BlakeHuggins.com

Part I

So what is this book about? Basically this: we can’t differentiate between what is Christian and what is American anymore. And frankly, when a lot of people say “Christian” they actually mean “American.” The church has been married to the state for quite sometime and as a result, the lust for power has diluted, domesticated, and corrupted the message of Jesus and his politics. So, now patriotism trumps things like the fruit of the spirit, or even worse, they been mashed together and are one and the same. Yuck.

In their own words, Claiborne and Haw state their purpose(s):

“We hope this book will broaden the definition of political. As you’ll find in the following pages, political doesn’t refer merely to legislation, parties, and governments. So while we will insist that the Christian faith be political, we also want to redefine what political means or looks like. We hope to redefine it simply as how we relate to the world…We begin in the Hebrew scripture, since this is where Jesus story begins. While we may be tempted to jump to the good news and just write about Jesus, we must hear the Story from which he came and anchor his language, politics, and actions in that world. Just as America’s narrative did not begin with American and will not end with America, Jesus’ story did not begin in Matthew, nor does it end in Revelation.”

The emphasis there is mine and it is imperative to keep in mind when reading the book. I probably should have referred back to it more often. Let’s be honest, most of as American Christians in that order. That is to say we are Americans first and Christians second. And we like it that way. Because of that, most of us when we think of “politics” or “political” we actually mean politicized or partisan. I’ve talked about this before. Not so in this book. When reading it, I imagine most person will feel quite uncomfortable at times, and rightly so. This is because we are deeply embedded in the narrative of American politics, so much so that for some of us, it may simple be inescapable.

Section one of the book is pretty straightforward, actually the whole first half is. As stated in the quote above, Claiborne and Haw basically unpack the biblical narrative and examine with what I guess you could call post-imperial hermeneutics, that is the bible is the unfolding story of God’s gracious relationship with God’s people, rescuing them from the messes they make and still inviting them (and us) to participate in this creative process, this grand divine project of restoration. The entire biblical story, according to Claiborne and Haw, is a critique of the abuse of power and an indictment of the imperial, systemic structures that are constructed. God apparently has something else in mind.

The first section of the book is called “Before there were Kings and Presidents.” Once upon a time God was king, no one else. But we know that didn’t last for long. Adam and Eve are estranged from God. Cain abuses power and murders his brother. Dominance and oppression from the get go.

Then there’s Noah and the flood. The earth was infected with violence and must be purged. I’ve always struggled with the flood narrative (among other violent passages in Hebrew scriptures), with God basically sanctioning the destruction of the entire world and most of humanity. But Claiborne and Haw treat it as protection from further corruption, “divine chemotherapy” as they say. Interesting. I’m still chewing on that and I find it somewhat curious. I don’t know what to make of it.

Then the tower of babel. People pursing power beyond their means. “It seems God has an aversion for limitless power.” Wow, might we apply the to the US? So, God jumbles the language of the human family. Again, Claiborne and Haw come at from and interesting angle, “This tale is less a tragedy of divine punishment and more an act of divine liberation of humankind from an imperial project that would lead to death.” Again, interesting. But does God really work that way? Isn’t that imperial itself?

Then God makes a sacred covenant with Abraham. God calls the community out and sets them apart to live into imperial redemption and liberation. They are given a divine mandate to be a blessing to the world. Remember this is not just their story, it is our story; it is Jesus’ story and it is the history we must own. So, juxtapose that charge with our American slogan of “ridding the world of evil,” and, well, I think I’ll leave it at that.

The story of the Exodus is timeless. Here God’s people are under enslaved by empire and God choses the most unlikely person, murderer saved from the Nile who as a speech impediment and obviously a fiery temper. God uses Moses to lead God’s people out of the empire and towards the promised land. But of course the people complained, wanting an emperor of their own. God rejected their request so they did the next best thing: they made golden calves and worshiped them. We humans have a very short memory. Eventually God grants their request and gives them a king.

And of course, things were peachy for a while, but the honeymoon period didn’t last for long. Kings began to abuse their power and became emperors. And if you’ve read the Hebrew narrative you know the turmoil that follows. Kings and prophets. Conquest and domination. Apostasy and repentance. The people turning away, demanding more power. Kings and leaders abusing power. And all the while God graciously welcoming God’s people back into restorative participation. A beautiful yet sobering story.

And throughout the narrative, God chooses the most unlikely people to lead the masses back to liberation. God chooses to identify with the victim, those on the underside of power and those history seems to conveniently leave out. Claiborne and Haw spend quite a bit of time describing and explaining the role of the prophet, noting of course that both men and women were prophets, critics of the dominant power structures who operate from the fringes and the margins of society.

They also speak of the Jubilee, which the call “a regularly scheduled revolution,” in great detail. This was of course God’s way of leveling out the system, ensuring that the gap between the rich and the poor be kept to a minimum—a systematic way of disrupting the human systems that created poverty and excessive wealth. What would happen if we implemented that today? Hmm.

The section ends with a prelude to the incarnation. God’s people continue to fall short of God’s dreams. The promised land was supposed to be the ultimate vision, but it too got screwed up. So, God dreams a new vision and chooses to come to earth to show God’s people just how they might live in balance, without abusing power. In the words of Claiborne and Haw, it was time for “a new kind of emperor and and new kind of empire.”

That’s where section one ends. There’s really not much to argue with though I take issue a bit with characterizing Jesus as an emperor and the kingdom of God as an empire. And ultimately I think I have a problem with the statement, Jesus for President,” but I’m getting ahead of myself. Perhaps it intentionally overstated here, but that sort of language is used throughout the book. I get the critique of power and the calling out of abusive, systematic structures. Believe me, I’m down with that.

But, I’m a bit uneasy with ordaining God’s dream and God’s reality, and even Jesus with the same sort of “power over” language. It seems that maybe that is what part of our problem has been, we’ve let the church become a new type of empire. And if there’s one thing we know about empires it’s this: they abuse power, the oppress, and they colonize. I just don’t see God’s dream as doing that. And for the record, I know that Shane and Chris don’t either, but I think that kind of language is a little dangerous, in fact I think that kind of language might be part of the very problem they are getting at. It might be subversive to call Jesus an emperor over the empire of God, but I don’t really care to take it any further than that. Maybe that is what they’re trying to do