twenty-three

"There is no such thing as a ‘Christian politics.’"

A friend sent me a New York Times article a couple days ago titled "Christ Among the Partisans," which included the previous phrase as its lead. Intrigued by the nature of the article and the boldness of this statement, I read on.

What I found was quite different than a lot of what I’ve heard and
read about Christ’s message about our political position as Christians.
I suggest you read the article for
yourself. I agree wholeheartedly that Christ’s message should never,
ever be co-opted by a particular political party (As you know, "God is
not a Republican, or a Democrat"). I feel that when one group tags
Jesus as their poster boy or their mascot, we’re in murky, misguided
waters. To say that Christ fits into the American political machine is
to ignore so many obvious pieces of his message.

With that said, I feel that this article goes farther than I would
in separating Christ from politics in general. To say that Christ
should be separate from politics because his message "brought no
political message or program" is to dangerously ignore the message of
the Kingdom of God, which many people believe was Christ’s answer to
Roman oppression, the "regime change" that the Jewish people had been
waiting for. Christ’s message was not apolitical. What was this guy
doing, going around Israel’s countryside, preaching about the Kingdom
of God for? What was he saying stuff like "Give therefore to the
emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and give to God what is
God’s (NRSV)." This message has to be more than just a reminder to
citizens to pay taxes and follow the rules. More of the time, I hear
Jesus’ message being aligned with a radically subversive political
agenda that sought to set into place a community of true followers of
God, the Kingdom, that transcended the man-made systems of the world.

Christ’s message should require action of the Church. His message
should require us to make bold stands on behalf of the poor, to stand
up against injustice, to be citizens who respect the laws of the land
they occupy while all the time they subversively serve only one
Kingdom. Maybe I end up contradicting myself with the ways I approach
this issue, because I never did understand Political Science that well.
But I feel like as a follower of Christ, this message compels me toward
political awareness, response, and action. Being a member of the
Kingdom does not mean I separate from the empire in which I live.

I think where a lot of the difficulty and confusion comes from is
how "God’s Politics" should look. Jim Wallis’ book of this title offers
several very real-world examples of the many ways that the American
political system gets it wrong as it tries to figure out what to do
with it’s church/state agenda. His biggest point seems to be that we
haven’t quite figured out how our religion and politics should
interact. There needs to be a separation, because without it Christ
will become a mascot for a party and his message will be lost. But
there are ways that our faith can and should play out in the political
arena. Don’t make the Church be a puppet for personal agenda, but why
not let the message of Christ influence the way you look at the poor,
the way you spend your money, who you back in your voting, what causes
you support, what restaurants you don’t buy from, that kind of stuff.

I’m rambling, but I guess my point is this: Christ’s message is
political. It should require communal, social action in response.
Taking Christ out of politics because his message is being twisted is a
good idea. Taking Christ out of politics because his message doesn’t
pertain to politics is bad.

2 Responses to “God’s (lack of) Politics?”