![Bill Day (via azspot, sds)
bellatoris wrote these thoughtful words.
I try to avoid using Jesus too much in political debate, though I know I fail at that sometimes. This is not to say that my Christian faith does not inform my political opinions, because my faith in God should be the utmost definer of my worldview, though I readily admit I am often a failure as a Christian. No, the reason I tend to dislike using Christ in political debate is twofold. First, he said himself that his kingdom is not of this world. As such, he sought not to inspire change through political activism, but through personal transformation - though that transformation and reformation is not intended to stay personal, but to enact global change.
[I’m going to cut in briefly and say that the cartoonist doesn’t claim that Jesus was a socialist—merely that critics on the right probably would have accused him of being a socialist. But the question of whether Jesus would have advocated some of the policies now being called “socialist” remains an important question.]
Secondly, and tangentially, people’s use of Christ in politics so often misses the point. Communalism is not the same as communism; charity is not the same as redistribution. One might argue that the modern church should be more like the first century church, sharing in everything, but that is not an argument for why American or other governments should be more like the first century church. One might argue the American Christians should give more to those in need, but that is not an argument for why the American government should increase social welfare programming.
I don’t think Christ would or should be called a socialist, whether supposedly in this comic or intentionally as do some on the left. Christ calls people to radically change through his work, his power, his grace, and his mercy. It is outside of the political system; as such, I am always wary of those who attempt to force him into the middle of it.
hilker added:
very well said. both sides use Jesus to get people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. the irony is that those looking for the messiah in Jesus’ day were all expecting a political leader & Jesus was explicitly & unarguably not that.
I have a few words of caution, followed by a few thoughts. First, we need to be careful when theology and politics start getting mingled. While I think they usefully inform eachother, mixing the two has a mixed record. Passionate religious arguments were mustered both for and against slavery and civil rights. Now we see them brought to bear on other social issues—and, unsurprisingly, people’s theological conclusions very often match their political predispositions. And their political predispositions often match the dispositions of those around us. In this, as in other things, it is tempting to find religious support for what we’re already doing. The interesting spots theologically are not where people reaffirm their already held beliefs but where people’s beliefs change.
People tend to choose a theological emphasis that lines up with their existing interests. Liberation theology, which looks carefully at the subversive political implications of Jesus’s actions, is much more popular in South America than it is here. We don’t want Jesus to do anything subversive against Rome because we are Rome. Portions of the U.S. have been inclined to focus exclusively on the more metaphysical side of things. If we interpret Jesus’s very real physical actions as sort of an extended allegory and focus on personal spirituality, maybe we don’t have to worry about the very real suffering of those around us or ask whether we’re in part responsible for it. This view that the church is a pure bar of ivory soap that rises above the mucky waters of the world was perhaps most pronounced toward the end of slavery when the injustice was quite clear to so many people and many within the church concluded that just or unjust, this sort of thing simply wasn’t the church’s business.
Did Jesus’s ministry involve political activism or was it just about metaphysical personal transformation? Hilker is entirely right that he is not the conquering King figure some were expecting in a messiah, though that does not mean that his ministry and actions were without profound political implications—particularly when the church and the state were linked as they were in first century Judea. Since I just cautioned about jumping to simple and convenient conclusions, I won’t do it. But I will point out that the Romans didn’t execute you for preaching personal salvation.](http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/squashed/154972290/1/XwaS1eue5qm5wprbkMI7ecGJ)
bellatoris wrote these thoughtful words.
I try to avoid using Jesus too much in political debate, though I know I fail at that sometimes. This is not to say that my Christian faith does not inform my political opinions, because my faith in God should be the utmost definer of my worldview, though I readily admit I am often a failure as a Christian. No, the reason I tend to dislike using Christ in political debate is twofold. First, he said himself that his kingdom is not of this world. As such, he sought not to inspire change through political activism, but through personal transformation - though that transformation and reformation is not intended to stay personal, but to enact global change.
[I’m going to cut in briefly and say that the cartoonist doesn’t claim that Jesus was a socialist—merely that critics on the right probably would have accused him of being a socialist. But the question of whether Jesus would have advocated some of the policies now being called “socialist” remains an important question.]
Secondly, and tangentially, people’s use of Christ in politics so often misses the point. Communalism is not the same as communism; charity is not the same as redistribution. One might argue that the modern church should be more like the first century church, sharing in everything, but that is not an argument for why American or other governments should be more like the first century church. One might argue the American Christians should give more to those in need, but that is not an argument for why the American government should increase social welfare programming.
I don’t think Christ would or should be called a socialist, whether supposedly in this comic or intentionally as do some on the left. Christ calls people to radically change through his work, his power, his grace, and his mercy. It is outside of the political system; as such, I am always wary of those who attempt to force him into the middle of it.
hilker added:
very well said. both sides use Jesus to get people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. the irony is that those looking for the messiah in Jesus’ day were all expecting a political leader & Jesus was explicitly & unarguably not that.
I have a few words of caution, followed by a few thoughts. First, we need to be careful when theology and politics start getting mingled. While I think they usefully inform eachother, mixing the two has a mixed record. Passionate religious arguments were mustered both for and against slavery and civil rights. Now we see them brought to bear on other social issues—and, unsurprisingly, people’s theological conclusions very often match their political predispositions. And their political predispositions often match the dispositions of those around us. In this, as in other things, it is tempting to find religious support for what we’re already doing. The interesting spots theologically are not where people reaffirm their already held beliefs but where people’s beliefs change.
People tend to choose a theological emphasis that lines up with their existing interests. Liberation theology, which looks carefully at the subversive political implications of Jesus’s actions, is much more popular in South America than it is here. We don’t want Jesus to do anything subversive against Rome because we are Rome. Portions of the U.S. have been inclined to focus exclusively on the more metaphysical side of things. If we interpret Jesus’s very real physical actions as sort of an extended allegory and focus on personal spirituality, maybe we don’t have to worry about the very real suffering of those around us or ask whether we’re in part responsible for it. This view that the church is a pure bar of ivory soap that rises above the mucky waters of the world was perhaps most pronounced toward the end of slavery when the injustice was quite clear to so many people and many within the church concluded that just or unjust, this sort of thing simply wasn’t the church’s business.
Did Jesus’s ministry involve political activism or was it just about metaphysical personal transformation? Hilker is entirely right that he is not the conquering King figure some were expecting in a messiah, though that does not mean that his ministry and actions were without profound political implications—particularly when the church and the state were linked as they were in first century Judea. Since I just cautioned about jumping to simple and convenient conclusions, I won’t do it. But I will point out that the Romans didn’t execute you for preaching personal salvation.
