Hello! the Jesus Manifesto is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- www.jesusmanifesto.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Yes, I suppose that could describe our experience of it, Jesse. But I'm more interested in the reality of the kingdom that Jesus proclaimed. If it comes slowly to us because we're not...
- I see what you're saying Paul. As another possible perspective, it could be one of those things that just "creep up on you." Like, all the signs are there but you just don't see...
- No interest in this question? Maybe it would help if I was a little more explicit. Here's a piece from a journal entry on this subject, from several years ago, referring to a Methodist belief...
- I do not use twitter...sorry folks
- I think a few quotations from the ol’ Declaration of Independence may be in order: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...
the Jesus Manifesto
following the way of Jesus in the land of our captivity
I was intending to continue my series on Christian Anarchism with a forray into 1 Peter and Revelation. But upon further reflection, I’ve concluded that it would be best to dig into the practical implications of Christian Anarchism. I don’t think any of
... Continue reading »
2 years ago
pardon my french, but if you're going argue something wd be better, then you'd f***ing better have better args critiquing it.
Yes Christianity declined in Great Britain and the US in the intervening centuries, but I don't see that as the fault of Wilberforce. I believe in missional holism, but that doesn't deny that we tend to specialize. It sounds to me like you're a foot saying that it'd be better if the hand was also a foot.
Sorry I didn't get into your post above. I just watched the movie after I found out too late that classes were cancelled today and felt like posting something.
We are under the authority of our temporal political rulers and when we understand better the nature of that authority and our submission to it, we will be better equipped to advance the kingship of God. You're raising up a false understanding that purports to see things as they are, when when it comes to Church-State relations we all see but dimly through mirror and yet must act accordingly.
dlw
2 years ago
dlw
2 years ago
Dlw...please stop trying to woo me to your pov with long posts on my blog. I feel like every time you comment it is rehashing what you've already made clear. Please let me move on to the applications of my ideas. I read your blog--that is where you get to write long challenging posts. I'll try to keep an open mind, and I want to still push back and forth about this stuff...but I think your responses on my blog are often overkill.
2 years ago
Thanks, Don
2 years ago
2 years ago
dlw: If I come across as condescending it is because I find works that proclaim political theology from interps of the Bible without study of political theory/social sciences, my area of study, to be jarring myself.
I am sorry for overposting.
I am also sorry I was rude abvoe. I think internet communications facillitate rudeness. I got so worked up from watching that movie that I didn't get much work done last night. Like I said, there's something very jarring for me to say WW could be better.
MVS:I’m not keeping you from specializing…by all means, engage the system from within. I don’t think it is bad to do so…in fact, as I hope to post later, there are some ways to carefully engage the system from within. However, I would posit, one never does so out of submission to the authority of the State.
dlw: And that's what's critically wrong. That is a Constantinian understanding. One does not reject the authority of the State when one seeks to alter how it wields its authority. Its like with environmentalism, one is not rejecting the God-given rulership/stewardship of Humanity over creation when one seeks to change the ways we rule/steward our ecosystems.
MVS:I think you’ll find that the way it looks (as I’ll get to later) is more nuanced than you’d expect.
dlw: Well, one can be inconsistent, but that doesn't mean the theological point is not an important one.
Dlw…please stop trying to woo me to your pov with long posts on my blog. I feel like every time you comment it is rehashing what you’ve already made clear. Please let me move on to the applications of my ideas. I read your blog–that is where you get to write long challenging posts. I’ll try to keep an open mind, and I want to still push back and forth about this stuff…but I think your responses on my blog are often overkill.
dlw: okay. No problems. I am a fallibilist and so I need to recognize that my strategies need to be updated. Please do bear in mind that I am both critiquing your theology and overwhelmingly affirming your ministry. I thought that someone needed to point out the disconnect between your well done exegesis of Scripture and your advocacy of Christian Anarchism.
dlw
2 years ago
I appreciate your background as a social scientist...but to me that means you have a vested interested in participating within existing socio-politics. I'm willing to dialog further, but it is hard to go along with you when you assume a privileged role in the conversation.
From my vantage point, there isn't a huge disconnect between exegesis and my advocacy of Christian Anarchism. I'm not certain that their is a disconnect between my exegesis and your subsidiarian view of the role of the State. I simply think we bring different assumptions and theological grids into the spaces of the text. Sure, I think my assumptions fit the vibe and flavors of the NT better, but that's why they're my assumptions.
That isn't to say that I'm non chalant about my assumptions--or yours--I'm very serious about my convictions, but I reject the notion of certainty.
In the end, it is more important that Christians as a whole embrace more direct forms of action in society. I'm not particularly interested in getting folks to reject voting and whatnot. Personally, I reject such things in my attempt to live as consistently as possible as well as my attempt to explore the ideas I find in Scripture to the full. I am open to change, however. So, for me, orthopraxy in this stuff is more important than orthodoxy. That is to say, if folks embrace the direct forms of action within the Church, I'm not really that upset if they engage in the sorts of American political action that others find appropriate.
I'm wondering if we can begin to find some areas of agreement. And find which precise issues we disagree over.
Would you agree with the following emphases:
1) We recognize our allegiance to Jesus first and foremost.
2) We value kinship in Christ over national allegiances.
3) As a whole, the church is the church, and doesn't outsource its function to the State.
Am I correct in assuming that we disagree over the following:
4) The call to follow Christ is a call to put aside violence.
5) Allegiance to Christ is such that there isn't room for other political allegiances.
This is an area over which there may be some agreement or disagreement:
6) We must engage in public discourse in the social sphere in a very Christocentric way. In other words, we mustn't pursue "common good" in a way that isn't centered on Jesus Christ.
2 years ago
Even if Christian Anarchism isn't the exactly right or only correct way to read the New Testament, which I think it just might be, this would still be a very very needed critique to overcome the pervasive influence of "christendom" thought in the church.
I look forward to engaging in this at a deeper level.
2 years ago
2 years ago
I appreciate your background as a social scientist…but to me that means you have a vested interested in participating within existing socio-politics. I’m willing to dialog further, but it is hard to go along with you when you assume a privileged role in the conversation.
dlw: I presume knowledge about the extent we are interwoven in the system in my claim that one cannot escape it and that not voting does not help in this regard. I privilege your exegesis abilities as greater than mine.
MVS:From my vantage point, there isn’t a huge disconnect between exegesis and my advocacy of Christian Anarchism. I’m not certain that their is a disconnect between my exegesis and your subsidiarian view of the role of the State. I simply think we bring different assumptions and theological grids into the spaces of the text. Sure, I think my assumptions fit the vibe and flavors of the NT better, but that’s why they’re my assumptions.
dlw: But when it comes to the role of the State in the advancement of the kingship of God, we can't both be right and I think trying to work towards an understanding on this does matter. My month and a half spent in Ukraine, I interviewed evangelicals there about the Orange Revolution and whether Jesus was political. I saw there the impact of life under Communism and how that made people dualistic in their faith, whereby many pastors were allergic to politics because of the memories of when they had been coerced into declaring that Jesus was a Communist/Marxist in the old days. This is part of why I believe that we are still dealing with theological/ideological scar-tissue from the 30 years war.
I'm not saying that we don't dialogue with the Anabaptist positions, I wouldn't read Yoder(and I'm starting to get into more Hauerwas) if that weren't the case. I just think the way the US's democracy has declined significantly in the past thirty-some years shd not make us so pessimistic. There's a thing called "self-fulfilling prophecies". If we are more disciplined in how we act (politically and otherwise), things can change somewhat in ways that will matter. The rest of the world watches the US's politics more than our faith practices. Perhaps, we can garner more of their attention to our faith practices if we act more as salt-n-light in politics?
MVS:That isn’t to say that I’m non chalant about my assumptions–or yours–I’m very serious about my convictions, but I reject the notion of certainty.
dlw: What about the notion of whether and when we are willing to change our views? I've changed in my views, even since when I started as sem-student.
MVS:In the end, it is more important that Christians as a whole embrace more direct forms of action in society. I’m not particularly interested in getting folks to reject voting and whatnot. Personally, I reject such things in my attempt to live as consistently as possible as well as my attempt to explore the ideas I find in Scripture to the full.
dlw: Consistency is not the same as validity. One can be consistently wrong. Part of the idea of the house church model, even the minimalist approach, was to recognize that my own past behavior had fallen short of the communalistic model, but to also recognize that one could combine some political action with that model. I think from a consequentialist standpoint, it doesn't matter whether an action is direct or non-direct.
MVS I am open to change, however. So, for me, orthopraxy in this stuff is more important than orthodoxy. That is to say, if folks embrace the direct forms of action within the Church, I’m not really that upset if they engage in the sorts of American political action that others find appropriate.
dlw: I guess I think the two must be linked and when our practices change, that implies our understandings are also changing, perhaps subtly thru shifts in the meanings of the words we use. This is also inline with my criticism of the developments in the Christian Church in the 2nd and 3rd ctries of its existence, when traditions were being developed that supposedly were inline with Scripture while at the same time changing Christian practices. I think this may have been what led for us to severe the tie between the two that Paul has in his letters.
MVS:I’m wondering if we can begin to find some areas of agreement. And find which precise issues we disagree over.
Would you agree with the following emphases:
1) We recognize our allegiance to Jesus first and foremost.
dlw: Amen, but I think we also our contextualized and can thereby owe allegiance to our country. This allegiance to country can be seen as ideally part of loving our neighbor, provided we gird ourselves against having our nationalism manipulated.
2) We value kinship in Christ over national allegiances.
dlw: The devil is in the details here. Yes, our allegiance to our country shd be relativized by our kinship in Christ and commitment to advancing the kingship of God.
3) As a whole, the church is the church, and doesn’t outsource its function to the State.
dlw: I think the issue here whether the church is the church in trying to make the State perform its function better. I see our ability to be hospitable inextricably intertwined with the institution of private property, which is based on the State performing its proper function. I believe that the function of the State is not something that was set out for once and for all in the past at the time of Jesus or since then. So there is some choice in what interests the State will wield its monopology on legit violence on behalf of. It can come to wield its influence on behalf of more people throught programs like the Basic Income Guarantee. I find changes like that as key for the support of ministries like yours.
Am I correct in assuming that we disagree over the following:
4) The call to follow Christ is a call to put aside violence.
dlw: It is a call to put aside the belief that the use of violence, legit or non-legit, can solve the worlds problems. It is also a call to prevent the sorts of violence that harm the advancement of the kingship of God, like the Jewish Rebellions that led to the Roman destruction of much of Jerusalem in AD70 or GWII(and all wars to an extent).
My diff is that I believe Christians may participate in the administration of the legit violence of the State or alter how the legit violence is used, as William Wilberforce et al did to end the slave trade.
5) Allegiance to Christ is such that there isn’t room for other political allegiances.
dlw: Allegiance to Christ relativizes temporal and conditional political allegiances.
This is an area over which there may be some agreement or disagreement:
6) We must engage in public discourse in the social sphere in a very Christocentric way. In other words, we mustn’t pursue “common good” in a way that isn’t centered on Jesus Christ.
dlw: I don't use the word "common good" (I use the terms "public policy" and "private property" once each in my statement of faith. The words public and private do not otherwise show up.) when I express my theological beliefs that under gird my political deliberations and actions (I think theology needs to be integrated, not "political".). I do on occasion adopt the language and frames of non-Christians in dialogue on issues. I see this as following the example of Paul (the verse where he talks about becoming all things so that some may believe. I see this as relativizing the import of using "the language of faith".) I believe we can try to reframe issues and impact the language used, but we shd not claim a privileged position for our frames or language on behalf of our faith. We are participants in the market of ideas, but our actions reflect our faith-based deliberations and ultimately thru the HS shd impact others action/frames as well.
so I hope I made it clear that I am not advocating a return to "christendom" thought. This is partially why these dialogues can be interesting, because we agree enough that our diffs seem to loom a bit larger...
peace,
dlw