Was Jesus a Politician? (by Jim Wallis)
Last Friday I was in Santa Barbara, California, to speak at Westmont College - where even on a Friday evening, the gymnasium was packed with students. Before that event I did an interview with The Santa Barbara Independent, a local weekly newspaper, which they titled The Next Great Awakening? One of the questions the reporter asked was, "Do you think Jesus was a politician?" Here is my answer:
Of course not. But he had a vision of the Kingdom of God which was spiritual, personal, relational, social, economic, and yes, political - because it talked about allegiances and loyalties and authority, and if Jesus was Lord, Caesar was not. His confrontation that he provoked in Jerusalem was with the religious and the political leaders. They saw him as a political threat. If they saw him just as a private pietist, why would they worry? [If he was] helping people get their lives together, helping their marriages, making them better parents and make them go to less Roman orgies and drunken parties, why would that have been a threat to the ruling powers? They regarded him as a threat. I remember I was at Wheaton College once and I asked this class, "Why was Jesus killed?" and they had no idea. They just couldn't comprehend the question. And then one young student said, "Well, to save us from our sins." And I said, "So you think Pontius Pilate was sitting there thinking, 'How am I going to save these American evangelicals from their sins? I'm gonna kill this guy and that will do it.'" Albeit that our theological understanding of the cross and our redemption — I'm orthodox on all those questions, but he was killed because he was seen as a threat to the rulers both religious and political. In the book I talk about how Jesus confronted the major political options of his day. All four of them were there, they're always there: One was collaborationist, one was pietist, one was withdrawn — you know, the kind of counter culture — and one was political insurrection, or revolutionary violence. He confronted them all, he rejected them all. There was a fifth option called the Kingdom of God, and that's our option.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I'm not sure Rome (in the person of Pilate) saw Jesus himself as much of a threat. The gospels are pretty consistent that Pilate acts as if Jesus himself is innocent:
What shall I do then with Jesus, who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They all answered, "Crucify him!"
"Why? What crime has he committed?", asked Pilate.
(Matt 27:22-23)
"Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him.
(Mark 15:9-10)
Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd: "I find no basis for a charge against this man"
(Luke 23:4)
But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.
(John 19:6)
Of course, Pilate, who famously asked "What is truth?", did have Jesus executed, an act of remarkable cowardice. And it's very possible that he was being manipulative the entire time. But given what's in scripture the more likely explanation for Pilate's action was that he was trying to placate the mob rather than eliminate a subversive.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 5, 2008 1:59 PM
This seems an odd thing to debate Wolverine. I do not mean to disagree with your assessment as far as it goes, but you leave a lot out.
There is the triumphal entry and Jesus'claim to being the Messiah, a revolutionary concept both the Romans and the religious Jewish leadership had dealt with before. Then there is the cleansing of the temple and its economic social and political repercussions. Later there is the followers who declared they would not submit to the authority's demand that they not preach Christ as the Jewish Messiah, which also undermined their political authority, since they had demanded his death, and of course Paul who really stirred things up.
Rome knew all too well the possible negative effects a new religion could have on the political status quo and outlawed most new religions. I do not think Caesar killed Paul to quell a mob of Jewish reactionaries. Neither did Pilot, he was afraid of Rome and what they would do if he let a man go free who had any messianic claim to the loyalty of the people, even though he knew Jesus was innocent.
Why debate what everyone knows to be true? Is it really so horrible to admit that Jesus and the gospel have always had day to day implications in all of the arenas of life?
The people of the day were certainly not ignorant of what Jesus being God would mean to their way of life in total, though it is apparent that we often are, only seeing Jesus and the Gospel of the Kingdom as saving us from our sins.
Posted by: wayne | March 5, 2008 2:25 PM
If we're discussing whether or not Rome saw Jesus as a threat (I think they did, while at the same time I don't think Pilot personally saw him as a threat as shown by Wolverine's quotes), I think the important thing to ask is what kind of a threat they saw him as.
Jim seems to be implying that Rome saw him as a threat because he was going to take the Roman government to task for not living up the standards set by the Sermon on the Mount and doing more to help the poor and oppressed. I don't think this is why Rome feared Jesus or a Messiah. I think they feared a Jewish Messiah because they felt, along with many Jews at the time, that the Messiah was going to be a great political/military leader who was going to lead the Jews in an uprising against their Roman rulers. A violent revolution was what Rome feared and this is why they feared Jesus. They clearly didn't understand who Jesus was.
This isn't to say that Jesus' message doesn't encompass all spheres of our lives; it does, including the political.
Posted by: Eric | March 5, 2008 3:25 PM
wayne -- Right you are. Jesus was certainly not a politician nor could He have been, but His life, especially in those days, had political implications. And even the early church understood that because of the persecution it experienced.
Probably the church in mainland China understands this because the authorities would love nothing more than to stamp it out. Nevertheless, it just keeps on keepin' on ...
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 5, 2008 3:28 PM
I understood that the Jewish authorities feared Jesus' actions and the crowds that threatened the order of the passover celebration. They brought charges against Jesus before the Roman authorities in order for the death penalty to be assigned. This would eliminate the problem. It was better for one man to die then for several thousand.
Jesus' actual actions and the attraction drawing the crowds was closely related to the compassion and anti-poverty seen in the healing, exorcisms, and his general treatment of the poor. These actions by Jesus were consistent with what is suggested in the Sermon on the mount.
Posted by: Nick | March 5, 2008 3:42 PM
I think Eric has another valid point: to the extent that Jesus was feared by political leaders, a lot of that was because they didn't always understand his teachings.
That's not to say that Jesus had nothing to say about government, but that wasn't his main point.
Which brings me to Wayne's comment that this is an "odd thing to debate." I would disagree, especially on a political blog. It seems to me that Wallis is implying that Rome was attempting to silence Jesus message when they had him crucified -- which in turn suggests that Jesus was more political. If this isn't Jim's meaning, this question still matters because there are others who are quite comfortable making this assertion.
Now Rome would eventually persecute the church, but that wasn't necessarily what Pilate was trying to do here. That's important because it leaves us free to interpret Jesus as primarily a religious teacher, which if you read his actual teachings makes at least as much sense as the political reading preferred by advocates of the social gospel or liberation theology.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 5, 2008 3:50 PM
Karl Marx labeled Jesus the world's first working-class revolutionary. Engels agreed, adding that Christ came bringing not peace but a sword.
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 5, 2008 3:58 PM
This seems an odd thing to debate Wolverine
Wayne I thought it was important , it appeared to me their was using the story of our Lord being crucified to somehow link up to present political theology . The right does this also , perhaps its why it was perceived this way ? In doing so , the trial and reason of the Romans was tweaked to support a political belief . I saw it also , perhaps a right wing brainwave sensor deal . ;0)
Posted by: Mick | March 5, 2008 4:03 PM
Wolverine -- You miss the point.
See, in this country there's a bit of a separation between the religious and the political thanks to our tradition of freedom, but not in Rome them. In fact the Jewish leaders wanted to get rid of Jesus but, to stay in business, had cut a deal decades earlier with the Roman government which abridged their right to execute capital punishment for religious crimes; therefore, He could be nailed only on a civil charge. That was why He was asked "Should we pay taxes to Caesar?" and "What about this woman we caught in the very act of adultery?"
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 5, 2008 4:15 PM
Rick Nowlin wrote:
Jesus was certainly not a politician nor could He have been, but His life, especially in those days, had political implications. And even the early church understood that because of the persecution it experienced.
Probably the church in mainland China understands this because the authorities would love nothing more than to stamp it out. Nevertheless, it just keeps on keepin' on ...
With all due respect Rick, I don't consider the autocrats in Beijing to be the world's foremost experts on Jesus' life and teachings. I doubt that most house church leaders in China would either.
It is a central conservative insight that sometimes governments get things more or less exactly wrong. Just because Rome and the PRC have seen Jesus or he church in ideological terms doesn't mean we should.
Nobody is saying that Jesus' teachings don't have political implications, but on the whole Jesus was primarily a spiritual leader, not a political one. Why make Jesus more political than he really was? Why not let Jesus be Jesus?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 5, 2008 4:32 PM
i think that the very nature of what jesus was teaching was threatening to the government, regardless of whether or not they understood what he was saying.
if you think about the basic premise of govenrment, it's to protect itself (and maybe it's people) and grow itself. That always happens at the expense of other entities (countries or people).
jesus' message of the upside-down kingdom throws a giant wrench into the fundamental workings of government.
and with the romans, peace is paramount. that peace is enforced through the government, which is the final authority. And jesus' authority was not granted to him for that government.
that's threatening.
Posted by: scottie | March 5, 2008 4:34 PM
Reposting to clear up formatting glitch...
Rick Nowlin wrote:
Jesus was certainly not a politician nor could He have been, but His life, especially in those days, had political implications. And even the early church understood that because of the persecution it experienced.
Probably the church in mainland China understands this because the authorities would love nothing more than to stamp it out. Nevertheless, it just keeps on keepin' on ...
With all due respect Rick, I don't consider the autocrats in Beijing to be the world's foremost experts on Jesus' life and teachings. I doubt that most house church leaders in China would either.
It is a central conservative insight that sometimes governments get things more or less exactly wrong. Just because Rome and the PRC have seen Jesus or he church in ideological terms doesn't mean we should.
Nobody is saying that Jesus' teachings don't have political implications, but on the whole Jesus was primarily a spiritual leader, not a political one. Why make Jesus more political than he really was? Why not let Jesus be Jesus?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 5, 2008 4:34 PM
It might be that those who are inclined to see the "modern Roman" incarnation of imperial power as good, that an interpretation that makes Pontius Pilate a somewhat cowardly good guy who viewed Jesus as innocent might be favorably received.
The problem is, that as a human being with a conscience, Pilate knew Jesus was innocent. But as a man whose life, position and self-interest were founded upon allegiance to and rule for Rome, that very innocence made Jesus a competitive threat to Rome's authority and its law as the highest allowed expression of righteous authority.
Faced with competing loyalties, what was the expedient choice?
Although Pilate was initially wracked with guilt, from the time he handed Him over, he and the wicked Herod became the closest of friends. Herod was so vile that it is clear that Pilate had reached a crisis point that determined his eternal fate and he took the well-trod path of worldly compromise to his soul's detriment - he even ridiculously "washed his hands" of the matter seeking to deceive himself about his own responsibility.
Maybe he wouldn't have done it if he really knew the eternal consequences. But that's besides the point of the question of upholding justice when it becomes inconvenient to immediate problems. A person so inclined isn't disposed towards looking forward to the eternal and thinking about having to meet a Maker.
So much for imperial "justice." The truth is subversive in any era. Else, why would even our own politicians lie to us?
I don't think we compromise any less in our own day.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 5, 2008 4:40 PM
See, in this country there's a bit of a separation between the religious and the political thanks to our tradition of freedom, but not in Rome them.
Thanks for clearing that up. I must have been sick the day we talked about the Constitution in Law School.
I was aware that our fine distinctions between religion and government haven't always been recognized, but the fact is they exist now, and that affects how we apply Jesus' words and life in our context. You seem to think that because ancient Rome, with it's less sophisticated legal tradition, did not make a distinction between matters of religion and state, we ought not make that distinction today.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 5, 2008 4:45 PM
With all due respect Rick, I don't consider the autocrats in Beijing to be the world's foremost experts on Jesus' life and teachings. I doubt that most house church leaders in China would either.
You might think differently if you ever talked to Chinese Christians who live daily with the threat of political persecution. The strength of their spiritual commitment probably embarrasses ours here in America. And as for political leadership in China, they have no specific hatred for Jesus except that His followers have no real allegiance to them. (Chinese Christians do pray regularly for the political leadership even though they privately would like to see the regime disappear.)
It is a central conservative insight that sometimes governments get things more or less exactly wrong. Just because Rome and the PRC have seen Jesus or he church in ideological terms doesn't mean we should.
Which is why conservatives themselves often get it wrong. Jesus, properly understood, was always a threat to the status quo, which is why a lot of people in this country have always tried to "de-fang" Him and reduce Him to the Savior. Remember who opposed Martin Luther King Jr. back in the day; he also was non-political in the strictest sense but was often accused of being a closet Communist (and in fact prophesied as much when he was simply a local pastor). So when King read the Gospels he knew he was in good company.
Why not let Jesus be Jesus?
Good question. He declared Himself to be the LORD, and considering His track record I'm not about to argue with Him.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 5, 2008 4:46 PM
Rick and Wolverine,
The church in China, to my limited understanding, isn't being persecuted because of the political implications of Jesus' message. It's being persecuted because of the holdover Communist belief that religion is the opiate of the masses. The Communists that ran China and other countries wanted to destroy Christianity and replace it with religion of the state. Therefore, you couldn't have churches, particularly ones outside of state control. While the current rulers of China aren't the old red Communists of decades ago, they still haven't relinquished their control over the churches.
Now that we're completely off topic... :)
Posted by: Eric | March 5, 2008 4:49 PM
Eric -- With all due respect, you completely contradicted yourself. All totalitarian governments expect worship, and no serious Christian will give it to them; therefore, to say that Jesus alone is LORD is a political statement. (So, for that matter, was His designation as the Messiah, then misunderstood as primarily a political leader.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 5, 2008 4:59 PM
A consistent thread in the gospel narratives is that Jesus was a threat to the religious power brokers whose tolerance of what he said and what he did along the way became a powerful force of pressure on the political power brokers to eliminate him. There is a kinship with contemporary religious power brokers who spend much energy to influence political power brokers as a way to minimize intolerable voices who see Jesus through lens that counter their inflexible views of "rightness."
Posted by: Earl Troglin | March 5, 2008 5:11 PM
The Roman Empire may have had an interest in Christ's death, but it wasn't because Jesus was asking anything of them in particular. Jesus' message was political to the extent that he exalted himself over politicians.
Well and good, but in a country that recognizes the right to exalt a savior above government, to say that Jesus was political to utilize a different definition of the term. Those who ask government to feed the poor are not executed. Bush feeds the poor in Africa using our tax dollars. Barack Obama, while he might not get elected, is not going to be put to death by government for espousing the idea that government has a responsibility to help the poor.
That is the point Wolverine seems to be making. If we assert that Christ was political, of what relevance is that to us? Drawing a line between James Dobson and those who put Christ to death is hyperbole to say the least. But some criticism is warranted for the way he links ideology to faith.
God is not a conservative, or a progressive, in my view.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 5, 2008 5:34 PM
14After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." 15Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself
This verse has always made an impression upon me dealing with politics, not that our views and beliefs are not involved in politics , but using Jesus in politics. This verse was right after the Lord fed the multitude and people were beginning to realize he could be used for their political purpose.
Posted by: Mick | March 5, 2008 5:47 PM
14After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." 15Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself
This verse has always made an impression upon me dealing with politics, not that our views and beliefs are not involved in politics , but using Jesus in politics. This verse was right after the Lord fed the multitude and people were beginning to realize he could be used for their political purpose.
Posted by: Mick | March 5, 2008 5:48 PM
Rick Nowlin wrote:
All totalitarian governments expect worship, and no serious Christian will give it to them; therefore, to say that Jesus alone is LORD is a political statement.
Okay, your statement about totalitarian governments is quite true. But while "Jesus alone is LORD" may be a political statement in a totalitarian state, it is much less politically provocative in a free society.
And while "Jesus alone is LORD" has implications for politics, it also touches on ethics, career, personal finance, relationships, entertainments and recreation, and just about any other field of human endeavor, many of which have nothing to do with government. And finally, it also affects our spiritual lives, and our destiny in the world to come, a realm where no earthly government has ever effectively imposed its jurisdiction.
It may be the case that the entire argument we are having boils down to emphasis or semantics. You are certainly on solid ground when you argue that Jesus' teachings have political ramifications
But those who insist on seeing Jesus as primarily a political figure miss out on most of what he was talking about, and probably wind up misinterpreting the political stuff too. Even on a political blog, we should acknowledge that Jesus' teachings were about far larger things than government.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 5, 2008 5:55 PM
Oh, and a question for Sojourner Truth:
Where in the world did you get the idea that I think Pontius Pilate is a good guy?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 5, 2008 6:02 PM
Rick,
You're right to an extent that I contradicted myself about Jesus' overall message of being our Lord. Most authoritarian governments don't like there being another god except the state. When I wrote about "Jesus' teachings" I wasn't thinking in those broad terms, but the specific teachings we were discussing in previous posts (sermon on the mount, etc).
Posted by: Eric | March 5, 2008 6:12 PM
But while "Jesus alone is LORD" may be a political statement in a totalitarian state, it is much less politically provocative in a free society.
True, and that's why the Christian message often ends up being watered down in free societies.
And while "Jesus alone is LORD" has implications for politics, it also touches on ethics, career, personal finance, relationships, entertainments and recreation, and just about any other field of human endeavor, many of which have nothing to do with government. And finally, it also affects our spiritual lives, and our destiny in the world to come, a realm where no earthly government has ever effectively imposed its jurisdiction.
Spoken like a true Calvinist. Unfortunately, numerous "conservative Christians" have lost sight of that, believing that "fire insurance" is the only thing the Gospel is concerned about.
But those who insist on seeing Jesus as primarily a political figure miss out on most of what he was talking about, and probably wind up misinterpreting the political stuff too.
No one here is saying He is primarily a political figure. King, Gandhi and others were not politicians themselves, but their work similarly ended up being decidedly political.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 5, 2008 6:14 PM
Rick,
I think I understand you a little better now. I am most certainly not a Calvinist but otherwise, peace.
(At least until the next thread...)
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 5, 2008 6:24 PM
Thanks Rick you said it better than I did.
The issue isn't if Jesus would run for office.
Or Mick it isn't that He was actually trying to take over and kick the Romans out.
The issue is that the gospel is not just about being forgiven and going to heaven.
The struggle is over what does it mean to pray and seek for the Kingdom to be "on earth" just as it is already in heaven. We talk about what that looks like here on this forum, and we disagree a lot about how to be about His Kingdom. That is sad.
I think if we met face to face and just discussed the Kingdom we would probably argue less and find it more.
I do not expect to see that Kingdom before I die, or for my children to see it before they also leave this life, but we all get glimpses now and again. I wish I were better at it.
Posted by: wayne | March 5, 2008 7:08 PM
"Where in the world did you get the idea that I think Pontius Pilate is a good guy?"
Wolverine
Not that you think that - there keeps going around the idea, in the past, that it was "the Jews" alone who bore the blame for His execution - instead of all of us.
The Roman Catholic Church may have been tempted to fall into this error after Constantine, as Rome became "Christian" and made a unity of Church and state. As inheritors who morphed into the "Holy Roman Empire" it was convenient to find excuses to move the entire "Christ Killer" label to the Jews, despite the fact that Jesus and almost all the disciples were Jews, too.
Obviously the fruit of this error was to contribute to great evil.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 5, 2008 7:25 PM
I wish I were better at it.
Posted by: wayne |
your better then you think , Praise God
Posted by: Mick | March 5, 2008 7:26 PM
I was reading a psalm, about ' God killed..". I know, kierkegaard spoke of our faith, as he saw too many ' cultural christians' ( versus political christians'); he said we are saved, to the degree we have 'processed thru our own lens and being'.
As a catholic ( in one sense ' ecumenical'), lent's work helps me. Last Lent, on Ash Wednesday, I was driving home and i forgot i had my ashes on my forehead, in the shape of a cross. i live in Chicago. In front of me, 'a man' pulled up beside another man, he jumped out of his suv, and opened the door on the driver. He took his hand and started banging his hand in the door. In my spirit, nothing was 'real', as all others watched, my mouth opened, " Stop, I have your plate and i am callingn 911'> He looked at this woman with ashes on her forehead, and i was the fool for that Present. The witness of Christ to me was he was there to say- to me- this is why I died.
To live in this world and live without 'faith' would be awful.
The lens of ours as wallis said, gives us a new lens,a personal and communal vision that creates our lives. I do know i can not change anything if i am not changed by faith in that witness/transformation process.
I thank Christ whose work has given the final witness to all principalities to the author of lies, complicity; by faith, i resonate" if one leaves not all for my kingdom, one is not worthy to be my disciple'.
if we align with wars for lies, etc,then we are not worthy.
Jesus died to help me be worthy- to work, worship and be the word to others- not in stone, but in a living heart.
By the way, not all wheaton grads are dumb. I think of Beatrice Batson whose work there taught me much. I do see many wonderful believers who are working out why Jesus died from there, with many major ways..
I do have to take issue with those who are 'in denial' as kierkegaard would agree with the issues of ' cultural christianity'.
My step presently as a teacher,is to decide to go to the third world', and live, with questions of how one can live in america and not be without 'issue'/ i appreciate the forum's consciousness raising and faith sharing. Not just
in history did Roman Catholics, but most ' Evangelicals' are morphing to the state-- ? etc..
okay.. i am gone--God bless.
Posted by: susan | March 5, 2008 10:11 PM
Thank you Jim Wallis for speaking clearly, and for speaking truth clearly.
Posted by: Damian | March 5, 2008 10:54 PM
I would add that in some way Jesus was a politician, among the other titles we tend to add to his resume. solely based on the phrase "kingdom of God." This phrase forms an agenda with a political edge, much like what is said in the Hebrew Scriptures of the "year of Jubilee." All things are to be leveled, setting up a government that considers the "least of these" while also including the "best of these" to participate also. All are included and asked to participate in this government, with Jesus being the spokesman of this kingdom.
Posted by: chris | March 5, 2008 10:58 PM
"Okay, your statement about totalitarian governments is quite true. But while "Jesus alone is LORD" may be a political statement in a totalitarian state, it is much less politically provocative in a free society."
Right, and whether this results in a watered down faith or not (I disagree that it does, but that is a different discussion) it is true. I would suspect that every Wheaton student has considered that Jesus placed himself government and would, if pressed, consider that to be a political statement of sorts.
That they don't think of it that way is understandable, given that our definition of politics is rather substantially different in America. But was Wallis simply trying to achieve some semantic enlightenment? That seems unlikely.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 5, 2008 11:00 PM
Once Jesus taught that marriage was a man and a woman, he was hated the same way by the liberal side of society ever bit as much as He is today, by those that teach that marriage and sexuality can mean "anything goes."
Do not -- DO NOT -- bring your own right-wing agenda into the Scriptures to attack people whom you despise.
When it came to marriage Jesus was specifically referring to divorce, in part because the Pharisees were using legal loopholes to leave their wives for the most frivolous of reasons. When it came to homosexuality, however, He never addressed it because, as He was first "sent to the lost sheep of Israel," it wasn't an issue because the Jewish people just weren't doing it.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 8:53 AM
"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor,Mighty God,Eternal Father,Prince of Peace.There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,"
I think most Jewish people read this promise and saw both a politician and a religious leader/teacher.
They were right and wrong at the same time.
Posted by: wayne | March 6, 2008 9:02 AM
I'm late to this thread but I feel the urge to put in my two cents' worth about China (not that it's the central topic, admittedly).
China does not wish to "stamp out" Christianity. It merely wishes to control it. There are hundreds if not thousands of government-sponsored churches in China, and the couple I've been to were packed to the maximum, with people listening outside the windows because they could not get a seat. There is no doubt the spirit is working in those churches, which are totally above-ground and legal.
What the PRC does not allow are the "underground" house churches, with the reason being those churches' entanglements with foreign powers that China sees as a threat. The underground Catholic churches recognize the Pope as their leader, which is against the law in China, and some of the Protestant chuches allegedly get support from overseas missions organizations that China perceives to be against the Chinese government. (If that sounds silly, remember all the wacko things Pat Robertson has said about communist countries and then thank him for helping make the plight of Christians in house churches worse.)
Interestingly, in some parts of China such as Guangzhou and Shanghai, non-government churches operate out in the open with little consequence. In other areas (including Beijing) there is terrible persecution for particiation in a house church.
I know this long post has little to do with the article, but I think it is important to clarify that the threat the Chinese government perceives from the non-government churches (and mosques for that matter) is very much political and not religious.
Posted by: I and I | March 6, 2008 9:12 AM
"China does not wish to "stamp out" Christianity. It merely wishes to control it."
A distinction without a difference. Blaming Pat Robertson for Chinese oppression of Christians is drinking the kool-aid, pure and simple. I'm not a Robertson defender, but we don't censor our disdain for oppressive political regimes simply because said regime might respond negatively.
The Chinese government has a long-established track record of finding any excuse to persecute religion, and it isn't simply because Americans are big bad bullies (though I'm sure their propaganda machine would like us to believe so).
And yes, in this context, Jesus is inherently political. If you are forbidden to worship Christ by law, and you do so anyway, you are breaking policy.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 6, 2008 10:18 AM
Every secular power will seek to control or co-opt religion if it realizes it can't stamp it out.
Generally, governments favor religions that will give them God's blessing for what they already want to do.
This mirrors the propensity for people generally to adopt or modify religious beliefs in harmony with their basic selfishness. For this reason, sometimes conscience doesn't lead to truth, but away from it.
The reason that "taking up the Cross" and "dying to self" are so difficult is that the truth never lies along the path of natural desire, broken as it is by sin.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 6, 2008 11:12 AM
Kevin: "A distinction without a difference."
No, there is a difference. Compare China with Saudi Arabia and see what I mean.
"Blaming Pat Robertson for Chinese oppression of Christians..."
Didn't mean to make it sound that way. The Chinese government is responsible for its own oppression of Christians. I was just trying to illustrate why the oppression is political rather than religious, as in Saudi Arabia which doesn't allow ANY churches or Chrsitan worship for strictly religious reasons. I shouldn't have mentioned Robertson, though I did consider some of his over-the-top language about toppling the Chinese government unnecessary. And I am all for holding China's feet to the fire on this.
"The Chinese government has a long-established track record of finding any excuse to persecute religion..."
I think this is an exaggeration for the post-Mao era. One of Deng's reform's in the early 1980's was to establish the church system as a way of liberalizing China, along with his instituted economic reforms. I agree that China's religious and personal liberties reforms have regrettably not advanced with anything near the same speed as their economic reforms.
"If you are forbidden to worship Christ by law..."
Again, that is not the case. It comes from the restriction on forming organizations without government approval. If one wanted to establish an environmental organization or a self-help organization that would meet in people's homes without government approval, the government response would be similar.
Again, all this is not to defend China's restrictive social policies. It is to underscore the point that the post-Mao Chinese government does not see a threat with religious worship in itself, but in the uncontrolled gathering of people and forming of clubs and organizations, particularly if those org's become large. Paranoid? By all means. Should we speak out about it. Emphatically, yes. But we must understand it. Just like we must try to understand (but not sympathize with) terrorists' motives in order to try to address the problem.
As an aside, my wife is a Chinese Christian from the mainland, so this is not an abstract discussion for me.
Posted by: I and I | March 6, 2008 12:04 PM
I see in these postings that no one has defined what they mean by "politics" or "political." I think it is very simple: it is the ability of individuals and communities to live their lives as they want to (i.e., accoprding to their beliefs and values). And in a Christian, and even general religious sense, to live their lives according to their spiritual beliefs. It's not about liberal vs conservative as much as it is about the interests of established powers and institutions (states, militaries, parties, churches, "special interest" groups, etc) to maximize power and profit vs... people living their everyday lives. That's kind of vague, but "politics" means power, which in the broadest sense of "freedom" (religious or secular) means "grassroots" or "popular" control of communities, beliefs, values, laws. This is a bit simplistic (and no community is ever homogenous enough to avoid all conflict), but it draws attention to the connection between POLITICS and SPIRITUALITY, if politics is understood as the use of power to live freely according to your beliefs and values. Are you going to give a person a fish, or teach them how to fish? (as you will see later, this kind of thinking conflicts with liberal as well as conservative thought in the USA - and thankfully so!)
But of course the flip side of freedom is responsibility - to your self, family, community, strangers - and god, worship, and religion (i.e., once you have given yourself to Christ, you lose some of the distinction between freedom and responsibility as you walk down that path - as Susan said, "I do know i can not change anything if i am not changed by faith in that witness/transformation process"). The accumulation of power for power's sake in religious institutions turns out to have the same effects as the accumulation of power for power's sake in OTHER institutions - war, profit, social control. And in this age of advertising and consumerism, having more stuff than your neighbor and being cool. You see this more or less in any given religion, sect, church, etc if it is functioning unhealthily - i.e., for power's sake. These are the common "political" problems in any given religious tradition - along with one last big one, "freedom" of belief (for self as well as others) vs the "responsibility" to prosletyze.
I think what the main point that the examples of Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK all bring up is that often in human history, when people try to exercise power over their own lives - to live with freedom (for self and others) and responsibility (for self and others) - they run into conflicts with the powers that be, which have vested interests in various forms of control by coercion and force. This is ESPECIALLY true for groups that expereince formal and informal discrimination and oppression: indigenous peoples, slaves, women, gays and lesbians, the poor and homeless, religious minorities, political dissidents, etc. The authorities end up defining "peace" as the absence of social unrest (which often involves killing and jailing, etc), whereas the people who are the targets of social control think "peace" means their ability to live in FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY to self, community, and belief.
The powers that seek control and profit, when not using direct force, seek to make themselves necessary in our lives via coercion - they become predatory, whether on our need for security (the army), shared resources (taxation), or salvation (church). Once you set yourself up outside and/or in opposition to these structures of domination and control, you are a target; this is what happened to the movements that followed Jesus, Gandhi, MLK. In a sense, everything is political and everything is spiritual - or everything has those dual aspects to it. And the Jewish people (among most other ancient peoples) certainly have a long history of leaders who lead in governmental, military, and religious aspects simultaneously - Wayne pointed this out. I think some of the commentators here alluded to these points; I wanted to draw them out in more detail and see what you all think. I would refer you to the comments of Wolverine (see esp. "And while 'Jesus alone is LORD' has implications for politics...") and Sojourner Truth.
For example, I think Sojourner Truth was right on to examine the persecution of Jesus from the standpoint of 'what are the vested interests of those in power?' Well it was control, profit, war, religious control, etc. Once you live for those things, everyone is a collaborator of one sort or another. Jesus wanted a society outside AND in opposition to those those values.
He wanted to make that society thru love of god, thru freedom and responsibility of community and worship, thru political control of self and spiritual health and wholeness. Those in various positions of power saw that as a threat for a variety of reasons - they would lose power under such a system, Jesus could be intentionally fomenting a revolution of one sort or another (doesnt matter if it was military or not, Roman Empire was out for total social control), Jews could get carried away with Jesus' message and make their own revolution with him as an unwilling martyr, Jews would stop listening to the Temple priests, people would stop paying taxes, people would help the needy and build community themselves, etc, etc.
Pretty much everything Jesus did threatened the status quo one way or another. And you know what, if Christians in this country lived as Jesus, they would too - and that statement is true whether you are conservative, moderate, or liberal and secular or religious. Because many things in this country are Biblically wrong: some of those things come from the GOP, some from the Dems, etc - I see that Silence is not golden missed this point, and I am sure many of the liberals on this list missed it too. So when Silence is not golden says "Jesus was execeuted ONLY for political reasons" he's a bit off the mark, but not wrong by any means! As I have been stating, military, social, political, and religious control often get tangled up together. But that is NOT just because different institutions and people decide to collaborate for their own profit. It is MAINLY because the POLITICAL and SPIRITUAL aspects of life are two sides of the same coin.
As Sojourner Truth said, "The reason that 'taking up the Cross' and 'dying to self' are so difficult is that the truth never lies along the path of natural desire, broken as it is by sin."
Posted by: lollardy2000 | March 6, 2008 1:14 PM
I think it is very simple: it is the ability of individuals and communities to live their lives as they want to (i.e., accoprding to their beliefs and values). And in a Christian, and even general religious sense, to live their lives according to their spiritual beliefs.
Just the opposite -- the idea that there is a right and a wrong that is or should be codified, whether by law or culture, is what we're talking about. In fact, "politics" cannot be separated from "policy."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 1:22 PM
No, Rick Nowlin, these are not opposites. Except for psychopaths, EVERYONE lives according to some model of right and wrong; whether they admit it or not, are conscious of it or not, try to reflect on their beliefs or not, try to put their beliefs into action or not, develop ideas of right and wrong in concert with others or not, have a religious basis to these ideas or not, etc etc.
My point about freedom is that people ARE free to choose any of these options. Of course many people deny or ignore this freedom or do not take advantage of it - to their detriment. Jesus called us to recognize this freedom and choose to walk in his light. True responsibility to any religious code (provided it supports life, not killing non-believers) makes the idea that "you are losing your freedom by doing so" fade away.
Whether "there is a right and a wrong that is or should be codified" or not - this is simply a secular way of looking at the dilemma I posed early in my post: "'freedom' of belief (for self as well as others) vs the 'responsibility' to prosletyze." This is the dilemma of power/spirituality in all secular and religious institutions. Jesus did not want to create a new state religion, or a church everyone had to belong to upon pain of death or social exclusion. He wanted people to choose to come to him.
This is also what drove debates about 'predestination' vs 'good works' that consumed so much of mid-millenium christianity! Do we do things just to get into heaven - or are we really trying to live Jesus' way? Does god have final say and already know what's going to happen to us - or can we influence the future? Personally I think that debate turned stale quickly; there is another way to look at it: choosing to follow Christ in belief and action, regardless of whether we know or believe that we can influence our destiny or god's will. That's why I see freedom and responsibility, and politics and spirituality, as 2 sides of the same coin, for individuals as well as communities. You have to be able to make that choice freely or it is worthless. And if you prevent other people and groups of people from living in freedom and responsibility for THEIR own lives - that is evil.
Posted by: lollardy2000 | March 6, 2008 1:51 PM
Except for psychopaths, EVERYONE lives according to some model of right and wrong; whether they admit it or not, are conscious of it or not, try to reflect on their beliefs or not, try to put their beliefs into action or not, develop ideas of right and wrong in concert with others or not, have a religious basis to these ideas or not, etc etc.
You might believe that if human beings were primarily self-sufficient, as contemporary Western society tends to be; however, the Scripture does not lend itself to that view. As an individual you may live the way you want; however, as a member of society you need to consider the needs of others.
Furthermore, I don't believe that people can "choose" to follow Christ, because our moral corruption is so that we can't even consider Him unless He reveals Himself to us. That's why He said, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me." If you are a Christian it's because God showed you how.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 2:49 PM
Jesus was and IS a liberal, and an outspoken one, at that. How many people are willing to be executed for their beliefs - only those who are ABSOLUTELY certain. Jesus was certain because he lived in "The Kingdom of God". (Would that we all had that ability.) If he was to reappear today and speak the same rhetoric, all of the AM radio "conservative" pundits would demand that he be crucified.
Posted by: Jon Bryant | March 6, 2008 6:00 PM
I'd like to get back to Wallis' point, which was, as I take it, that there are four ways to respond to living in a society that does not entirely conform to your (Christian) religious/moral/ethical beliefs. 1) You can collaborate with it (make compromises that damage your integrity, but in a way you think you can live with), the collaborationist response; I think this is like continuing to pay taxes so that you won't go to jail even though you know the money goes to perpetuate a war you think is unjust or you think income tax itself is unjust; 2) the pietist response--I'm not sure what he means by this. Has anyone read the book? 3) you can try to separate yourself from it entirely by living a counter cultural lifestyle--perhaps throwing out your television set, or home schooling your children (to forestall misunderstanding I do not think this is what ALL homeschoolers are doing merely that it might be one expression of this approach) or 4) you resort to violence to enforce your religion/morality much like the terrorists are doing, or the people who want to blow up abortion clinics, or the people who want to kill the people who want to blow up abortion clinics, or perhaps our government that decided Saddam's immorality merited a violent response.
Or, Jim says, there's a fifth way. Build the Kingdom. So then what we ought to be discussing is first, is Jim right about the first four ways--"Jesus didn't like them very much"--and then, how do we go about Building the Kingdom. Which I suppose entails figuring out what the kingdom ought to look like in the first place. Any one want to discuss this?
Posted by: p2ehling | March 6, 2008 6:53 PM
Perhaps it's important to ask what we know/understand of jesus' life and teachings inthrough the lense of the political theory/practice of anarchism.
'Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. '
It opposes all forms of hierarchical control be that by the state, economic practices, socialio-normalization, corporations, non-prof/non-governmental organizations, religious institutions (religious thought?), individual(s) who (willingly or un) excersize authority/oppression against another.
"While the popular understanding of anarchism is a violent, anti-state movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition than a simple opposition to governemnt power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organization" (the politics of individualism, L. Susan Brown).
Posted by: amos | March 6, 2008 11:07 PM
2,000 years ago the cross had no religious meaning and was not a piece of jewelry. When Jesus said, "Pick up your cross and follow me"...
Everyone understood he was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads in Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any others who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces.
Jesus was never a Christian, that term was even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus walked the earth a man.
Jesus was a social justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up and challenged the job security of the Temple authorities by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God already LOVED them just as they were:
Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Military Occupation.
What got Jesus crucified was disturbing the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces of his time, by teaching the subversive concept that Caesar only had power because God allowed it and that God preferred the humble sinner, the poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Occupation above the elite and arrogant.
excerpted WAWA Blog March 2, 2008:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
...Two thousand years ago, there was lively debate about who Jesus was, and why he came. Churches before Emperor Constantine legitimized Christianity were hot beds of individuality and not the institutions that have become big business today...
...About 2,000 years ago, when Christ was about 33, he hiked up a hill and sat down under an olive tree and began to teach the people;
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven."
In other words: it is those who know their own spiritual poverty, their own limitations and sins honestly and trust God loves them in spite of themselves who already live in the Kingdom of God.
How comforted we will all be, when we see, we haven't got a clue, as to the depth and breadth of pure love and mercy of The Divine Mystery of The Universe.
God's name in ancient Aramaic is Abba which means Daddy as much as Mommy and He/She: The Lord has said, "My ways are not your ways. My thoughts are not yours." -Isaiah 55:8
Christ proclaimed more: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."
The essence of meek is to be patient with ignorance, slow to anger and never hold a grudge. In other words: how happy you will be when you also know humility; when you know yourself, the good and the bad, for both cut through every human heart.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, they will be filled."
In other words: how happy you will be when your greatest desire is to do what "God requires, and he has already told you what that is; BE JUST, BE MERCIFUL and walk humbly with your Lord."-Micah 6:8
"Blessed are the merciful, they will be shown mercy." In other words: how happy you will all be when you choose to return only kindness to your 'enemy.'
"For with the measure you measure against another, it will be measured back to you." Christ warns his disciples as he explains the law of karma in Luke 6:27-38.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they see God."
In other words: how happy you will be when you WAKE UP and see God is already within you, within every man, every woman and every child. The Supreme Being is everywhere, the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. Beyond The Universe -and yet so small; within the heart of every atom.
"Blessed are The Peacemakers: THEY shall be called the children of God."
Oh how happy the WORLD will be when we all seek justice and pursue it, for there can be none without the other.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted because they do what God requires, theirs is The Kingdom of Heaven."
And one fine day the lion will lie down with The Lamb and man will make war no more and that is the Kingdom of God....
excerpted "The Stages of the Soul and How Religiosity/Fundamentalism is holding up Evolution"
freely given away in the
GREATER AWAKENING series on WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Posted by: Dr. John | March 6, 2008 11:18 PM
As an individual you may live the way you want; however, as a member of society you need to consider the needs of others
posted by Rick
Not sure if you are being understood Rick , because I am hoping I do not . It is important in child development that certain norms are constant . Certain right and wrong behaviors are shared . This is not just a Christian view , but secual humanist will share in this understanding . Not allowing children to grow up in such a constant cultural setting is detrimental to their growth .
Hence when you take away a value of saying you are required raising your hand in order to ask a question , you are indeed supporting another value . You are
Their is no such thing as neutral values . We do choose to follow Christ , your right He reveals Himself to us , but it is we that choose the path we go on .
If you take the path on the right , you are choosing God , if you choose the path on the left , you are choosing the world .
Ok that last part was a joke ..
Posted by: Mick | March 6, 2008 11:41 PM
I know who Pilot is. Think of LBJ with his wet finger in the air. He is at the top. As high as he can go. He just wants to stay there.
Herod? Think of J. E. Hoover. Avarice, ambisious,feels slighted because he did get the CIA position. He's the best kept secret in the room.
Which one saw MLK as their most direct threat?
We haven't even gotten to the likes of McCarthy and his chorus or Bull Connor.
MLK was not running for political office. He was asking people to change their hearts, change their culture, change their consumption habbits, change the direction of the wind.
What would he be saying today?
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | March 7, 2008 8:37 AM
"What we ought to be discussing is first, is Jim right about the four ways--'Jesus didn't like them very much'"
"1) You can collaborate with it (make compromises that damage your integrity); I think this is like continuing to pay taxes so that you won't go to jail even though you know the money goes to perpetuate a war you think is unjust or you think income tax itself is unjust."
However, although a tax collector repented, Jesus' own take when asked was that we are to pay taxes, even though the kingdom of the world wasn't the Kingdom that we are to be ruled by. He told us he would make sure it wasn't burdensome - that he would provide, just as the people of Israel prospered while being burdened with extra taxes by Pharoah.
Not paying taxes can bring our faith and therefore the salvation example to the world into disrepute. That would be fatal and the tax protest movement does not further the cause of Christ - think Wesley Snipes.
The only legitimate way not to pay taxes is to reduce income and take a vow of poverty. Are we willing to do that, or are we more motivated by greed?
2) Pietism has one making one's religious faith so personal and internal that it impacts nothing outside oneself. Hence, the politicians who can claim to be good Catholics privately and still support abortion on demand publicly. You live both a private and public life, and never the twain shall meet. Hence, one particular vulnerability - being accused of "pietistic hypocrisy."
"3) you can try to separate yourself from it entirely by living a counter cultural lifestyle--perhaps throwing out your television set, or home schooling your children (to forestall misunderstanding I do not think this is what ALL homeschoolers are doing merely that it might be one expression of this approach)"
We homeschooled our children and we haven't had broadcast or cable TV since 1989. I don't think engaging the culture for Christ means subliminal indoctrination by watching hours of manipulative ads or being regaled with "Survivor" or "American Idol." Following the Lord is most assuredly a counter-cultural choice. Now if I didn't post here, that would be a different matter - I would be trying to separate myself from all the unhealthy liberalism and conservatism that passes for pietistic expressions of Christianity! (Just kidding.)
4) as for violence, it is prohibited, if we really want to grow closer to our Savior, "less of me and more of Jesus" as Billy Graham put it recently upon being honored. Only non-violent resistance to evil is permitted or successful at accomplishing the good ends that sincere people seek, instead of distorting the ends to become identical to an evil means used.
The fifth way - (as a Christian fifth column?) - is for us to live according to the Kingdom we belong to, just as Jesus teaches us in Matthew 5, 6 and 7, the long-ignored and abandoned core of what it really means to follow Him.
Get that right, and the rest is left up as an exercise for the student.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 7, 2008 5:09 PM
It is too bad the the political edge to the message of the Kingdom of God has been lost and misunderstood by most. We need to regain that understanding. Thanks to Jim Wallis and others who make the attempt to bring that understanding back.
A good analogy that I have heard goes something like this:
Calling Jesus Lord has the same political edge in 1st century Roman controlled Palistine that putting a bumper sticker on your VW in 1939 Germany that read: "Jesus is Lord. Hitler is not."
Posted by: jackfate | March 9, 2008 3:48 PM
"Calling Jesus Lord has the same political edge in 1st century Roman controlled Palistine that putting a bumper sticker on your VW in 1939 Germany that read: "Jesus is Lord. Hitler is not.""
But whether that is politcal depends entirely on context. If you had such a bumper sticker in England at the time, you would have been fine.
If God commands us to eat eggs every morning, and eggs are banned in a particular country, then the "egg" message is political in that country.
But so what?
"If he was to reappear today and speak the same rhetoric, all of the AM radio "conservative" pundits would demand that he be crucified."
On what evidence do you say this?
Posted by: kevin s. | March 9, 2008 5:11 PM
"I think this is like continuing to pay taxes so that you won't go to jail even though you know the money goes to perpetuate a war you think is unjust or you think income tax itself is unjust;"
Jesus is pretty clear on taxes. I don't think paying taxes is mutually exclusive.
"Which I suppose entails figuring out what the kingdom ought to look like in the first place. Any one want to discuss this?"
As I see it, we all are tasked with bringing about the restoration of God's kingdom. This can only be done through the power of Christ, so those who reject Christ obviously fail in the task.
The question becomes one of whether we can help restore the kingdom by way of moving the hands of government. As we live in a representative Democracy, we have an opportunity to use our influece to demand change from a largely non-Christian leadership, or elect Christians.
To the extent we have that tool at our disposal, I think we should utilize it and would be silly not to do so. But it is one of many tools to restore God's kingdom on Earth. And there is a lot of disagreement as to how politics can best bring about justice.
What does that look like? I think it looks like good governance that does not oppress it's citizens, but rather seeks to protect them. In my view, I never want to extend very much power to a politician, but want to keep them on a short leash.
I bristle whenever an elected official touts his or her own compassion or goodness. Politicians are employees, and they are profoundly replacable. If I see it fit to use them to demonstrate my compassion, I will, but they don't get to take credit.
In that respect, I seek a government that utilizes it's knowledge, but defers to my wisdom as a Christian. I am wiser than the most experienced politician, if he or she does not have Christ. That is a biblical fact, and one to keep in mind when we discuss how to use government to bring about God's kingdom.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 9, 2008 6:07 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?