(Ir)religiosity

• Tweet
• Sharebar

• Tweet

Part I | Part II

Enter Jesus. The second section of the book is called “A New Kind of Commander and Chief” and it deals with the story of Jesus. Finally, after growing tried of watching humanity be seduced by power and privilege, God decided to get involved. God got local. God got contextual. God became human.

Claiborne and Haw’s (who I will affectionately refer to as C&H from now on) view is basically this: Jesus story, from start to finish, stands over and against that of the empire and Caesar. From his birth (which C&H refer to as a ‘divine conspiracy!’), to his message, to his death and resurrection, Jesus challenged the illegitimate authority of the empire with the kingdom of God. Jesus re-imagined the throne and Caesar was not on it, God was

Like any narrative, Jesus’ story must be situated within it’s context. C&H spend a great deal of time explaining Jesus socio-political setting within the Roman empire. This is key. In fact, it is key throughout the rest of the book because in their words, “Rather than shaking us to the core, [Jesus' story] has been tamed” (66). I would agree

First, all our cutesy religious words, words like: gospel, Savior, evangelion (root word of evangelism, evangelical and all other things evangel-), Lord, kingdom, Messiah, Son of God, ekklesia (church), faith, and parousia (second coming). All those words were popular words that Jesus (and others) took directly from the Roman imperial lexicon and basically turned inside out. They re-imagined the world. A reality were God was on the throne not Caesar

So our domesticated, exclusively religious and pious language wasn’t always as diluted as it is today. During Jesus time that language was deeply political and deeply religious

Jesus spins the language and calls out Caesar. Jesus was basically an atheist (as were other Jewish resistors) in that he refused to believe in the emperor as God. He spoke of the kingdom of God (or the empire of God) as antithetical to the empire of Caesar, not synonymous; which, was quite a subversive statement. Even more important for C&H, who are basically echoing Yoder and Hauerwas et al, Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God not as a better version of of the kingdom of this world, but as a distinct reality itself. A peculiar, unique, set-apart community. I am fine with this, but I began to be concerned when it is pushed it full limit. More on that later.

Jesus’ first sermon (his inaugural address as C&H call it) in Luke sums his message: liberation of the oppressed, freedom of the captives, proclaiming the year of the great jubilee. Which of course effectively canceled all debts and closed the gap between the rich and the poor. Jesus proclaiming the coming of an alternative economy, one that took place right under Caesar’s nose. Jesus spoke of a throne, but Caesar did not sit on it. He brought the words of the ancient prophets–words of liberation, justice, equality, and blessing–to the forefront of his people’s collective consciousness. Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if someone proclaimed that message today

So what did Jesus teach? Obviously C&H emphasize Jesus teaching on enemy love and nonviolence, specifically found in the Sermon on the Mount. Here they rely heavily, as have I, on the work of Walter Wink (see “The Powers that Be,” and “Engaging the Powers”). I won’t go into the specifics here other than to say that if you have not read any of these nonviolent interpretations, you should probably drop what you’re doing and read some right now. You will read Jesus’ sayings about turning the other cheek and going the extra mile in new light. Jesus finds creative avenues to interrupt the cycles of redemptive violence in which his society was deeply embedded.

Why does Jesus teach the love of enemies and nonviolence? The easy answer is because that is the very nature of God, to love all humanity because all humanity bears the divine image. But C&H raise a very interesting point, “Jesus not only cared for the poor, but he cared of the powerful.” (98) Obviously Jesus is very much concern with those on the underside of power but Jesus also understood that enemies too remain captive to imperial myths and framing stories.

So, Jesus recognizes the presence of evil and empire, but chose to deal with them though active nonviolent resistance and hope. Rather than participating in short, flash-in-the-pan violent revolutions (which were happening all the time and had been proven futile), Jesus chose a different way that affirms the humanity in all persons. Besides, Jesus wasn’t interesting in overthrowing the government, he was interesting in the kingdom of God, an alternative reality that grows more like a weed than a mighty cedar tree

Speaking of the kingdom of God, it seems that Jesus message of the kingdom sets itself up on a collision course with ethno-nationalism (which is usually disguised as patriotism these days). I don’t want to spoil the fun later, because the second half of the book is definitely the best. But it’s here that C&H begin to lower the boom:

“In regard to Christian politics, some might say, “Sure my citizenship is in heaven, but I have to live in the ‘real’ world now.”…This interpretation basically comes to mean that my citizenship in heaven means nothing in the real world….But the problem is that Jesus’ kingdom was about the real world, here and now. It was about allegiance. Jesus and Paul were telling the people that they must live here with their identities as aliens…And to claim that one’s citizenship is in heaven is to say that you pledge allegiance not to any of the kingdoms of the world but to Jesus and the body of those who take on his suffering, enemy-loving posture toward the world….For those who pledge allegiance to the kingdoms of this world, Jesus preached good news: repent and become born again, see the kingdom, and find a new identity.”

So for those that claim to follow the way of Jesus, hope and allegiance lies not in our governments, though we live within them, but in God and God’s alternative reality, a kingdom that is “not of this world.” Which doesn’t mean it is not in this world, it simply means it does not operate in the same way our governments and power structures do. This kingdom rules with love and compassion, not coercion and force. Another quote from the book:

“When Jesus said, “My kingdom if not of this world,” he wasn’t saying that his kingdom was apolitical, rather he was saying how it is political. He clarified his statement right after he made it: the essential difference is that in my kingdom, we do not fight to maintain the kingdom….the kingdom Jesus spoke of is a real political kingdom that is unique, confusing, and unheard of. His kingdom is not of this world because it refuses power, pledges a different allegiance, and lives love.”

So, I don’t claim to be an American, though I happen to live within the American empire. I claim to be a Christian, a follower of the way of Jesus and one that seeks to, among all his faults, realize and nurture God’s dream for the world.  And when it comes to the God of the empire, I, like Jesus, am an atheist.

Now, this raises some curious questions for me.  Questions I’ll have to address later.  Questions like: if these things are true, what is the proper interplay and interaction between a Christian and government? And, to what degree, if any, can a follower of Jesus be involved with the activity of the state?

I think I will stop there. This is getting pretty long. I’ll write one more post on the “Jesus section” and then we’ll get down to the good stuff–the last two sections of the book