.jpg)
In America we have made a craft out of towing lines of faith and politics. The right-wing generation of Moral Majority followers, pro-lifers, and home schoolers have often taken the Gospel and shoved it right into the glass bottle, like a model schooner, the bottle is America and the ship is faith. The alternate extreme is happening with the offspring of the religi-cons. Twenty-somethings across the country have become socially conscience and found solace in the Democratic Party. Issues like Abortion are negligable collateral damage as we fight for "Biblical Issues" like the environment and the poor.
Independents clog American democracy with their micro-selections in voting and policy support. For the purist, independents ruin democratic progress and/or conservation because they slow movements and grid lock ventures. Joining a political party requires some compromise and submission, but it greases the gears. For the Christian, these compromises and submissions are actually impossible. Simply put, Christians face at least two major conflicts.
First, Jesus said you cannot serve two masters. Claiming something like this is not some sort of divine proverb of philosophical implication, its an observation of the human condition. Jesus was not simply a hippy in burlap sitting on a rock postulating about masters and servants. Humans find loyalty difficult to multitask, which explains war, greed, lust, consumerism and so much pain in the world. Of course to any member of humanity who does not believe in Jesus as the pivot point of spirituality, its possible to hope someday for multitasking who we serve.
Thats what motivates things like Product Red or the Moral Majority...they help us to indulge materially and relieve our guilt with benevolence or reconcile political ambitions with faith. But alas, these only work independent of a belief in Jesus, which many could soundly dismiss as foolish religion with valid philosophy. Only those who actually claim Jesus is the hub are subject to indictment for the hypocrisy of towing these lines of mastery.
The second issue is slightly more suspect/subject, simply debatable. Some of Jesus' actions are interpreted differently. Easter is a complex, dramatic tension between death and life, which is the broad blanket covering Christianity as a whole. Both the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus are documented historically, but independently. Sources have soundly proven a man claiming to be Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by the Roman Empire and that a man claiming to be Jesus of Nazareth was alive and active three days later, many conspiracies and a third of the world's faith diversely explore the in between. If you can submit to the mystical nature of such an occasion and believe Jesus was God and did raise from the dead, as Christians believe, then you must assume He knew of the resurrection in the moment of death. The fact that Jesus would die at the hands of a government and a religious aristocracy could introduce a very powerful protest. A man with the power to stop his own execution by simply recanting former claims and does not, is a tragic hero. If you believe Jesus knew the crucifixion was the means to an end, then it was a protest, his way of saying no ruler better governs the earth than God who made it. He will decide his own life and death and as such he made the secondary commentary through his action of saying, "no man will govern the world's ways, because only God can do so", making the crucifixion a triumphant protest, not a tragic execution.
Again, the argument assumes you are willing to suspend suspicions of things unprovable, so we cannot argue political parties are wrong, nor are governments, or serving different systems or ideals...unless of course you do believe. The baby-boomer religi-cons with their dismissal of governance and fight against abortion and the post-modern evange-libs with their embrace of environmentalism and advocacy for the poor are empassionately engaging democracy on behalf of God, but neither functions unless they are willing to part ways with any system for the sake of Jesus being God and again...the pivot point.
14 comments:
Couple of initial reactions, I'm uncomfortable with the language of the crucifixion being a protest, triumphant or not. My unease probably comes from the fact that liberation theology views the crucifixion in a similar vein, free from any supernatural consequences.
the resurrection vindicates the deity of Christ, a sign that his payment for our sin was accepted by God, the defeat of death and victory over Satan and that Jesus is alive. Those reasons seem stronger to me for the crucifixion rather than merely a protest.
He did say how his kingdom was not of this world.
And what about the biblical thought that God, being supreme, is in control of who governs and that government, as an entity, is part of God's plan. Knowing our broken nature, we need government. Where gov't stops and starts is where the debate rages.
So, are you proposing a new system? Or that all systems fall short (most likely).
Great thoughts, and I agree there is brokenness in both parties and each side compromises on something. For me, what we do with our differences is another "pivot point." Can we love w/out compromising who we are? Does our identity rest in our beliefs or in whom we believe in?
I am definitely not implying there was nothing supernatural, so I hope that doesn't come across. I will say I spoke with a few people this week who seemed to argue the victory extends to the secondary symbolism of subverting man's attempt to harness God.
To put things another way, when we put hope in politics and governing, where there is potential for progress, we must be careful to recognize the difference between a conduit for God's work and a supplement simply guised by using His name.
First, I know plenty of pro-lifers and several home-schoolers who are passionate Jesus-followers and obsessed with the gospel.
Second, as Derek Webb so aptly sings, "there will never be a savior on capitol hill."
Third, I think you are right. We do put to much hope in our systems, thinking that we can make things right. Our political optimism is enlightenment thinking all over again (which isn't necessarily always bad...), but our hope is not in humankinds abilities regarding progress nor in our systems, but rather in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, who lived, died, and rose again ushering in a new kingdom, and who will again return and bring all things to completion.
being less than enthusiastic to engage in political dialogue, i can appreciate the point where you state "...neither functions unless they are willing to part ways with any systems for the sake fo Jesus being God..." i shut down when people begin to pull from religion to support politics or vice versa. faith shouldn't be used as support for an idea. all of our ideas should point to Christ.
i also think the idea of the cross as a protest is an intriguing, if incomplete, idea. hold it up to the fact that the messiah was expected to be a political ruler and something interesting sparks there in my mind. Jesus' birth, life, and death broke expectations. a protest? maybe. but if not that, definitely something to shake things up. a statement that Jesus was a new king, although not a king that fit into earthly governmental structures.
Hey Austin, I agree with comments above. I don't see the crucifixion as a protest at all. A protest is what someone or group does when they disagree with the controling powers above them.
I walked past the Tea Party protest at a local park today and took in the spectacle. It was good to see peaceful protest and right to gather is still acceptable in this great country. They were clearly protesting the policies of the current administration.
In the case of the cross, Jesus had no reason to protest the Roman and Jewish authority- he knew who the authority was, and is still. In fact, I would say the reason for Jesus execution was those "authorities" were protesting what Jesus was claiming, "I am the King, God is the Authority, my Kingdom has come." They thought killing Jesus was a successful protest against His kingdom. Oops. Wrong.
As for politics in our country today, you are right in there is no "Christian party." Both have strengths and weaknesses, and sadly I feel like they both have more weaknesses than strenghts. This is a hard place to be for a naturally inclined optimist.
I default to Paul writing in I Cor 6. It may be "permissable" or "lawful", but not all things are beneficial. And more important, he writes, "I will not be dominated by anything." I will be a participant in our political processes, and willing to engage in conversations, but I will always attempt to keep my first allegiance to Jesus.
Well it appears semantics have failed me. Maybe an act of defiance would be a better choice of words. Of course people may think by defiance that I am implying Jesus was under the authority of these systems and therefore defiance would undermine the pecking order. All in all, the point is small in the grand thesis of the article.
First, I really like what Mike said about home schoolers and pro-lifers. I must say part of my motivation for the article was the pigeon holing I think so many Christians do in the Obama era, of conservatives and assumptions of their expressions of faith.
Secondly, I do believe saying that Jesus' choice, note the word choice, to accept the cross, was a statement to undermine/overthrow/protest/challenge the human conception of power. Getting back to my opening metaphor, making faith the ship and politics the bottle is something both parties can be guilty of and all Christians must transcend. Anyone who knows me personally would hopefully see this as a claim of further devotion to Jesus and a distance from political allegiance.
this is great, i'm happy to see so much discussion going on.
joe, i think you're right when you say "In the case of the cross, Jesus had no reason to protest the Roman and Jewish authority- he knew who the authority was, and is still." you're right, Jesus certainly knew who the authority was, but could it be that the rest of us needed the cross/resurrection in order to see that? in that way i think it could be viewed as a protest, not for Jesus' sake (He needs no resurrection to prove anything to Himself), but for our eyes to be opened to that truth.
either way, whether one wants to call it a protest or not (act of defiance?), it was certainly a display of SOMETHING; the image of God Himself willingly being crucified by the people he created is certainly an expression of something that has political elements, among other things, given the politically-rich context of his crucifixion. maybe it's also the ultimate act of service?
frieds, i'm in the same boat about being less than enthusiastic to engage in political dialogue, though i've got to disagree with this: "i shut down when people begin to pull from religion to support politics or vice versa. faith shouldn't be used as support for an idea. all of our ideas should point to Christ." as long as faith doesn't make your politics dogmatic (which i guess is subjective), which in turn makes your politics functionally obsolete, i think political opinions HAVE to be supported by your faith. maybe that's the difficulty austin is engaging in this post, how as a Christian it's impossible to completely submerse yourself in a flawed political system, but we have a call to be involved all the same. there isn't always a clear "right" answer in a political system full of contradictions and paradoxes, but to completely shrug off faith when thinking about politics may be going a step too far in the opposite direction. maybe that's not what you meant at all (in which case, sorry i misunderstood). definitely agree with "all of our ideas should point to Christ!"
The ship in a bottle illustration was quite accurate. We limit who God is and what He can do by shoving him in earthly creations forgetting that He created it all.
Back to the thoughts about what the crucifixion stood for, Phillip you said it had to stand for something political. Isn't what it did stand for enough? Isn't the fact that Jesus, fully God and fully man, left the glories of heaven, walked among us, dying on a cross, His shed blood atoning for our sin, and then resurrecting to sit at the right hand of God for all eternity, interceeding on our behalf. Not trying to be long winded but focusing on that not only gives real life, but is also the most radical.
The finite(us) will never fully grasp the infinite(God) and we are dependant on Him to reveal Himself to us. For me, this posture forces a posture of humility not only in encountering Christ, but dealing w/ other people.
that is a great point ahud6. i guess what i meant was, viewing it as a political event is one lens (though not the exclusive one) through which you could view the resurrection. i don't think that viewing it politically diminishes its power because as a Christian, the resurrection is THE event that defines history in every aspect; without it nothing else matters, but when it happened, it became the ultimate act by which we judge everything else. i think that includes politics, as well as the salvation of humanity, along with any other lens through which you could view it; socially it's the great equalizer as it opened salvation to gentiles; economically it changed the way the kingdom works as we now live in an age of grace... the list goes on, but viewing it politically is valid because it encompasses all of history, politics included. that's how important the resurrection was, is, and continues to be.
Well said Phillip, sorry if I was having some tunnel vision. My thought was to look at what I thought was the lens that had the greatest ripple affect. If you start with the crucifixion and resurrection as a political event, you'll never get to salvation.
great post ap to generate some iron sharpening!
Somebody mentioned the TeaParty protests of yesterday. The protest here in Champaign marched around the park right outside my office window.
Then I saw a picture on CNN of a protestor whose sign read: "Clinging to: My God; My Money; My Guns".
Wow...so many things wrong with that sentiment. But the whole thing just left me with this deep sense of grief and sadness. Not because people were protesting taxes and economic policy. The grief was about my own lack of generosity and compassion. It was about my own failure to see "My Money" as something that belongs to "My God". It was about my convenient and comfortable compartmentalization of what Jesus' death and resurrection mean in my own life.
I just had this deep conviction that there ought to be a whole host of people protesting the way I use my resources and the way I prioritize my values.
I'm not saying that followers of Christ shouldn't engage in political dialogue or activity. I think they should. I guess I'm just saying that we've got plenty of sticks in our eyes that we need to be working out.
Scott, thanks for your thoughts, you might be interested in the article from March 10th, "My money..."
Thanks to everyone for participating in the discussion, if you are on facebook or twitter, feel free to jump over there and add your thoughts and join some day to day discussions.
Yeah, good thoughts on "My Money". Enjoyed that. Thanks Austin.
one of the lines i thought was really poignant was " Issues like Abortion are negligable collateral damage as we fight for "Biblical Issues" like the environment and the poor." i think it really points to how our age christians are so eager to be a part of "sexy" issues like global warming and the poor but are too timid to take the rap that may come from standing up for issues that are unpopular. i think this is a great example of being willing to suffer the criticism and opposition of man for the sake of the gospel.
Post a Comment