(Ir)religiosity

I heard Shane Claiborne speak at an event put on by the Boston Faith & Justice Network last Saturday.  It was a good event.  Shane gave a variation of his standard stump talk with some updated anedcotes that I don’t remember hearing the last time I saw him.

There was one quote, however, that is worth retelling.

At one point, Shane was talking about how Christians, and the church in general, tend to approach word and deed from a position of inflated self-righteousness.  To drive his point home he jokingly compared the church to the donkey that carried Jesus into Jerusalem during his last week.  He made a few funny points about how the donkey was probably feeling pretty good about himself — watching the crowds and listening to them cheering — and pointed out that such an attitude is not unlike that of many Christians and many churches.  We like to take the credit for something we have no business boasting about.

All this culminated when Shane drove his point home by saying:

“We’re just the asses that get to bring Jesus!”

I love it!  And it’s so true.  We’re all just asses trying to do the best we can to be a humble conduit for the gospel.  Let us never forget that.

The good folks over at the Ooze sent me a copy of The Ordinary Radicals last week.  I had a chance to watch in full the other day and I really enjoyed it.  I read Jesus for President as soon as it came out and enjoyed it as well.  If you’re like me and weren’t able to attend the tour the past summer, then the film is definitely for you because it chronicles the entire journey, from being censored in Grand Rapids to refueling the bus with used vegetable oil (yep, that’s right, veggie oil) to everything in between.  And I haven’t even watched the special features yet.

Hearing some of the person stories that were spoken of in the book — the guy who left the military, and the Amish tragedy come to mind — was moving.  And of course the music was great too.  I absolutely love The Psalters.

I felt like that whole thing was just a tad long and could’ve been slightly shorter, but other than that it was great.  Good film editing and, from someone who didn’t make it to the real thing, a great inside look on the book tour.  Whether you’ve read the book or not, The Ordinary Radicals is well worth you time.

Part I | Part II | Part III

Jesus and taxes.  

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people defend blind trust and obedience in their government by appealing to Jesus’ statement: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (my paraphrase), which seems at the surface to be in support of the empire.  But that misses the larger picture.

Coins with Caesar’s image on them were all over the place in Jesus’ day and were inscribed with the statement: “Long live the Son of God!” According to C&H, “The coins were a visual sign that the entire economy belonged to Caesar and that without him everything would fall apart.” The Jews were taxed heavily by the Roman government both directly through Pilate and Herod and indirectly by the temple authorities.  C&H estimate that over 50% of the common persons income when to Caesar in some form of taxes. 

So here we are with Jesus in a rift with the authorities again.  They ask him if it is right to pay homage to the empire through taxes.  Here, C&H bring up an excellent point, one I hadn’t ever thought about, though it makes perfect sense: “…it was quite radical to speak of God and Caesar as two separate entities.”  By doing so Jesus raises the question to his hearers: Who is God, really? Because of course as mentioned in the previous posts Caesar was God. Period.  End of question.  So, to us on the surface level Jesus is supporting the tax system, but to his hearers he is questioning the very nature of God.

And Jesus’ hears would likely push that question to the next level: if Caesar is not God, then what actually belongs to Caesar?  If Caesar is not God, that is, not the ruler of the universe then what authority and what jurisdiction does he really have?  Caesar authority is illegitimate!  As C&H put it:

“Caesar could brand with his image, coins, crowns, and robes, which moths would eat and rust destroy.  But life and creation have God’s stamp on them.  Caesar could have his coins, but life is God’s.  Caesar had no right to take what is God’s.  We are also reminded that just as Caesar stamped his image of coins, God’s image is stamped on human beings.  Even Caesar had God’s stamp.  God made Caesar, and Caesar was not God. But the hearer was left to ponder the riddle of what was God’s and what was Caesar’s. No wonder Jesus often had to say, “Do you have ears to hear?”…God created Caesar, and God created the heavens and the earth. Caesar cannot do that. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Once we’ve given to God what is God’s, there’s not much left for Caesar. And after Caesar returns to dust, God will continue to live and bring dust to life.”

Now, at this point I have to wonder how this works itself out today.  I live in the American empire. I sent my tax returns off about a month ago.  I got a refund.  To be honest, I’m very grateful for that refund because my wife and I will be moving across the country this summer and we need all the help we can get.  But that doesn’t change the fact that my refund money is imperial money.

I can think of two alternatives.  On the one hand, I can could opt out of the system all together and refuse to pay taxes or mail a return.  People do that.  And I respect them.  But I think the second alternative is more viable and effective.  I think it makes more of a statement.  A comment Matt Scott made on one of my posts about a month ago got me to thinking.   And then I read this book and I got to thinking even more.

What if next year when I have to pay taxes and render unto Uncle Sam what is his, what if I refuse to pay the percentage that funds the war and “national defense?”  What if I attached I cover letter to my return explaining that because my loyalty lies with God I refuse to participate in the killing innocent people.  What if instead I took the percentage that would go to fund war and I gave it all away?  

I can’t help, but wonder what might happen if I took Jesus at his word.  I can’t help but wonder what might happened if I believed him.

Better yet, what would happen if we believed him? What would happen if we were actually converted by the gospel and became cooperators and participators with God in subverting empire?

Am I crazy? Delusional? Too idealistic?

What do you think?

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

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

Instead of writing a normal book review, I’ve decided to take each section of Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw’s book Jesus for President, and individually make some comments and reflections. This book deals with my own personal “sweet spot” of theology and politics, an area I am continually wrestling with and struggling to make sense of.

If you haven’t read the book yet, I highly recommend it, especially now given the political climate in the US. To be honest, I’m not completely sure were I stand in relation to some of the things discussed in the book. I’m constantly dialogging with myself and depending on what day you ask me, I might be a grunt for the Hauerwasian Mafia (as Tony Jones affectionately calls it) or a card-carrying member of the new post-evangelical political activists (Jim Wallis, et al). I guess I’m trying to find a healthy way to live with the tension of both.

And because of that, this book was very good for me not to mention quite thought provoking and deeply provocative (as the title undoubtedly shows) and that’s why I’m going to spend some time on it. I commend Claiborne & Haw for taking the thinking of Hauerwas, Yoder, etc. and presenting it in an accessible manner for the average reader. As far as I know that has never been done and in that respect nothing they say is particularly original, but it is deeply challenging and rhetorically heavy nonetheless. As it should be.

So, here’s to some engaging conversation. I’ll jump in with both feet on Thursday.

Next week I’ll be going to a Social Justice Conference in Forth Worth sponsored by the UMC. I’m getting pretty excited. The best part is a get to hear this guy speak:

~bh ><>