The Bible makes it clear that God is involved in our world and that political powers get their power from God – both believing political leaders and unbelieving. This was the lesson Nebuchadnezzar had to learn in the book of Daniel.
So what does that judgement look like today?
Fred Phelps claims that God is judging America due to our tolerance of homosexuality, and that this is manifest in the deaths of our soldiers at war. Pat Robertson links terrorism and Hurricane Katrina to abortion. Muslims claim that God is judging America. Some Muslims feel they are called to be that judgement ala 9-11.
There is an awful lot of judgement going around. Tornados are judgement. Hurricanes. Volcanoes. Just about any natural disaster. And then there are wars. Diseases. Sometimes I’m afraid to go outside. It is the proverbial lightening bolt from the sky.
God certainly can use any method He wants to accomplish His will. But I wonder if judgement might look at little different?
I wonder how our pride and arrogance, sins that sow seeds of resentment, play into our global politics? I wonder how sins of stewardship with both money and the natural world play out over time? I wonder how the sin of self-righteousness inhibits the sharing of the gospel? I wonder.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not here to cast judgement, or maybe I am. I just think sometimes Christians should first look inwardly for the effects of sin and its consequences before stepping up to the microphone and blaming tragedies on someone else’s sin.
What do you think?
November 6, 2007 at 9:29 am
There are two major socio-political narratives in the Bible: Isaiah and Exodus.
That’s over-simplifying, but bear with me.
First you have the Exodus narrative of an enslaved people being liberated by God and led on a process of becoming a real religious and political society with the ultimate aim of a Promised Land. But even when in the Promised Land, it’s not some utopia that is dropped in their lap, but just another step in that forward political and religious process of defining themselves as God’s people, and creating God’s desired society.
Exodus is progressive, it gives a linear narrative of a society’s forward motion through time from slavery to political identity. No wonder the book has been the inspiration for some of our greatest political acheivements – from the American Revolution, to the rise of British parliamentary democracy, to revolutions in Latin America, to the Civil Rights Movement, and (to give a gratuitous and tangential plug for my own) the “Mormon Exodus” westward.
Exodus is an inspiring and yet practical narrative that has proven supremely useful for human societies. It’s almost a how-to manual for the practical here-and-now of politics.
Contrast this with Isaiah, more specifically – the idea of the Messiah and the Apocalypse. Really, I just use Isaiah as a convenient label for the other political vision in the Bible.
The idea of Messiah and Apocalypse is radically different than that of Exodus. Instead of a people making forward progress through an ongoing history to create a Zion society, Isaiah speaks of the end of history and the annihilation of human politics and society. By this view, humanity is a hopeless case. We will never create that “Promised Land.” The only solution is the final solution of destroying all kings, principalities and powers and ushering in a new age that the suffering people will not earn or achieve, but will instead be presented with by a Messiah figure.
Isaiah is not about politics, it is about destroying politics. This is why the idea of Messiah and Apocalypse are so toxic to civic society. They are both premised on the annihilation of society. And they can lead to some very scary thinking – such as the Iranian President’s talk of the “Hidden Imam” who will appear at the end of the world, or the hijackers of 9-11 who sought to usher in the end of the world by force, or the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps of the world who seem mostly eager to dance on the ashes of civilization, or the countless numbers of Christians who stock their bunkers, remove their kids from society, and wait it out in paranoid isolation. Or the many religious minded who have given up on such things as the environment, or world poverty, or democracy on the grounds that the world is unredeemable and our only job is to patiently wait for Jesus to clean up our mess for us.
I’m afraid I’m being too negative on Isaiah. To clarify, I don’t have a negative view of his prophecies or the idea of Messiah per se. But it is potentially very politically toxic. The real political trick of the Bible is finding a way to balance these two conflicting traditions in a way that is useful to human society.
November 6, 2007 at 6:30 pm
The real political trick of the Bible is finding a way to balance these two conflicting traditions in a way that is useful to human society.
What’s useful to human society, first and foremost, is to be redeemed, and redemption will not be found down any political pathway. Humans are irredeemable, thus human systems are incapable of providing what humans don’t have in themselves to provide.
November 6, 2007 at 7:07 pm
True. But that doesn’t mean you hide in a bunker either. That’s my point.
November 9, 2007 at 10:35 pm
That’s an interesting look at those themes. I completely agree we are not called to hide out in a bunker. Jesus talks specifically about NOT hiding one’s light.
I haven’t thought about those themes as political before. That is interesting. Certainly there are lessons we can draw to politics, and I agree many political movements are sparked by similar themes.
To me the real point of those narratives is not political at all; it is about the kingdom. In fact, what Jesus is saying in the gospels is that the Jewish people of the day had misunderstood the meaning of Exodus, the law and the prophecies. They were not political in nature as supposed, but were about living in a righteous way with God – the kingdom way.
You have four major thought groups in Jewish thought when Jesus took stage.
-Pharasees, bring about the kingdom by outward righteousness and acts
-Zealots, bring about the kingdom by force
-Essenes, bring about the kingdom by withdrawl from society; keep unstained from the world
-Herodians & Tax Collectors, kingdom isn’t coming so join up with the Romans
All these groups misunderstood the kingdom as a political reality. What Jesus did was blow all these assumptions out of the water. He elevated the dialogue to a kingdom that was already present. That is the good news that today – today – you can be in the kingdom and live the eternal kind of life starting right now.
It is a kingdom now and not yet. Present, but to be fully fulfilled when Jesus returns.
What do you think?
November 11, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I agree that the Bible presents a powerful message for the inner personal spiritual life of the believer. In that sense, yes, we do participate in the body of Christ (or kingdom) right now, whatever our surroundings.
But you only have to listen to Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech (I’d recommend the whole thing) to quickly realize there is another dimension to the Biblical message. It is a powerful political document.
So why do we have an apparent rejection of politics in Christ’s own ministry?
I’d argue it’s because the primary message of Christ’s life wasn’t about Exodus, but about Isaiah. He was the Messiah. The message of hope in a future ultimate deliverance. The only way you can really read much politics into Christ’s message is if you read the Sermon on the Mount as a broader injunction for what society (not just individuals) ought to look like.
Obviously the Romans saw the idea of Messiah as potentially dangerous to the political establishment. Many Jews certainly saw it that way and were hoping Christ would lead them in revolt against the Romans. Christ disappointed them in this respect. He made it clear that his ministry was not to be political. It was his promised Second Coming that would abolish the nations of men and usher in a Christian utopia.
Now, what message to take from that? Well, you combine it with Paul’s word in Romans 13 about being subject to kings and political rulers, and it turns Christianity into a largely private affair that keeps its nose out of political society’s business.
I think Paul’s words have been misapplied in this respect. Romans 13 has been used to justify some very morally cowardly political behavior on the part of the Christians in the past on repeated occasions. The most prominent example is the Roman Catholic Pope’s collaboration with Nazi Germany (Romans 13 was used as a specific justification and I’m sure Christ’s own political neutrality provided additional ammo for this argument). Another example is the actions of Southern Baptists in opposing African American civil rights who also used Romans 13 as justification. Christians have been convinced to sit idly by time and again by these verses in the face of some of the most horrible political behavior in history. This view presents the political destiny of the Christian as one of “don’t get involved, focus on your inward moral life, and wait for Christ to return.”
I disagree, and do not think that it is these Biblical passages we should get our political marching orders from. At least, not in the way they’ve been interpreted in the above examples. Christ may be coming in the future, but we still have an obligation to live in the here-and-now. We should not sit idly by and leave governments to do whatever they wish. In this sense, I think we still need to invoke Exodus for our political marching orders as a free society of followers of Christ.
Yes, Christ came to fulfill the Law. But his final kingdom is not yet and we are charged with living in the world until He returns. Therefore, politically, I think we are still living the Exodus, and not the Messianic reality. There is still work for us to be done in society.
Therefore, I get very nervous when people start talking Isaiah when it comes to societal and political progress. For me, these represent an ultimate hope, but not a blueprint for present nations (except in a Sermon on the Mount, merciful society sort of way). Frankly, I’d much rather hear my politicians talking Exodus than Isaiah.
That’s my take anyway. Hope it was half coherent.
November 11, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Do you have a word limit on comments?
Oh well, I’ll try posting this again in two parts.
I agree that the Bible presents a powerful message for the inner personal spiritual life of the believer. In that sense, yes, we do participate in the body of Christ (or kingdom) right now, whatever our surroundings.
But you only have to listen to Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech (I’d recommend the whole thing) to quickly realize there is another dimension to the Biblical message. It is a powerful political document.
So why do we have an apparent rejection of politics in Christ’s own ministry?
I’d argue it’s because the primary message of Christ’s life wasn’t about Exodus, but about Isaiah. He was the Messiah. The message of hope in a future ultimate deliverance. The only way you can really read much politics into Christ’s message is if you read the Sermon on the Mount as a broader injunction for what society (not just individuals) ought to look like.
Obviously the Romans saw the idea of Messiah as potentially dangerous to the political establishment. Many Jews certainly saw it that way and were hoping Christ would lead them in revolt against the Romans. Christ disappointed them in this respect. He made it clear that his ministry was not to be political. It was his promised Second Coming that would abolish the nations of men and usher in a Christian utopia.
November 11, 2007 at 5:53 pm
OK, part two:
Now, what message to take from that? Well, you combine it with Paul’s word in Romans 13 about being subject to kings and political rulers, and it turns Christianity into a largely private affair that keeps its nose out of political society’s business.
I think Paul’s words have been misapplied in this respect. Romans 13 has been used to justify some very morally cowardly political behavior on the part of the Christians in the past on repeated occasions. The most prominent example is the Roman Catholic Pope’s collaboration with Nazi Germany (Romans 13 was used as a specific justification and I’m sure Christ’s own political neutrality provided additional ammo for this argument). Another example is the actions of Southern Baptists in opposing African American civil rights who also used Romans 13 as justification. Christians have been convinced to sit idly by time and again by these verses in the face of some of the most horrible political behavior in history. This view presents the political destiny of the Christian as one of “don’t get involved, focus on your inward moral life, and wait for Christ to return.”
I disagree, and do not think that it is these Biblical passages we should get our political marching orders from. At least, not in the way they’ve been interpreted in the above examples. Christ may be coming in the future, but we still have an obligation to live in the here-and-now. We should not sit idly by and leave governments to do whatever they wish. In this sense, I think we still need to invoke Exodus for our political marching orders as a free society of followers of Christ.
Yes, Christ came to fulfill the Law. But his final kingdom is not yet and we are charged with living in the world until He returns. Therefore, politically, I think we are still living the Exodus, and not the Messianic reality. There is still work for us to be done in society.
Therefore, I get very nervous when people start talking Isaiah when it comes to societal and political progress. For me, these represent an ultimate hope, but not a blueprint for present nations (except in a Sermon on the Mount, merciful society sort of way). Frankly, I’d much rather hear my politicians talking Exodus than Isaiah.
That’s my take anyway. Hope it was half coherent.
November 11, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I give up. I don’t know what’s going on, but the spam filter really doesn’t seem to like something I’m saying and it beats me what it is. I’ll try again later.
November 11, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Sorry about the spam filter. I pulled the comments out of there. No idea why it stopped them.
November 11, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I think I agree if I’m understaning your argument correctly. Jesus ministry is not political. But, that is no excuse for Christians not to be engaged. We should always stand against morally reprehensible behavior like slavery.
But, I also think evangelicals have gone too far in making many subjects a “battle” and trying to use political means to bring about a set of moral values. It is a balance. Followers of Jesus should be known by their love and selflessness. I think if Christians are acting out the radically selfless life of Christ then their political views will be easily heard because people see they live what they preach.
November 11, 2007 at 11:28 pm
“Jesus ministry is not political.”
What could this possibly mean, so that it was not obviously false?
That his ministry was private? That is political. There is no “political” above and beyond the choices of everyone of us, in any political “system”.
That his ministry was public? That is political. There is no “political” without the public realm and all it’s defining dynamics.
Between the public and the private, shall we hide Jesus somehow? Not a page width is there.
Beware distinctions unanalyzed and unexplored. They will not take you to, or away from, what you wish. The cavern will fall in on you, instead. The private/public is a pagen distinction, as is the idea of political as distinct from….what? Not a page width is there for the Christian. Catholic and protestant Platonists? Sure. But what has that to do with Jesus as revealed in the gospels?
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? Of course. But what is that? Not an idea, only an object.
Redo time.
November 12, 2007 at 2:56 am
You can probably delete comments 8, 9, and 10. They were just repeated attempts to finesse the comment past whatever filter was happening. 7 contains all the content found in the others.
Lee, that’s the problem with these academic-type discussions. It’s easy to seek for generalizations for the purposes of conversation. But the generalizations usually don’t cover the subject satisfactorily.
November 12, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Lee what I mean is that Jesus was not seeking a political kingdom. Sure, one’s faith ought to influence every aspect of life including how one thinks about politics, but Jesus’ ministry here on earth was not primarily a political one. That’s why when he stood before Pilate he said “My kingdom is not of this world.”