Tough ideas...If I might add a perspective...

I deployed multiple times for both OEF and OIF (Afghan and Iraq). Now I pastor a church. During my deployments, I wielded instruments of war in support of the policy handed down by the President, as my oath of service dictated - "Support and defend the Constitution of the US." The President is the legally and duly elected leader of our country, and whether or not you now agree, at that time he LEGALLY involved us in the conflict, based on evidence present at the time (and, I don't want to argue the evidence - you will lose, as I have seen it face to face).

So - what is a Christian to do? In Romans 13, we are told to submit to the authorities above us, as those authorities have received their authority from God. See the conflict? It is the same argument involved in the legal prosecution and execution of criminals by the state...can we do that?

However - back to the applause and support - I believe the pastor stepped out of line slightly - as you say, he probably should have stopped at supporting his troop, building him up for doing his duty, and praying for him right then. Now...off the soapbox before 1500 characters

I think those are valid questions. The church worships and serves only Jesus. Evangelicals have become very comfortable seeking political power as they've perceived biblical values to be under attack.

And while we should not idolize those in the armed forces, I would imagine that the applause for the soldier was more an expression of gratitude and appreciation for his service than an affirmation of American foreign policy. "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." I would hope it's the man's willing self-sacrifice that's being honored, not the (sometimes) ugly things he has to do in that job.

Christians in the Roman Empire didn't have a voice in government, and faced conscription into an army which would have likely demanded the exercise of cruelty and emperor worship. Pacifism was a legitimate response to those challenges. I don't think the political or military situation is quite analogous to 21st century America.

John the Baptist didn't tell soldiers to stop serving in the armed forces, but to be good soldiers (Luke 3:14).

Thanks for being honest and saying that you would "sit." Christianity in America today too often isn't about "the Way" but rather about preserving our American Way. Thanks for speaking up!

UrL, that was beautiful. gotta pick up that book and read it.

in our internet and digital age we are able to put an impressive sheen on everything - even the gospel. even war.

we all need to peel the onion and get down to issues of substance and stop trying to score brownie points.

mike rucker

Bravo to the author for taking a stand (sit)! Imperial domesticated Christians make two frequent mistakes and both are repeated in the comments above.

1) They quote: "we are told to submit to the authorities above us, as those authorities have received their authority from God"

Nice try, but this passage does not suggest we should cooperate with the imperialistic violence of our leaders. It means that when, because of our protest against empire, those leaders capture us, take us to trial, and crucify us, then we should reject our desire to respond with violence. This text is simply restating what Jesus taught and actually did. It means to turn the other cheek, NOT cooperate with violence, greed, and oppression.

2) They quote: "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

The text does NOT say "Greater love has no man than this, that he takes the lives of others to save the lives of his friends." Get the context! Read the whole chapter (John 15). Jesus is talking about how the world hates those who follow his “way” and he gives the correct response to their hate; “This is my command: Love each other.” (v.17)

Jeff's point is extremely well taken: Christians in the Roman Empire didn't have a voice in government. However cynical one's view on American politics, the disanalogy, at this point at least, is very strong.

So, do we use our voice to redirect the powerful arm of the U.S. government? Do we use our voice to try to subdue said arm? Do we consider ourselves outsiders to the conversation, saving our voice for other arenas?

Is the worry *that the US is powerful*, or *that the US uses its power in particular, objectionable ways*? Is this a *policy* question, or something more fundamental?

always thought it was interesting that the same guy who wrote Rom. 13 got executed by the person who he said was placed there by God (if we follow the traditional interpretations of Romans 13). I'm not so sure Paul wouldn't have demurred from Rom. 13 (which I think actually starts at 12:14, thematically) to call out Caesar.

grace and peace

I've seen this before and I will hold my more...cynical opinions to myself. Apparently this sort of thing is happening all over America...I'm just not sure what the right response to it is anymore.
But I do cringe when the young man stands before the Congregation, in full dress regalia, everyone extends their hand to pray...it looks to 1930 Nuremburg'ish for me...I can't bring myself to do it.
So, my one and only prayer for those in my church, and others who go to Iraq is that all they experience there is really hot weather, boring activities, and the worst thing they'll experience in that enviroment is bad food...considering the alternative...it's the best thing to pray for.

There are frequent prayers in my current church for those serving our country and calling out those visiting who have served in the military (or who have served a term or two). Yes, I support those who decide to serve and know a few who did survive, but I believe the war to be a very poor decision overall. Imagine my shock when my red state pastor actually prayed for the END of the war this past Sunday... quickly followed up with the usual "Lord Jesus quickly come" clause. He even repeated himself during second service. Several of us thought we were in the wrong church for a moment.

As a (soon to be finished) student at Duke Divinity, the "America is the new Rome" line is in the water we drink. I get the similarities and the anti-establishment rhetoric is even to my own liking.

But the older I get, I wonder if the water is muddier than some suggest. America is like Rome in some ways but, as one commenter noted, Christians didn't have a voice in Rome. Those who say the USA is Rome tend to imply a withdrawal from the established political process. To that we should say "no." On the other hand are those who swallow political party Kool-Aid (pick your party) and imply the kingdom will be established through American policy. To that we should say "no."

The questions that face us are these:

1. How can we think outside the established political box? The "new monastics" help on that front.

2. How can we engage and even confront the established powers? Those at home government offices may be able to help.

Peter Leithart (at First Things) makes an interesting point about prophets being an opposition voice WITHIN the system. Food for thought.

Who decided that "the American church does not articulate a Christianity distinct from national citizenship." Which American church are we talking about here? Maybe the same American church that equates the audience of Christianity today with "the American church"?

The truth is that even a radical Christianity in the American context is not one that would bring its practitioners to the brink of execution, and this is so precisely because of the reality of the separation of church and state. Radical, honest commitment to God and God's people is simply not a capital offense in America as it is in the absolutist systems of theocracy or true statism.

I'm not saying the church shouldn't stand in prophetic contrast to our government (it always should), but I am saying that many progressive Christians (especially progressive Christians coming out of conservative backgrounds) overstate the degree to which American-ness impedes Christlikeness.

There's also a frustrating paradox at work here for Christians who've moved beyond the idea of Jesus as political radical (conservative or liberal): It's incredible that so many of the same Christians who watchdog and mourn the dilution of Christ's message within the context of American civic religion still expect their wicked government (designed as a secular apparatus with limited power) to embody Kingdom values on issues of social justice, poverty, and peace. It's fine to appeal to Christ's value system when articulating a vision for peace in the world; not so for articulating a vision for peace, say, in the womb. It's fine to appeal to our faith convictions when supporting the eradication of famine and AIDS and demanding our secular government to pay heed, not so, it seems lately, when one's faith convictions don't end with a vote for Barack Obama.

If, like the post above, anyone feels they have "moved beyond the idea of Jesus as political radical", then I fear they have simply moved past Jesus. They might want to go back and find him. What you'll find is a man crucified by the Empire for protesting its greed, injustice, partnerships with corrupt religious leaders, preemptive wars, and unfair tax policies.

Jesus was not anti-Jewish. He protested his leaders cooperation with Empire. Speaking truth to power is not "anit-American" it is the most American thing we can do and represents a faithful reproduction of Jesus' model.

I almost quit reading the review when I saw the claim that America as "an empire that will preserve its interests at any cost" True, that's a quote from the book, not the review,but the attitude is there.
How Christians should relate to the culture and country in which we live is not simple in any country, including the US. It takes some careful thought and nuance. That is not helped by extremist left-wing hostility.

We seem to jump from one extreme to another. Supporting one's country no matter what is unChristian. But so is the attitude that America is rotten and evil in all its works. Both fail to use careful discernment.

I have to note that pacifism becomes more popular when wars become more questionable. Government does have an obligation to protect its citizens. Certainly it sometimes makes mistakes in the process. Christians should join in the process of correcting those mistakes. But pacifists simply cop out of the obligation entirely.

Progressive Faith,

I agree entirely with your second paragraph. I don't agree with your first. My point is that Jesus came to preach good news to the poor and yes, to protest oppression of all kinds (political, social, economic, etc), but also to protest the idea of politics (even political protest) as salvation.

Progressive Faith took the words out of my mouth (much more eloquently then I of course) Jesus was so subversive, irreligious and full of peace, if we get tired of that Jesus then who are we really serving?

"What you'll find is a man crucified by the Empire for protesting its greed, injustice, partnerships with corrupt religious leaders, preemptive wars, and unfair tax policies."

Really?

Jesus was protesting against Roman Imperial Greed?
Jesus Protesting against Roman Imperial Injustice?
Jesus Protesting against Jewish Collaborators with their Roman Imperial masters?
Jesus Protesting against Roman Imperial wars of injustice?
Jesus Protesting against Roman Imperial Tax policies?

Where does it say that in the bible?

Jesus staged 2 formal protests in his final week (according to the Gospel accounts). One was on Palm Sunday and another one that shut down the income stream of the Temple for a whole day.

I think the text says clearly and repetitively that these early Christians proclaimed the kingdom of God was “at hand”. To suggest that a new kingdom is coming would imply that the old kingdom is ending. The old king is out and the new king is in. What else could that mean in the 1st century? Anyone listening to that would have interpreted it to mean Caesar's days are numbered and those who have supported him will be out of power too. Jesus was suggesting a change of power, but not one of "this world". Not one like the current kingdom. Instead, one obtained through entirely different methods. Forgiveness instead of violence, justice instead of oppression. Nearly every parable Jesus told referenced that new kingdom.

I think the author of this article was following in the steps of Jesus by sitting in protest. Not a protest against America, but a protest against the methods of the old kingdom (war and injustice).

If you think Jesus Christ came into the world to protest ANYTHING, you are clueless.

Jesus was clearly against greed in any form, whether that be Roman or Jewish in form. He is explicitly so in Luke 12:15. So Jesus clearly would have been against the systematic injustice so often propogated by the Romans. As to partnerships with corrupt religious leaders, one only has to do a little historical research to find out about how the Saducees were linked to the Temple and to collaboration with Rome, and Jesus' cleansing of the temple, to some degree at least, challenges this collaboration. As to the wars of injustice, every Jew in the area would tell you, in private at the least that the Romans were there unjustly, as a result of the treachery of Herod. Jesus clearly opposed Roman tax policies which encouraged gross abuses when tax collectors collected as much as they were able to, rather than the amount they were hired for, i.e. Zacheaus. Of course, Jesus had to be a bit sneaky, as he can't just come out and say all of this, or else he would be killed. I will admit that the wording in some of these phrases is unhelpful, ("premptive" seems a bit of a stretch). The problem with making Jesus entirely apolitical, (which is what these questions above seem to imply) is that it becomes difficult to explain why he was crucified. Why would the Romans crucify a man for revolution, especially a popular one, unless he was in some way challenging the system? If he's entirely innocent of that, then they are actually going to encourage more revolution. N.T. Wright writes extensively on this, check him out for more.

PF,

Are you sure you're not projecting modern categories back onto Jesus? I think it's pretty safe to say that the 'political,' over against the 'religious,' wasn't even in the minds of the biblical writers. Jesus was a political radical, for sure: but not qua *political.* There's so much to say here; I don't know where to start.

The good Bishop of Durham helps me keep in mind Jesus the Messianic Jewish Prophet, over against Jesus the 21st c. American Political Activist. I recommend 'Jesus and the Victory of God.'

(N.T. Wright, I should add, keeps both liberals and conservatives honest--just one hallmark of his brilliance and timeliness.)

I usually don't comment on this site, and quite frankly am usually disturbed by the comments that rail on the article writers or commenters. But I couldn't help myself on this one. The story you told about not clapping....I wasn't there, so I don't know exactly how it went....but it seems to me the least you could do is show your appreciation for men who are fighting for our country ... whether you agree with it or not. Those guys are serving because they love the country, regardless of what the government has them doing. It's like the Vietnam Vets getting shafted when they came back ... they didn't deserve that, they were serving their country! Seems a bit heartless to me!

The problem with calling Jesus a political or social radical is that saying so monumentally *understates* the degree to which he was a radical.

PF, you're exactly right about Jesus' protests. But they weren't *political* or *social* protests. They weren't about Roman policy, or something like that. Actually, it might be better to call them a coup-de-taut, rather than protests. Jesus was calling for a fundamental shift of authority--onto *himself.* His radicalism doesn't consist in his social or moral agenda, which wasn't all that radical. (Pharisees and zealots alike were on board with there.) His radicalism consisted in declaring himself simultaneously (a) The King of the Jews and (b) Yahweh's Anointed. (Which of course amount to the same thing in the Jewish mind, but are very different in the Roman mind.)

Jesus wasn't a martyr for some social reform. (Maybe that's not what's being argued here, and I apologize if I'm misreading PF or anyone else.) And I don't mean this as a theological point, which it could be: I mean it as textual/historical point.

Uh...hmmm, I'm rather bothered by this Jesus as Political Action Hero...in fact it makes me itch...and I'm not on board with this thinking that Jesus's actions in the temple were political...how to approach this in a cogent fashion...huh...hmmm
Let's think...
If G-d has a plan in place for the redemption of mankind, and this plan is not just a political plan, but an all-phase plan that will change the very nature of mankind from it's fallen state to a state of holiness, what we'll call a state of grace. Elevated above where he originally started from, not by his own doing, but because G-d has ordained as so...wouldn't you think that any element of that plan bastardized by mankind for his own advantage is going to set any and every aspect of the deity off on a rant?

So...it would seem to me, at the very least, that instead of viewing Y'shua's actions in the temple as a calculated protest...that it really was what it was portrayed as...a very irritated aspect of the G-dhead going off on a rant at the sight of part of his plan being misused?

The politic's angle...it seems...hmmm, so miniscule to G-d's plan.

Phillip,

you said: "Jesus was calling for a fundamental shift of authority--onto *himself.* "

I can't imagine a more political statement than that! How can you say that calling for a change in authority is not political?

I think too many people mistake politics with running for office. That didn't exist in 1st century Jewish culture. Only in a modern democracy would you do that. People forget that Jesus was political in the only way a 1st century Jewish peasant could have political. He was a prophet. He was God's representative to the authorities on behalf of the powerless. He spoke truth to power in a simlar way as the great prophets before him. He quoted them frequently.

Finally, he was messiah. To call Jesus the messiah was to give him the highest political office in Jewish culture. You tell me. What office or title is higher, more important or more public than messiah?

sheerahkahn wrote,
The politics angle... it seems... hmmm, so miniscule to G-d's plan.

perhaps, but i'd argue that the heaven/hell, i-once-was-lost-but-now-i'm-found focus has overly narrowed everything G-d wants to say to us.

depending on your theology, you may believe that J-sus is going to reign on earth for 1000 years in a kingdom of His own. if so, to deny that He started revealing how things were going to be run when the new Sheriff is in town means you must ignore a lot of what He did, or at best try to put a single spin on it.

it's why Romans is such a thorn in my side: Pa-l never speaks of hell, but he does speak of justification. and yet he goes on to speak of many other dimensions of what salvation is and what J-sus apparently accomplished.

we all find it easier to stake out one facet of the diamond and say it alone is the one we must look at. but the brilliant colors are everywhere, and we are the ones who miss out on the rest of the beauty when we keep our gaze in only one place.

man, that was poetic... my meds must be kicking in...

m-ke r-ck-r
fairburn, georgia, usa

What I'm pointing out is that we, us humans, deal on a level of existence that is, in our own opinion, pretty gritty, dirty, and over-all not nice we tend to worry less about the abstract and more about the immediate.
Thus, our own viewpoint, myopically put, is narrowly focused on what we can currently see, feel, smell, and our understanding of our enviroment, the world around us stems from that.
Explaining heavenly ideas to us is much like explaining the color red to a blind man born as such.
There's only so many adjectives one can employ till one is finally, and completely frustrated with the attempt.
Hence, the old testament in toto.
Consider the OT G-d's attempt to explain the color red to a blind man...it's not that we don't understand G-d's words, it's the overall concept we're having a difficult time grasping.
So, enter New Testament, whamm'o, G-d says, "fine, how bout I give a first person demonstration!"
So, whats the most common miracle that G-d...er, Y'shua is performing?
"The blind can see!"
See what?
G-d's explanation of the color red.
So in away, I think we agree, we're just having a communication issue here...one of the limitations of the internet.

Shane addresses the Romans 13 passage in Jesus For President, putting it in the context of the rest of the letter.

Looking at Paul's own life as an example of what he believed, we see Paul arrested and beaten by the governement on numerous occasions for his ministry, just as we see Paul die a martyr under the state. So Paul both opposed and subordinated the Roman empire while he never violently protested it's rule. When Paul wrote Romans 13, he wrote to tell Christians not to overthrow the government, not to revolt. That passage is surrounded by passages which suggest anti-imperialist Christian ideas- enemy-love being one.

There seems, in my mind, to be a clear distinction between supporting and holding up in prayer those who are serving in the military (which I would do for any in difficult and trying times) and preaching or sound-biting a particular political agenda. We desperatly need the former, but it must be divorced from the later. There is a balance here, and those who haven't found it must.

PF,

Maybe we're in agreement more than I at first thought. But I'm not quite sure yet.

I wrote, "Jesus was a political radical, for sure: but not qua *political.*" And you responded, "How can you say that calling for a change in authority is not political?" You're absolutely right--that's why I said "Jesus was a political radical." You missed that statement of mine, I guess.

But understand, I was responding to your initial statement:

"What you'll find is a man crucified by the Empire for protesting its greed, injustice, partnerships with corrupt religious leaders, preemptive wars, and unfair tax policies."

What you're implying here is that Jesus' beef with the Roman Empire was the *particulars of its policies*--as if, if the Empire were to behave itself, Jesus would have responded, "Okay; my job here is done."

That's why I say that Jesus wasn't a political radical *qua* political radical. His vision and message was eschatological. You can't announce that Yahweh is King without irking whoever currently calls himself king. But Jesus' eschatological vision is of a whole *different order of reality* from Caesar's. That's why I say that calling Jesus a political radical is misleading--it makes him out to be so much LESS of a radical than he is.

Anybody can protest an Empire's policies. God's Anointed gets to do a whole lot more than that. Think about it: Ralph Nader is called a political radical. Someone who claims to speak and act for God is called a nutcase. Lewis was right: Jesus won't let himself be tamed like that.

I love Shane's work and this book is an eye-opener, but his words on hell (p. 291) are incredibly incomplete and misleading. He says that "Jesus didn't spend much time on hell" and that there are "only a couple of times when he spoke of weeping and gnashing of teeth, of hell and God's judgment, and both had to do with the walls we create between ourselves and our suffering neighbors."

But do a word search of the Gospels on hell, fire, or gnashing and you'll see a very different picture.

I like the fact that this book brings out some misplaced aspects of Jesus, but let's not lose the other things he said.

"What you'll find is a man crucified by the Empire for protesting its greed, injustice, partnerships with corrupt religious leaders, preemptive wars, and unfair tax policies."

From my humble viewpoint, and simply study of the gospels, I never got the picture that Jesus' protest and revolution was with the Roman Empire. It was the Jews, God's chosen people, the religious sadducees and pharisees who were totally indignant and ticked off at Jesus. In part, because he modeled and initiated a new way of living out God's commands. Which he taught about... "you have heard it said, but now I say to you." Also, in part because he "broke" certain laws and customs of the religious that were wrongly concocted from reading the law for years on end. But, mostly because he claimed to be God, and to have power to forgive sins! This enraged the religious, not the Romans, they could care less! It was the religious Jews and leaders who turned him over to Roman law with the half-baked lies that he threatening the Emperor calling himself King. There did not want to accept God's new paradigm of grace and sacrifice to deal with sin, the ultimate wall between us and God. Pilot, who represented leadership of Rome, did not think he was guilty of anything, but caved in because he was empire ruled. Jesus' life, actions, message, and death were more about showing us how to live in relationship with God first, then others. And his death was not about any sort of political statement to Rome, it was about making a means for the new way he modeled.