Jesus, Gospel, and Politics
I read an interesting article in USA Today this week about the changing face of evangelical politics (thanks to Stephen for the link). It's a fascinating read, especially in the insanity that passes for American politics these days. On the upside, I think it's good to hear from evangelicals that are able to see beyond the platform of one party, and the causes mentioned in the article are some excellent ones that should be in most cases no-brainers for those who would consider themselves followers of Christ. On the other hand, this drops into my lap in the middle of some deep reflection on the relationship between gospel and government, church and state, Democrats, Republicans, and Jesus - reflections that have left me somewhat unsettled. So I throw out my nascent thoughts for some comment and critique, in hopes that I will hear some wisdom that will settle my mind and soul.
First, let me just say that if you can read John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus and not find yourself somewhat unsettled, then you're either a far better follower of Jesus than I or you didn't read it very carefully. I read this book a few months ago, and I sort of feel like my mental software's been invaded by a virus that's slowly but surely rewiring my neurons. Add to that a lot of recent reading of N.T. Wright and his take on the gospel (great articles here and here for a start), and a picture is starting to emerge that is entirely unexpected, and truth be told, somewhat disturbing, at least in terms of implications.
What both of these authors propose is a Jesus who was surprisingly political and a gospel that was proclaimed specifically as a challenge to the ruling powers of the day. On some level, it makes perfect sense in a profoundly simple sort of way. If you agree with Wright's proposal on the substance of the gospel, and I've read enough by now to say that I'm leaning strongly in that direction, then I think it has to reshape the common understanding of both content of and response to its message. Wright's proposal is that the primary content of the gospel is simply that Jesus is Lord. All the other stuff that usually gets mixed up in the package (justification, grace, faith, etc.), while immensely important, are not the content of the gospel per se, in his understanding. This should strike an immediate chord with what Jesus' primary message seemed to be - the Kingdom of God has come. This simple proposal solves all sorts of problems for me, not least of which is what can seem at times like a rather odd relationship between the gospels and the rest of the New Testament, but I'll resist the urge to chase that bunny.
So what about that makes the gospel political? It's actually quite simple, and all the more profound for being so - if Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not. Even the word gospel suggests this connection, a borrowed word from the political realm that was used, not of the sort of good news like the brownies are ready to eat, but rather specifically of good news such as the birth of a king or of victory in battle. The gospel represents, then, not simply a message of forgiveness of sins, although it is certainly not less than that. It represents a public challenge to the ruling powers and the formation of an alternate community ordered around a different authority.
So my questions in conjunction with this line of thought - and I'll be the first to admit it's not very well developed, and my summary here is woefully inadequate - are simply these: are we overly concerned with political activism, so much so that we abdicate our responsibility of crafting an alternate community practicing alternate politics? What does it mean to be both a good citizen and a follower of Christ, and is it even possible to be both at the same time? Do we look too quickly to government to solve our problems, whether through legislation or funding or, yes, even force and violence? And, perhaps the most difficult, are we simply too close to the system to realize how much we are indebted to it?
I don't have answers to these at this point - I'm throwing these out for consideration and discussion. Thoughts anyone?
Dude, you should read "Mere Discipleship" by Lee Camp. There's a link to its Amazon page from my blog. The entire book considers your questions. I just got back from an incredible covenant eschatology conference so my brain is fried right now, or else I'd try to write more about my own answers. Maybe later. Great post.
Posted by Jared on June 18, 2005 11:55 AMScott this is deep reading but fascinating. If politics is a set of ideology for living (which I believe in some ways it is) then our "faith" is indeed connected to this subject. I have a friend who keeps telling me that Jesus was the most radical advocate of freedom for women and she can't understand why the church has gone away from that. And the funny part is she doesn't have a relationship with Jesus - but he is her advocate for truth in this area!
I think I need to read this post more deeply to glean more wisdom from it. Thank you.
Posted by stephanie on June 18, 2005 01:21 PMJared - thanks for the tip; added to my (ever-growing) wishlist... I think my next read after I finish Christ Plays is going to be Resident Aliens by Hauerwas - I started that one ages ago and never finished it. So many books, so little time...
Stephanie - It's sort of odd, I think, that we leave Jesus behind so quickly. Paul fits into our little boxes somewhat more easily - at least the way we've come to read him, that is! I've read and heard so much stuff about Jesus' ethic and how it's not really something we need to practice today that at times I find it hard to believe. We don't take Jesus seriously, and we coopt Paul into helping us ignore him. At least that's been my experience.
Posted by ScottB on June 19, 2005 12:57 AMYes, it's an interesting question, isn't it?! The thing which is running through my head just now is the tension between Jesus anti-revolutionary tendencies (a la sermon on the mount being a huge exhortation not to engage in armed rebellion against Rome, blessed are the peacemakers etc) and his subversive tendencies to retell other stories, and subordinate them to God's story. It seems like he's both a political activist (in terms of his subversion and his proclamation) and yet he's very aware that God's plans are not fulfilled by man's political manouvering - at least not militarily speaking.
Where does that leave us? Interesting question, and I don't really know; but I suspect that it involves working with whoever is in power (Democrat / Republican / Liberal / Labor / Communist / Facist / Whoever) and attempting to work towards their subordination to Jesus as Lord, to subvert their self interest or their dominant paradigms of thought by introducing Jesus' concerns and Jesus' leadership into today's political agenda. But I haven't had enough coffee today, so those thoughts are definitely half baked!
Posted by ross on June 19, 2005 02:30 AMScott I am interested in your comment that we don't take Jesus seriously and we have put Paul in the way. In a legalistic background that can be very true - Paul is quoted more than Jesus and therefore Paul rules. That doesn't seem to really fit with who Paul was and the N.T. Wright articles bring that out.
I would say that being a follower of Christ would make you a better citizen because you are more conscious of the world around you, of those around you therefore participating in life more. That will bring it's own creative tension in a society where apathy is far more prevalent that we wish to admit. If it isn't Jesus who turns down the "living" rate in our lives - who it is?
Posted by stephanie on June 19, 2005 11:59 AMthrowing my thoughts in the hat.. for starters, i love your reference to simplicity. sometimes i think it's so simple that we force ourselves to create some type of complexity to challenge our intellectual capabilities.
i think the wise Christ follower leans on government and/or the man made political system if the platform ultimately allows God's purposes to be achieved.. even if only for a season. but if it's not working, the call on our lives demands flexibility. and out of that, history shows time and time again that all too often it's the politicians and government that see their own ineffectiveness and they look to the so called "private" sector to learn success stories.
think of the pro-life/pro-choice argument. at a given point, some followers of Jesus decided to step away from the never ending battles of government and the inflammatory legal/political process to spend their time and energy on underlying issues.. they counseled unwed mothers, taught abstinence, provided education, coordinated adoptions; they just loved and served in any way they could and said - enough is enough.. Christ is Lord over this situation and clearly government is not. instead of picking sides and branding myself politically, i'm just gonna do what i can with the love he put in my heart. period.
might be a bad example, but that gets pretty dang simple to me - an alternate community going about the practice of an alternative kind of politics. the politics of Jesus.
thanks for letting me vent.
Posted by so i go on June 20, 2005 05:31 PMThe following isn't a clear answer to any of your questions, Berkhimer, but I'm not sure I have those answers. Here's what I have.
"They only asked us to remember the poor - the very thing I also was eager to do" (Gal. 2.10, NASB). Paul was given the right hand of fellowship and the blessing of the church to take the gospel to the Gentiles with this one request. Imagine the Body loving and caring for the poor, the homeless, orphans, unwed/single mothers, and widows in our communities as we are supposed to. Not just with food pantries and para-church organizations but with the full, united force of the church. Wouldn't that be a good way to begin declaring that Jesus is Lord?
(If you haven't read it yet, Ross has a great, semi-related post on orthopraxy - Jamesian, if I can use the word about our Lord's brother - you say your doctrine is authentic, I'll show you mine is.)
Posted by Scott L on June 20, 2005 07:54 PMExcellent thoughts everyone. I'm processing at the moment.
Posted by ScottB on June 21, 2005 08:39 AMjoining the party late as usual.
Wright commented in a lecture that Jesus wrote the symphony and Paul conducted it. Would Paul have changed a note to suit his style? Not when it was penned by a true master. Kind of odd that we hum to the ryhthm of the conductor with more ease than we anthem to the melody of it's creator.
I think that it is hard work to decipher when Jesus is speaking of Rome and not. Jesus and the Victory of God (NT Wright) paints a picture of a Savior who was extremely sensitive to the Messianic expectations of his people, but was pressing to bend the paradigm beyond politic. He did not engage Rome as a subordinant or even an equal, but used spoke of it like it was a powerful child. Misdirected, but capable of continuing to inflict great harm. Unfortunately, the Temple was in a greater state of disrepair and I think you would find an argument for what looks like anti-Rome languag actually being anti-temple language. It wasn't Roman legal infractions, but exceptions, that put him death.
The economy of the empire seemed simple to him in my estimation, "Pay Caesar what is due Caesar." It was the economy of the religious that to him presented a more dangerous politic, "Woe to you..."
OK...peace.
Posted by chris on June 22, 2005 07:25 PMMany excellent thoughts here - I think I'm going to post my reflections / responses as a separate entry rather than responding to each individually. Thanks for some great insights.
Posted by ScottB on June 23, 2005 08:38 AM