Frank: “Fulfilled,” without a doubt.

But “abolished”?!

Jesus makes it quite clear that He did not do that:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

~ Matthew 5:17

Wouldn’t you agree that His “I have come to fulfill, not abolish, the law” and your “Jesus fulfilled and abolished the law” are vastly different propositions?

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Nor am I attempting to redefine the word political, rather I am making the same point as that of Wiglaf, #39, who cited: Politics consists of “social relations involving authority or power” and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.”

Jesus established the church which is to live within the rule of God. It is the church that is to be the community of those called out and set apart to be a holy nation. However you define the words politics and political I think ones allegiances must relate. The church’s allegiance is with Jesus and the Kingdom he rules. As the church, our politics should be about praying, proclaiming, and embodying heaven (or the rule of God) on earth as it is in heaven.

With that said, you do err when you assert that Jesus did not gain the throne of this world. Jesus did in fact gain the throne of this world a Lordship that Christians should be the first to recognize and proclaim.

Report comment to moderator

So then, the first reason I don’t see the political nature of Jesus is because I don’t see his political nature. OK.

The second reason is that I don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘politics’. Then you redefine the word ‘politics’ to mean everything. It is a part of every aspect of life.

Well, if you put it that way … I suppose dictionaries need only contain a single word. You can try to win any argument by redefining any word to mean anything.

I cannot deny that Jesus was political in your world because you have defined everything there to be political. Wow!

How about telling us what Jesus did to change Rome? I suppose that riding into Jerusalem was political in some sense, declaring himself king, but that did not gain him the throne in this world.

Report comment to moderator

Regardless of that, I agree with your (newly adopted, as far as I can tell) position. Jesus made personal, not political, claims and commandments. Jesus did not command governments to provide subsidized housing or to fight the spread of communism.

But in as much as I, personally, have influence over my government, I would prefer that they provide for the poor rather than invade foreign nations.

Report comment to moderator

Second, our imaginations have been so captivated by the ideas and rhetoric of empire that we cannot rightly understand politics, freedom, economics, etc. apart from the status quo. For instance, when I say politics the first thing that comes to most peoples minds is probably the US presidential election. While that is politics it hardly exhausts what politics is.

The clarification of these misunderstandings and the result–that is an apolitical Jesus–is the task that Claiborne and Haw have set out to clarify and in so doing reawaken the political imagination of the Church.

Samuel Wells puts it much better than I can:
“Politics is a day-to-day matter for every person, not a specialist subject for the argumentative and opinionated, or a dirty business for the manipulative or unfortunate. Politics is not an inappropriate intrusion into a spiritual conversation, nor is it an introduction of unnecessary controversy into an otherwise harmonious discourse. Politics is the careful negotiation of passion and interest that pays due respect to different degrees and kinds of power. In other words, politics is a dimension of every interaction, from a parent encouraging a child to share, to a group of housekeepers demanding a minimum wage, to a superpower trying to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the developing world. As is often said, everything is politics, but politics is not everything. As soon as one acknowledges that everyone has something to gain and something to lose from a change in the status quo, one has accepted that politics is a part of every aspect of life.

And the gospel of Jesus Christ is deeply concerned with how individuals and groups use their power, how they form their passions, and how society is going to change radically. It is not a question of getting involved in politics; everyone already is. It is more a question of becoming wiser and more conscious and more faithful in one’s politics. The only Christians who say we should keep politics and th gospel apart are those who enjoy a comfortable social and economic status and assume the point of Christianity is to underwrite the privileges they already have.” (Power and Passion: Six Characters in Search of Resurrection p. 19-20)

Report comment to moderator

From the Roman perspective, defying Pilate and Herod may have appeared political. They may have seen Jesus’ crucifixion as justice for insurrection. But God dying on the cross had nothing to do with politics, unless you call heavenly justice in the court of God political.

The church has nothing to do with politics. Churches that become political have lost site of their mission.

Report comment to moderator

Jesus, as some of you have pointed out, certainly spoke to spiritual realities however to suggest that his concerns weren’t also with the affairs of this present world (political, economic, religious, etc.) is naive and disingenuous. (As an aside, I should also point out the assumption that the political, economic, and religious structures of our would are somehow distinct from or not infused with the spiritual comes not from the bible but from Platonic philosophy.)In fact, I believe the socio-historical context of Jesus incarnation to be of such import that it is quite difficult (perhaps impossible?) to understand Him outside of it. In order to appropriately understand the scriptures we need both the Holy Spirit and an understanding of what the words meant to those who first heard them. As we have heard, “a text out of context is a pretext” I would also argue that interpreting Jesus out of his historical context is a pretext or at least a prescription for misunderstanding.

Take for example the criticism He had for the pharisees, I think a valid argument could be made that His criticism for them resided explicitly on their socio-political-religious position in society and the ability to misgovern and exploit the people that that position afforded them.

How bout that ole’ rugged cross?… Did Jesus turn a blind eye to its barbarity? Or did he in fact engage it politically? John Howard Yoder points out, “…the titulon on the cross is sufficient testimony…Jesus’ public career had been such as to make it quite thinkable that he would pose to the Roman Empire an apparent threat serious enough to justify his execution.” (The Politics of Jesus p.50 (A good book on this subject))

So, yes, he was executed on the cross; but the question remains, did he engage it politically? Paul claimed in Colossians 2:15 that through the cross, Christ exposed and disarmed the principalities and powers–that is striped them of their pretense of power. Sounds like a political act to me. “Christ is Lord” is a direct affront to every and all powers that vie for our allegiance. This is half of the proclamation of the Church. But, did Jesus speak to the cross? Yes, he spoke directly to it both in word and in deed. He said, “If a man will come after me, let him take up his cross and follow me…” The cross, as his execution made abundantly clear, was the result of social nonconformity, of challenging the injustices of the status quo, of failing to give hommage to the powers that be. Jesus invited those that would follow him to count the cost of following him. We are called to imitate Jesus and while he is in some sense inimitable we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to follow.

Jesus made clear our choice would have consequences both positive and negative. Positive in that a group of people living as a renewed humanity (i.e. the Church) is in fact a political act. A group living according to Jesus ethic and example cannot help but impact the world in positive ways. Negative in that the powers that be will rightly interpret this way, as the early Christ followers called it, as an affront to their sovereignty and methods and hurl all kinds of brutality against such a group. As we have seen with Jesus and throughout the life of the faithful church God consistently uses this, the worlds violence and brutality, to unmask the world. Taking up the cross is a political act.

Shalom

Report comment to moderator

To me the prior question that has to be answered is, did Jesus really say that?

That is no game, it’s a totally legitimate point.

Report comment to moderator