Jesus Manifesto - Latest Comments in The Style of Subversion Part 3: Embodying God’s Love in the Empire

Re: The Style of Subversion Part 3: Embodying God’s Love in the Empire

joet — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:04:07 -0000

Good stuff Mark.

Noam Chomsky says (apparently) that there is little point in speaking truth to those in power, as on the whole they already know what the truth is and are trying to hide from it. He says we ought to be speaking truth to those who are in a position to affect power, which is obviously ourselves a lot of the time.

I was thinking about this last week. On the one hand I was reading a biography of Gandhi and marvelling at his ability to change lives rather than just challenge those in power. In the final analysis, the British Raj was forced to leave because a few thousand bureaucrats and soldiers could not manage millions of people who refused to co-operate - years of meetings with them had no effect other than repeated visits to prison.

On the other hand, a relative was speaking about printed resources available to the youth group at his church, saying that some were following the 'social gospel' - a term I've often heard but not really understood. I wonder what would happen if young people were taught to take Christ-like action in church rather than the usual diet of bible-study and table tennis. I think (somewhat shockingly) I actually believe in this social gospel that others use as a swear word.

Some other things I would add to your list (in no particular order):

1. Moving from talking/blogging/attending conferences about action to actual action
2. Planting vegetables and being more concerned about eating local produce
3. Supporting others directly in their struggle for justice (verbally, physically, emotionally)

Kevin - interesting. Do you not think that most 'Christian' values are actually benefiting society rather than the kingdom? If I was a Christian of the form of those activists of Jonah House, I'm not sure the government authorities would be too impressed. If there were enough people of the same mind, they would have to change their ways.

Re: The Style of Subversion Part 3: Embodying God’s Love in the Empire

reibwo — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:07:38 -0000

Excellent post thanks. I wish I had more to add to it.

Re: The Style of Subversion Part 3: Embodying God’s Love in the Empire

Kevin — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:30:08 -0000

You wrote, "If you are a Christian, you should make a shitty American or Canadian or Mexican or Lithuanian." I don't know that I fully agree. While I understand what you are saying, I think that a Christian should make a damn-fine American. Caring for the poor, working for justice, overcoming oppressive systems...that doesn't sound shitty at all. It all comes back to who is defining what is and is not shitty. Conforming to the patterns of the world sounds like a shitty American and yes, an even shittier Christian to me.

I believe it was Hauerwas that said something like, "Prior to Yoder Christian ethics in America were about America." Yoder and those that think like he did have helped me to understand the lordship of Christ and how that lordship knows no national boundaries. If that makes me a shitty American, then so be it. Thanks for the good series of posts.

Re: The Style of Subversion Part 3: Embodying God’s Love in the Empire

BDRhodes — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:21:51 -0000

Broadly speaking, I agree with Mark -- letter-writing, phone calls, and whatnot seem to be great ways for Christians to engage the powers, as long as we are unashamed of who we believe is truly Sovereign and Lord. It does feel silly, no doubt. But we've -- I'VE -- got to start getting my footing more secure in using "Jesus-is-King" language in public discourse.

And maybe that's where Anabaptist and Jesus-Radical Christians cut against the grain of most other progressive-ward Christian groups (Sojourners, etc.). Usually those groups prooftext about "Blessed are the poor", taking care of "the least of these", and so on. Doing that is, to some extent, is just dandy. But to claim Jesus as KING, as MORE than a spiritual teacher who also happened to have suggestions for how the Empire can suck less -- why, that's mighty dangerous! And damn awkward. Quoting the Beatitudes as "suggestions to the Empire" (hat-tip to Claiborne) makes the Bible into a tips-sheet and Jesus into the "Ask Jeeves" of such political proverbs and tips. Keeping that language within a bigger story in our advocacy-language of Jesus as being the sovereign we pledge our allegiance to makes those prooftexts far, far sharper. And, to the Powers, scarier.

Jesus' words do impinge on the empires, and do say "this is how I do things... take a hint.". But putting them within language of the Kingdom of God, and Jesus as the World's True Lord/King/Prime-Minister/President/what-have-you -- ahh, there's the rub! Anabaptists, N.T. Wright, Ellul, and others seem to get that claiming Jesus as Lord does radically inform our political engagement. It compels us to, as Mark says, remind the powers that they're beat and that Jesus, not them, is in charge.

Re: The Style of Subversion Part 3: Embodying God’s Love in the Empire

markvans — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:36:44 -0000

That is a great (and huge) question. Hopefully I can dig into it more in the future. But for now, here's a short answer that is lacking in some nuance:

I think the best sorts of political action should never require that we shed our Christian self-understanding and Christ-centered language. In others, we need to engage in the system in such a way that we maintain our unique Christian identity. I also think we should engage in advocacy in such a way that we maintain a proper amount of theo-political distance. In other words, we should remain distinct.

I know that all sounded a bit abstract. These things need to be taken on a case-by-case situation. We need to balance it with a healthy distrust for the system and a proper confidence in direct action. We should never let the "us" language be wrapped up in parties or candidates and be unashamed in engaging in it in a Christ-centered way, even if it makes us look silly.

Anyone else want to chime in?

Re: The Style of Subversion Part 3: Embodying God’s Love in the Empire

Holly — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:11:23 -0000

Mark - This is excellent. As a fellow Mennonite, I appreciate how you ground this post in anabaptist eschatology. In my church community, I think people are open to political advocacy as long as you don't get too cozy with politics and more specifically politicians. I work for a mainline organization that sees value in building relationships with politicians and communicating with them in a friendly way about "kingdom values." I sometimes wonder if my fellow Mennonites feel like I'm too cozy, because I don't push these politicians about controversial issues like Israel/Palestine, Iraq and US dependency on oil. I'm concerned about all those issues, but I haven't found an effective model for witnessing to the state on more controversial/polarizing issues. When it comes to concerns like poverty and hunger, I've stuck with relationship building and educating politicians about why Christians are concerned that hunger exists in this nation. What are your thoughts on more traditional political advocacy - lobbying, letter writing, phone calls - as one way to express our values?