Historically, when the church has crawled into bed with the national government, the off-spring has been a hideous affair, and the damage to both church and citizenry is felt far into the future.
/cough-Europe
However, I'm intrigued by the "New Monasticism." A rather clever twist on a very, very old system.
The question remains to be seen what the end result of this effort will be...a rigamortis of rules that hardens and then like a corpse...softens to ineffectualness and looses all spiritual cohesion like what happened to their forebears in Europe, or an explosive community impact that radiates out like a blast wave from an exploding star like the Jerusalem church after Titus' legions began their urban renewal program in 70 AD...only they can decide their movements fate...I on the other hand...will tract them to see how they do.

/sigh...another book to read on my mounting stack of books to read.

Christians have never been comfortable with power, even when the power has been seemingly God-granted. It's easier (or at least more conscience-friendly) to submit to rulers and authorities than it is to fill the role of ruler and authority.

It's easier to talk about grace than it is to determine what justice is and how it is meted out.

Jesus says that when he returns in power, there will be some winnowing and separating: sheep from goats and all that.

Whew! Anybody want to step up to the task of trying to be a Christ-follower in making those kinds of decisions? We usually don't think about that when we pray "on earth as it is in heaven."

"Is it true that the church in America has fallen sway to the enticing promise of power and legitimacy from the state?"

When I read activists like Tony Campolo advocating socialist intervention by the government, I would have to say the answer to the question is yes.

Thanks for your blog post about Jesus for President! I just wanted to let you know there are 2 videos of Shane speaking about Jesus for President, plus audio clips, visuals, and a blog tour at this link:

http://zondervan.typepad.com/zondervan/2008/03/jesus-for-pre-1.html

Please feel free to join the blog tour.

Blessings,

Amy

I'm no monastic. I'm certainly no politician. When I do my duty at the polls, it feels more civic than spiritual.

I do get tired of people presenting their application of scripture as if it should be my personal voting guide. Sometimes it seems like we tack God's name onto our own political hopes as a kind of holy endorsement.

"Taking Jesus’ yoke means we will be “liberated from the yoke of global capitalism [while] our sisters and brothers in Guatemala, Liberia, Iraq, and Sri Lanka will also be liberated.”"

What a strange statement. The "yoke" of global capitalism often helps poor people. An example of course is our trade with China. Whole cities have been built on American demand for Wal-Mart items. Moreover, a localized economy surely doesn't mean people are free from greed.

I'm surprised that the American church is still asking the question about its involvement with politics, I would have thought the answer has been obvious for sometime - Yes! The message has been compromised by capitulation to the seduction of power as defined by the surrounding culture. Wake up before it's too late (perhaps it already is)

If by New Monasticism we are exclusively talking about Gen-Xers becoming enamored with the counter-cultural implications of ancient Franciscan spirituality, then we're only demonstrating how deep the North American evangelical ignorance of church history really is.

There's so much more to monasticism and even the NM.

I fear because of the NM "cover story" a couple years back at CT people will just see this as just another flavor of evangelicalism's much needed foray into a holistic understanding of the Gospel and still lose the riches of the NM to only one particular (and limited) expression of it.

I mean, what would have done without this book?

We figured it out, thank heaven. Dorothy Day, the many nameless oblates and third order workers, the educational orders and all the others--vibrant as they are and have been--all they really needed was hip, young voices with book deals to validate them and their work.

What a relief that the insular, ghetto of evangelicalism can now approve and act like they know everything.

I can't wait for the wave of nausea I feel when I hear about my fellow college student's next man-crush on these "thinkers".

Is your congregation in bed with the state?

We're in bed with the enemy and the enemy is not the state.

These days I seem to hear three options regarding an American Christian's attitude toward government. The first is the loyalist, pro-military, democracy-is-biblical camp, sometimes bordering on "American is the new Israel." (I take it that this is the stance Claiborne and Haw find particularly exasperating.) The second is the quasi-socialism & activism of the likes of Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis: the caricature of this position is that the government ought to be the charitable arm of the Church. The third is the critical, anabaptist, almost isolationist position. I wouldn't be surprised if this is where Claiborne and Haw land, given their discomfort with any overlap of Christian witness and political power.

Our options seem to be these, then: (1) the church endorses the state's agenda; (2) the church demands that the state secure its (the church's) agenda; and (3) the church avoids involving itself with the state at all. None of these are satisfying to me.

Who is going to offer a non-question-begging, non-reactionary theology of political action, for the next generation of American Christians? It's not Dobson, it's not Wallis, and it's not Claiborne. Who's up to the task?

I just re-read this review.
It's interesting how the reviewer states it's possible that the writers are reacting to their own upbringing.

I wouldn't doubt it.
It's amazing how Christianity is such a great environment for one person's feelings of guilt to get turned into everyone else's problem.

Augustine, anyone?

I have a very hard time listening to a guy tell me that the church is too involved in politics and hate on the Christian right (which i agree is wrong) but he and his buddies have done the opposite and joined the Christian left (which is just as wrong as the Christian right) Stay out of politics all together and maybe I will listen.

Great post.
Keep up the great blogging.
You are such a blessing to many believers including myself.
I pray God's blessings in your life.
In Him,
Kinney Mabry
Aka,
Preacherman! :-)
1 Tim 4:12

Wouldn't it be nice if we could take our Christian values into the political and financial world...

Dumpster diving - that should upset us on so many levels...yet, our only outrage seems to be over the legality of it...

We seem to be at a cross-roads...no pun intended...do we let Religion drive Politics...or Politics drive religion...how about this...let's jump out of the driver's seat and let Jesus have a turn at the wheel...well, maybe the Cross-road pun was intended...

And...as to the stack of books...I have rotated mine 90 degrees, and put book-ends on it...now it looks more impressive, even though I can't get through them...and it is less depressing than a growing stack...

The essential problem of Christianity is not the faith itself, but the adherents within.
For example, Christianity in the early first century did not appeal to the state for redress of real or percieved wrongs. For them the state is the state, and their marching orders were to make disciples, not legislation.
However, as we move from a primarily Jewish dominated sect to a gentile dominated sect we begin to see the issue of Christianity inserting itself into the state, we'll call this the "who's in charge?" period.
The overriding issue is how the relationship itself evolves over time.
For example, Christianity in Rome...500 AD...by that time the nascent Church isn't so nascent and is now solidifying it's position as a political entity, though it still has vague memories of what it's suppose to be doing: "do I make disciples through reasoned discourse, or draw the sword...ah the sword, so much more...convincing!"
Fast foward to Europe, 900AD, and voila, you have Church and state as one and the same.
Henry II of Germany anyone?
Fast forward to the 1500 century and we begin to see the full monstrosity of the church and state in all of it's henious glory, "I am the church and the state!"
Fast forward to the 1800th century and we begin to see the dissolution of the relationship and the relegation of the Church back to the edifice and out of the capitol.
Today, we're working ourselves right back to where our forebears were, and we're about to find out why it's a really freaking good idea to keep the Church out of the state, and the state out of the Church.
A pity we have to repeat history to get it through our thick heads, but once again, it's not the faith, it's the people in it.

G-d certainly has proven his patience with us...all 2000+ years of it.

I don't have a fish on my car. It won't make me drive better. It won't make the people around me drive better or smile or think about getting 'saved'. In fact, it only makes people want to get around you faster. The only identifier is a sticker on the inside of my car that states "G-d is not a Republican. Or a Democrat." (Sojourners) The only think I think about on a regular basis is "Am I on G-D'S side?" not "Is G-d on MY side?"

I do not vote the way I do because of the church I attend. My faith influences the way I live and how I behave, but in no way should it run my country.

Bravo, sheerahkahn, and the rest who have properly read the Separation of Church and State clause. Those in power who believe that they are put there though divine intervention are prone to abuse their power, as has been proven over and over throughout history. And there are those now who wish to go back to a "Christian" nation. This would be disastrous for those who live here under religious freedom, a freedom that was valued by our founding fathers. And then we have to wonder, what type of Christian? How good is good enough? What denomination? Do we eventually institute a national branch of Christianity over the next 100 years? No, we are to live and make disciples instead of institutions -- a living Body. That is the point, that there are generations coming up growing tired of the status quo set by a generation previous.

As Phyllis Tickle put it so beautifully, "A nation is in the business of doing Caesar's work, not G-d's... it is to say that one should never expect the state to function in accord with passionate faith. It won't. It can't. It shouldn't. That would be a confusion of roles."

Thanks for the comments folks.

I'm particularly interested in Philip's "three options regarding an American Christian's attitude toward government." He sees the authors fitting within the third category. I'm guessing that Claiborne and Haw would be OK being called "critical" and "Anabaptist" though they would probably take exception with being labeled isolationists.

I'm curious whether Philip's three broad options are indicative of reality. And if Philip is correct and none of these options are helpful for the church in America at this time, than what? Is there another way of articulating the proper role between the church and the state?

And Leo, I too subscribe to the "make my stack of to-read books look like a organized shelf of already-read books."

This notion that the church has tried to force itself on the state throughout history is purely a myth. In fact, the opposite is true. One reason so many Americans, including American churchgoers; see it backwards is because we live in a Democratic Republic. Our vision of history is skewed by our very unique experience.

Before Believers were referred to as the church, we see in the Bible that God’s people were oppressed by the state. Moses was on a spiritual mission but Pharaoh certainly considered him a political threat. Our Lord, even as a Baby, was considered by Herod to be a threat to the throne. The betrayal, the trial and the crucifixion of Christ were thick with the politics of the day. Did Christ present himself as a political figure? No. But he was considered a political threat.

Fast forward to just the last 200 years. The list of Christians who have been tortured and killed because they were considered a political threat is too long for me to do it justice here. But it includes millions of Believers in China, Russia, Africa, et. al. The list includes people like the Ten Boom family and other Christians who helped many Jews escape the Nazis before they were caught and sent to Ravensbruck.

Some of the original European travelers to North America came because they were Christians on the run from a government. The surge of Christian involvement in politics in the late 20th century was in response to the perception that the country was taking a moral and spiritual turn for the worse. It was but the case can be made that one look at history and scripture should have told Christians that trying to save the country at the ballot box would be futile. No one is changed from the outside in. Be that as it may, it still remains a fact that it wasn’t Christians who were trying to hijack the state. It was the state (and in our country, the people are the state, right?) that was trying to marginalize and disenfranchise Christians.

While this has been going on, Christians in other countries have been experiencing what Christians have been experiencing for 2000 years. They do not seek the state. The state seeks them, with a vengeance. Those who think the Christian Right are a threat to co-opt power in this country simply haven’t yet experienced the storm troopers at their door.

Sheerahkahn, are you arguing that the faithful should leave civic leadership entirely up to nonbelievers? Suppose all came to faith--what then? It would be very odd to conclude, "Christians don't belong in political power. But since we need someone to regulate the economy, uphold the rule of law, etc., it's a good thing not everyone is a Christian."

You're right to point out the tumultuous relationship the church has had with the state over the centuries. But the question of the church's relationship to the state can't be so easily answered, let alone dismissed.

Are we starting up the "us vs. them" stance again?

rdm - well said. you know, i don't think the problem is Christians in or out of politics - it's humans. the pendulum swings one way and then another. we only rise up when we feel we are beaten down.

however, to claim to be speaking for God when you're casting your ballot - or starting a war - is another thing entirely - and that's where i fear the religious right (wright?) has gone wrong.

wreally.

(see? that little 'w' is in everything ... ahem.)

mike wrucker

"This notion that the church has tried to force itself on the state throughout history is purely a myth. In fact, the opposite is true."

/sigh
Fine...read it for yourself...

Authority and Legitimation fo Royal Policy and Action, the Case of Henry II. Stefan Weinfurter, Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual, Memory, Historiography. ed. Gerd Althoff, Johannes Fried, Patrick J. Geary. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press, 2002: pp 19-37.

Henry II art Magdeburg: Kingship, ritual, and the cult of Saints. David Warner, Early Medieval Europe 1994, pp 135-166.

King Henry II of Germany, Royal Self-Representation and Historical Memory. John W. Bernhardt, Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual, Memory, Historiography. ed Gerd Althoff...et al.

Also any of the controversies stemming from ecclesastical approval of Kingship, the permissions that William got from Rome to secure his right to the throne of England...yada, yada, yada.

And don't even get me started on the Gregorian reformations...

Bottom line, regardless of the religion, the common thread throughout history is not so much the faith, but rather the men involved.
There is always men looking to lord over other men, and religion is just one of those pathways.

As soon as we bring substance in our preaching and our books.Than we see people growing in their faith, one bookstore owner I warned for this if they keep onselling these kind of books they will go broke.And yes a few month's later they had to close a number of Thier Christian book stores.It is as the President of the Alliance Church International stepped down of his function as president.He literally said."We are selling a Jesus to cheap." What he ment to say is that there is to little substance in the sernons and in the Christian books.We need to bring some books which do have a theological depth.today this is the only way we sell Christ, people today are educated and we need to meet their needs.Greetings and prayerRev:John Flipsen.

Rev. Flipsen - Amen! We pastors need to dump the fluff and preach the STUFF of the Bible. Just finished study for tonight - Jehovah Mekadesh (Lev. 20:7-8) - God Who Sanctifies. We belong to and serve a Holy God, who desires that we emulate Him...not the world. God has directed us to live IN the world, so naturally there will be a blending/bluring of life and Word (and therefore, politics).

Again I say - would that ALL decisions and works in the world by Christians be done with a Biblically based direction! Everyone has a world view - a filter they examine and interact in the world with. For some, it is reason. Others, power. For me and my house - it is the BIBLE! I am not stupid enough to believe that everything I do is Biblically based or grounded...were that so, we would be living in another millenium and not having this discussion. We still struggle, still make mistakes, sill wonder, still do the wrong things for the right reasons, the right things for the wrong reasons...but are we still GROWING? I hope and pray so.

Earlier I pondered if the thougth of dumpster diving bothered others besides the "legal" aspect of it? I am still curious - we live in the most prosperous free nation in the world...and still have those who need...why it that? Politics has not "fixed" it...nor has the church. Perhaps it is time to unite the two, and see what happens...then maybe dumpster diving would be removed from ANY book, legal or essay.

Hmm, it should be noted that the term dumpster diving came from the early 80's. Those who were involved in such activities were usually poorly paid people who dove for metals of any sort, glass, and plastics. Though the more lucrative aspect were metals...I remember brass going for .25/lb, and alumminum was selling roughly the same...sometimes less.
Copper...copper was a gold mine...well, till people started tossing out their old PC boards, those became the new gold mine.
Anyway, the reason people did it was because we needed money to make ends meet...to proud to beg, to proud to ask for hand outs, and it was a good way of earning a few extra coins to buy a box of mac and cheese, or a ba of rice...or if one struck it rich like someone I know, a few pounds of copper... he got to buy a pound or two of hamburger.
Anyway, just thought I'd put some perspective on that issue.

My apoligies - I should have been more clear. In this nation, there should be no reason ANYONE should need to go to a dumpster for food. We (the collective we) have been graced with an abundance in this nation - why cannot we fix this problem? As I said - both politics and the church have failed to help, to fix this, when acting separately...perhaps it is time for a combined effort. We work extensively overseas in missions and in aid to foreign countries - yet, seem to fail here. Why? How can we "fix" that?

My tongue in cheek remarks were a poor attempt at sarcasm - to illustrate we seem more interested in the legal aspects of dumpster diving than in the fact someone would need to do this in order to eat...

I was happily reading through all these arguments here and thinking about them and then two or three commenters began to use some weird thing: G-d. What the heck is that? Are we suddenly afraid to use the word God, or isn't it allowed in these comments?
Crikey.

sheerahkahn, I need to get your email address. Good stuff.

The reason that there is fluff is because fluff sells -- see Joel Osteen. Look at the mega-churches. People want to feel good, look good, and be seen doing it but without the commitment. They want comfy chairs, feel-good religion, catchy tunes, premium coffee, and plenty of Jesus junk that shows what they 'believe' so they don't have to actually say a word. Actually change a lifestyle? Think about what they're doing? Huh? No way! Why do you think that "faith" is flourishing in the States and dying in Europe? Because xtian companies know how to make a buck in marketing. It's trendy to be spiritual. (Be an xtian in a country where it isn't the majority religion and see how cool and easy it is.) Just because the pews are stuffed doesn't mean much is going on upstairs with most of the congregants.

It's this behavior that the authors and others are trying to diverge from.

"I was happily reading through all these arguments here and thinking about them and then two or three commenters began to use some weird thing: G-d. What the heck is that?"

I find this interesting...apparently the editors of Ur are curious too if they allowed this question to be posted.

"Are we suddenly afraid to use the word God, or isn't it allowed in these comments?"

No, I use it because I talked to Jew's who found my usage of "G o d" to be...hmm, disrespectful to both the deity and to them. The alternate address is G-d, so I have grown use to using the address of G-d to show both my respect for both parties.

I would encourage everyone to read this book for themselves. Shane and Chris do a very good job of building their case for why they've come to the conclusions that they have. For the most part, they readily cite their sources/influences, without proof texting (as is the common way of doing it these days).

Shane Claiborne's writing will sadly be received by the American Christian community with hostility in many places. Shane's breed of Christianity is very social and political, because that's exactly how he sees the person and ministry of Jesus. You'd be hard pressed to point a finger at Shane and call him a hypocrite, or just another writer. This guy practices what he preaches... regardless of whether you want to subscribe to the idea/picture of Jesus that he sees in the Bible, at least he actively seeks to imitate that. But like anyone worth listening to (including Jesus), Shane will probably be rejected by most because he believes in living by the cross instead of the flag... and that's a lot to ask of people... even Christians who have bought into the patriotism of America.

the thesis of Jesus for President is to "stir the political imagination of Christians". And i think Shane and Chris accomplished their goal.

I have only started reading ths book and I find that many of the opposing reviews are true. I know I have probably just offended a lot of people, but here my out. The manipulation of Scripture to satisfy their own ideas and beliefs is prominent throughout. I encourage all of you to go back and look up every scripture reference and read it in it's entirety, not just want is quoted. Not only does Jesus for President encourage us to be set apart from the world, but also to be set apart from the church. What happens to the hand that is cut off from the Body? And just as the church is being accused of being to intertwined with politics, what exactly then is being done differently here? If you focus too much on seeing the enemy, the enemy is all you will see. Instead of accusing the Body of wrong doing, stop for a moment, and ask God to enable you to see the Body through His eyes. Because you are picking on His kids, you are insulting the Bride of Christ. None of us our perfect, and not one of us has it completely right. Yes, the church has fallen far away from the first, but instead of disembodying even more, it's time to come together and pray for the church and each other. And above all seek God for wisdom so that the next step you take is in accordance to His will and not your own and not influenced by anyone else.

Straddle the fence and vote for Jesus!