BlakeHuggins.com

Introduction: It Should Change, But to What?
Part I: The Community of God

Just to warn you, this may end up being a pretty long post.

I hate to break the flow of things here, but I really need to. I started this series to explore different images and metaphors that we could use instead of the old image of “the kingdom of God.” Something vernacular. Something subversive. Something visceral. Something revolutionary. And something political.

I started with a regular generic, noncontroversial image/metaphor that I think everyone could be on broad with. An image that could come as close as possible to being a sort of catch all phrase, though I’m opposed to any sort of universal meta-image, for the same reason I’m opposed to metanarratives. It takes away the possibility of local fidelity and contextual adaption.

Now I’d like to begin to introduce some of the more subversive and iconoclastic images I’ve come up with, or stolen, however you see it. But in order to do that, I need to have a sort sub-introduction, if you want to call it that about why I think any metaphor or image or phrase we use to replace “the kingdom of God” should be deeply political, or rather (a)political. I have several “political” images I’d like to submit, but to avoid being redundant and rehashing my justification as to why these images should be and are political, I thought post those thoughts first.

Before I do that let me say a few things about a word I just used above. (a)political. I hesitate to even use the word because of its implied conventional meaning, but I chose to anyway. Let me be as clear as possible, I am not using the term (a)political here as a means of negation. That is to say when I use the word in relation with “the kingdom of God” I do not take it to mean that the kingdom of God is not interested politics or is not association with politics. Like I said, I believe it is deeply political. I am using the word “(a)political” here to emphasize the political nature of the kingdom of God and to especially demonstrate that it is not partisan or politicized. Because of the nature of American politics, political media, and political theater, we usually associate the word “political” with “partisan,” or “politicized.” Here I am not. To speak abstractly, the kingdom of God should never be in bed with a certain political party of political affiliation, but should most definitely be actively involved in political action. and resistance. Now, that is a gross over simplification, but I think you get the point. So, when I use the word “political” I do not mean partisan or politicized and when I use the word “(a)political” I am merely underscoring that assertion.

Ok. Deep breath. Here we go.

The word “kingdom” was a very visceral and politically charged word for Jesus and his hearers. It referred to the royal/imperial rule and was important for two main reasons: 1) it conjured up the ancient image of the Davidic rule, the golden-age of prosperity and security in the collective consciousness of the 1st century subordinates to the Roman empire; and 2) it referred to the current oppressive and imperial rule of Caesar and his Galilean puppet Herod.

So when Jesus spoke of the “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of heaven” he was using a poignant vernacular image. But with a twist. Here it is helpful I think to note the use of Caesar’s imperial propaganda. He was proclaimed to be, among other things, “the Son of God,” “the Savior of the world,” and “the Lord.” In fact, it was said throughout the empire that Caesar brought “Good News” or “Gospel” to the entire world ushering in a “golden age of peace and prosperity.” Caesar conquered the world and established the Pax Romana an ideology of “peace” through conquest, domination, and brutality; perhaps a better description is the Oppressio Romana—a rule of grotesque tyranny.

Enter Jesus who begins spreading this message of God’s kingdom, a kingdom of peace and equality. To his hearers, Jesus’ kingdom of God program would be seen as a direct and overt challenge to the rule of Caesar. Jesus exposes Caesar’s system of domination for what it really is—illegitimate authority undermining God’s intentions. So the kingdom of God stands in direct opposition of the Caesar’s authority. It rejects Caesar’s authority, usurping his pseudo-reign. To borrow from Bernard Brandon Scott, Jesus’ program re-imagines the world, wondering what reality would be like if God were on the throne not Caesar.

From this vantage point it is hard to imagine how the kingdom of God couldn’t possibly be political. The question is how can we re-interpret this image within our context? How can we retain the original veracity and subversiveness and still in some create a visceral, vernacular metaphor? The ideal image I think would incorporate the two main reasons I listed above. But as I’ve said, I don’t think it’s particularly good to attempt to boil everything down to one catch all metaphor. That’s why I’m working on several “political” metaphors. Each is correct and enriching in its own right. Each is good insofar as it is good, in other words each is good in the ways it is good.

But I would like some input. I wrote this post to not only show how I think our metaphors must be political, but to also gather my thoughts. I’ve been chewing on what I believe are several possible political metaphors, but I’m reluctant to go public with them just yet. I’m not sure what to think.

So, in addition to joining the conversation and commenting on what I’ve already said, I would be interested to hear any ideas you might have for some subversive, political metaphors that challenge Caesar and the empire.

~bh ><>