda can be validly considered as a “social capital,” because they have common goal as well as a social network to enable them to achieve the goal they otherwise would not be able to achieve.

So, is diversity bad after all? No, I do not believe that it’s inherently bad. As much as I (as a naïve human being) dislike the idea of “pluralism” and “plural society,” I am afraid that we have no other option, diversity is simply our reality, our destiny. Just like John wrote in I Jn. 3:13 (NASB), “Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you,” just as he paraphrased the very word from the mouth of Jesus in Jn. 15:19 (NASB) “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.”

We all know that we are not here by accident, but we are here for a purpose (borrowing the famous sentence from Rick Warren’s bestseller book), and for me, the purpose is to glorify God who had purchased me with His own blood. Despite all the difficulties we may face, as well as shuns and suspicions from those who hate us, we should strive to be the Salt and Light of the world that God intended us to be. As Christians, we should continue our efforts in sharing the love of Christ to the world by using all means possible without wavering. Indeed, our efforts may just be like a drop of water to fill the dry ocean bed, but it’s not the amount that matters, but the heart of those who did it. Jesus says in one of His famous parable of the Kingdom of God, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” (Mat. 25:40)

History shows over and over again that Christians and Christianity grew stronger and more resilient with persecution, and how we have become weak, sick and corrupted with power and wealth. But, this does not mean that we Christians should just sit and wait for the Lord to come back for the second time without doing anything on our end? No, I still believe that we need to be able to influence the world as long as we still live in the world. Jesus command for us being the Salt and the Light of the world is a non-negotiable command. I believe being “Salt” means that we need to influence the world with our saltiness and being “Light” means that we need to be light up this dark world. As a follower of Christ, we need to build a Christ-oriented social network one that is not merely exists in the society but also strongly influence the society itself, just like what salt does to the meat and light to the darkness.

In this plural society, I believe Christians should overcome our “turtle” fate in this plural society by taking an active step of faith, introducing the truth of Jesus Christ and the biblical values to the world, at any cost. But it should not be done by force, coercion, intimidation and/or other forceful means, but with love, just as Jesus had also commanded us to love one another, even as He had loved us, so that all men will know that we are His disciples, if we have “love for one another.” Our love needs to be pure and unconditional, even toward those who hate us or those who want to persecute us.

Speaking about persecution, we are always reminded about our brothers and sisters in Christ who are currently and/or had recently been experiencing persecution to the fullest extent possible in many different parts of the world (Sadly, Indonesia is included in this list also). My writing is not intended to undermine their struggles and/or sufferings for Christ’s sake. On the other hand, my writing here is intended to strengthen and encourage them in love. Paul the apostle wrote that perseverance amid persecutions and afflictions is the indication of us being called worthy for the Kingdom of God, but he further stated that, after all, it is God who repays the afflictions to those who afflicts the saints (II Thes. 1:4-6).

As a Christian, when it comes to persecutions and afflictions that I had to endured, I myself am often drawn or tempted to take matters to my own hands, which often resorts in vengeance or retaliation by using our own means. I often forget (intentionally or not) about God, who alone is worthy to execute His vengeance and repay our actions accordingly (Heb 10:30). True, I do believe that Christians should by any means help each other in times of trouble by using our available resources for His glory, but I do not believe we should start revolution (which often causes “unnecessary” blood shed and difficulties to many people) in the name of God or Christianity, just like the “liberation theology” followers did in Southern America which had shed countless tears of many people who had lost their loved ones in the process.

When I was a young Christian, I used to dream of living in a “New Testament- style church,” where everyone shares their bread and possessions with each other, and where there is no needy person among us, and I remember saying that I would be willing to die to bring back and/or reestablish such community in today’s world. As I grew older in age and faith, I started to realize that I was wrong. I used to dream that if I could simply scrap all the existing world order and build one that is based on God’s rule, then everything will be perfect. But as I learned more from history and from my own life paths, I realized that power, riches and control are not all that matters. Look at what happened with the church from the time of Constantine to the Reformation which happened to have all of those. All these blessings had not been a blessing for the Church, instead they have led the Church astray.

Do not be mistaken, by all these above, I do not recommend the Christians and the church to stay away from the real world, and/or be passive to its fate. No, I do not recommend Fatalism! Instead, as I mentioned several times above, the Christians and the church needs to be proactive in its role in the world without compromising. Although we no longer have the spirit of timidity, it does not mean that we should go ahead and fight others who do not share the same value with us head on. We should do this with love and discipline as Christ’s disciples (II Tim. 1:17). Sadly, some Christians ignored this warning and went too far by trying to eradicate other values which are not compatible with ours by force. On the opposite pole, there are other Christians also who stooped too low in trying to reach those who do not share the same value and at the end they fell to the well of compromised truth, and they replaced the Gospel of Truth with Pluralism.

I now truly believe it’s the quality that matters, not the quantity or numbers. I would rather have a small yet vibrant Christian community than a big one that is practically rotten and dead. But it does not mean that we should stop doing evangelism or other mission works. Mission works and evangelism is important but the purpose is not to get more “members,” instead we need to build more disciples. Disciples are those who follow the steps of their master. And Christians only have one master, Jesus Christ.

I believe that the blessings we received from God are meaningless if we don’t use them to bless others. Solomon, who probably had all the riches a person could have had at a very young age, can surely testify for this. At the end of his life, instead of boasting on it, he ended up regretting the things that he had done in the past, and claimed all of them to be vanity. I also believe that being powerful in this world is probably not a very important trait to achieve either. In fact, Jesus Himself even claimed that blessed are those who are poor, hungry, hated, ostracized, and scorned for His sake (Lk. 6: 20-23 NASB). But again, I am not promoting or suggesting all of you to go sell our possession and seek God in the desert just like Antony of Egypt, the first recorded monk did. I believe we all have our own tasks and purposes which is unique to each one of us. None of us is greater than the other because we are merely parts of the body and only Christ is the head.

Again, just as Paul wrote to the church of Corinth, we may be few (in number), we may be weak (in power), and the world may consider us fools because we believe in Him and His words, but “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong.” (I Co. 1:27 NASB)

Buntoro Sugianto is currently pursuing Master of Arts in Christian Education at Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California.

Back to top