Reading for the Resistance

I recently added two more books to my “Reading for the Resistance” section: Jesus and Empire and Paul and Empire. I am very careful about which books I include in that list. The list isn’t my “favorite books” list. Nor is it an “emerging church” list or a “missional church” list. How did those books end up on my list? I’ve included those books that I’ve read that do a good job articulating the Kingdom of God and how we, the Church, can live faithfully in the Kingdom of God in our world. Obviously, I have an Anabaptist understanding of the Gospel, as well as an almost fully realized understanding of Kingdom of God, so I include books that reinforce my views.

In other words (for you non-theological nerds), I tend to believe that Jesus’ mission was more than simply to come and die; Jesus’ established a new order (the Kingdom of God), an order of peace that affects all areas of our life. The Kingdom of God is more about the here-and-now than it is about the future (though there is a future element to be sure). As a response to Jesus’ invitation to be a part of this new order, we are to repent of the old order and follow in his footsteps.

None of this is to say that I no longer believe in justification or eternal life with Jesus or the need to be forgiven of our sins, etc. I’m just saying that those things are part of this new order (the Kingdom of God) that is present among us now (and will be forever).

JESUS AND EMPIRE: Jesus as an anti-imperial political revolutionary (of sorts). Horsley’s understanding of the “politics of Jesus” isn’t new. Horsley’s real contribution is that he draws socio-political parallels between Rome and the U.S.

PAUL AND EMPIRE: Once you reject an anachronistic reading of the New Testament that is based upon a separation between church and state, between the material and the spiritual worlds, and between religion and politics, all sorts of disturbing ideas begin to appear in Paul’s writings. Paul’s concern was not simply doctrine (justification and whatnot) nor Jewish/Gentile relations (though this is also a big issue in Paul’s writings). Horsley and his colleagues argue instead that Paul’s ultimate concern was confrontation with Roman imperial power and all that it entailed. I’m not sure I’m willing to go as far as that, but it is definitely worth exploring.

Church and State pt 2: Subject to the Governing Authorities (a Christian Anarchist’s look at Romans 13)

Today, I’ll beging to tackle Romans 13:1-7, the passage most often cited to support the idea that Christians ought to not only submit to the State, but be good, active, citizens of the State.  I’ll probably post several times out of this passage.  Before I dig in, I want to give you an extended quote from Romans 12:9-13:10, so that you can get a better sense of the overall argument Paul is making in Romans 13:1-7 (which is in bold text):

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.  Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not think you are superior.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Like I’ve said, I’ll be spending more time on this passage in future posts.  Since I’ve already given you a large chunk of Scripture to look over, I don’t want to give you too much to chew on at this point.  Instead, let me offer some initial thoughts:

1) Whatever Paul is saying here, he is decidely NOT saying that Christians should conform to the values of the Empire (religious idolatry, immorality, violence, inequality, etc.) This is obvious from the earlier chapters of Romans.

2) Any authority that the governments have, it comes from God and God alone (13:1).

3) If one follows Paul’s flow of argument, it is clear that the theme undergirding our relationship with the governing authorities is love.  Whatever Paul is arguing in this passage, it is part of our Christian duty to love (as Christ loves).

4) If we are going to take this passage and apply it to our current political system (representative democracy), we must be very careful.  Within the systems of the Roman Empire, the power of government was clear. And this power was excercised by a select few.  Most people in the Empire had little or no power.  It is unlikely, then, that this passage would have been understood as an invitation to participate in power structures.  Modern Americans read this passage as a sort of mandate for political involvement, but one must do some work to get from this passage to a robust Christian involvement in representative democracy.  It probably wouldn’t have even have occurred to Paul that he could exercise political power as part of his Christian mission. 

5) I’m not convinced that this passage argues for the “legitimacy” of governing authorities.  The passage needs to be read in light of the Sermon on the Mount. Paul says in Romans 12:14 “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” The notion that we ought to love our enemies is clearly on Paul’s mind as well.  Indeed, teh idea of “submitting” needs to be read in the spirit of “turning the other cheek” rather than as saying “accept and endorse.” When Paul launches off into submitting to authorities in chapter 13, it is clear that this is an extension of our command to love our enemies and to bless our persecutors.  While this understanding of the passage certainly doesn’t rule out the idea that the governing authorities are being legitimized by Paul, it does (at the very least) set up a stronger tension than is offered by most popular interpretations.  In other words, it is harder to say “part of being a good Christian is to be an active citizen who supports their government” when one also acknowledges that their government is their enemy and their persecutor.

6) The most difficult parts of this passage for my position is in verses 1a-2:

The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

And so, in my next post, I will unpack Romans 13:1a-2.  The following post will then articulate the flow of the argument as I understand it.  And then, my final post will look at implications for Christians living in the American Empire.

A Public Apology

I confess; I’ve been cynical about the Baptist General Conference and evangelicals in general. In many ways, I’ve been guilty of writing them off as folks who “don’t get it.” I am sorry for my bad attitude.

I’m making my apology public on this blog, because I’ve sometimes used this blog to rip on and write off evangelicals. And by writing such folks off, I’ve failed to love my brothers and sisters. Sure, I’m different from most evangelical leaders and Missio Dei is unlike most evangelical churches. Sure, we don’t measure up to conventional ways of reckoning success, and as a result have been ignored and/or rejected by various people. And it is indeed true that I have serious issues with the church that are worth being voiced.

But it gives me no right to be unloving, belittling, or to write entire groups of people off.

I met with some established Baptist suburban church pastors last week to share the “missio Dei” story (because they wanted to have some recent BGC church planters come and share). I came into the meeting with a superior attitude in my heart, and assumed that they wouldn’t get what we’re doing. I was also a bit afraid, because I thought that it was a real possibility that I would get some negative responses to our story.

I shared our story without any polish or false glorification. I wanted to drop any pretense and let the story speak for itself. At the end these pastors (some that I’ve known for a while) were genuinely touched. Their genuine warmth, care, and affirmation was surprising. I never considered that these men–these successful suburban evangelical pastors–would affirm and embrace a subversive, neo-monastic, anabaptist, “progressive,” urban leader like me. I actually had to fight back tears at one point.

Still, in the back of my mind, I was skeptical…I thought maybe they were being polite. Well, a friend of mine visited one of these churches with his girlfriend on Sunday. The pastor mentioned meeting me and used Missio Dei as a living example of the book of Acts.

This entire situation showed me that I need to love my brothers and sisters in the evangelical church and seek their best instead of using them as a foil. Instead of being proud, I need to encourage. Instead of judging, I need to love.

Does this mean that my blog will be less challenging in the future? No way. But I will sincerely avoid making snarky comments about my fellow Christians (of any stripe).

Better Late than Never, I guess

From Christianity Today:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) apologized in November on behalf of forebears who persecuted Anabaptists. Martin Luther and other 16th-century reformers argued that civil authorities should punish Anabaptists. The 1530 Augsburg Confession, a landmark Lutheran text, condemned Anabaptists for saying children could be saved without baptism. But the ELCA Church Council said the condemnation does not apply to today’s Mennonite Church USA. The council expressed hope that the apology will strengthen bonds between Lutherans and modern-day Anabaptists.

New Monasticism on MPR Midmorning

You can now listen to the audio of the recent interview on New Monasticism on MPR’s Midmorning show. Click here to listen in!

Please pray for Missio Dei. We are successfully moving through our season of discernment…next month folks will be formally accepting our rule of faith. Also, we have some decisions to make…exciting, yet potentially distracting, opportunities for our community.

First of all, a reporter from the LA Times would like to follow the story of our community for 6 months. They will be following more established neo-monastic communities as well as one newly emerging one (potentially Missio Dei). We have decide if we want that or not.

Also, we have been approached by some new friends who want to make a mini-documentary about us.

At first, I was a bit irked by this attention. But the more I tried to say “hey, we haven’t figured anything out,” the more folks are interested in simply telling our story with all its humility and feebleness.

Tolerance versus Hospitality

I intend to continue my mini-series on Christian anarchism, but probably won’t get to that until later this week (too much on my plate right now to give it the thought it deserves).  In the meantime, I want to share part of a conversation I had recently with a Mennonite Pastor (Mathew Swora).

Missio Dei is pursuing a dual affiliation with the Mennonite Church USA.  Part of this process is getting to know the other Mennonite congregations in town (and their pastors).  I’ve enjoyed every conversation I’ve had with Mathew Swora…he is not only a great encourager, he also is wise.  He been helpful in my journey to understand what makes Mennonites unique.

Modern Mennonites are often called “liberal” by mainstream evangelicals (and “conservative” by mainline Protestants).  My conversation with Mathew touched on the big differences between Mennonites and conventional liberal Protestants.  One of the big differences is that liberals are phobic about fundamentalism.  They refuse to be dogmatic about almost everything.  With one exception: most liberals are dogmatic about tolerance.  Tolerance, as is often pointed out by conservatives, is one of the defining characteristics about liberal Christians.

While many Mennonites have embraced this mindset, others have no problem being dogmatic (me included).  On the one hand, they resist being fundamentalist jerks about their dogmatic beliefs (unlike many conservatives).  On the other, they have many hills they’re willing to die upon (unlike many liberals).  They don’t achieve this balance by being “moderate” (which, in my mind, is often another word for “non-committal”); instead, they chart their own course by being hospitable.

Hospitality means opening your home (and your life) to the stranger.  But more than this, it can often mean opening one’s home (and one’s life) to one’s enemy.  Anabaptists embrace folks without minimizing their sins.  Following the example of Jesus, they believe that one must humbly serve the enemy…without feeling the need to say “that’s ok that you do evil.”  Tolerance says: “we’re all the same, and so you’re ok.” Hospitality says: “I welcome you in the name of Christ, though you are different and sinful.”

This seems to explain why so many Anabaptists I know are unwilling to negotiate some of their core beliefs–being almost fundamentalist about it–without being asses.  Hopefully, by being more hospitable, I can be less of an ass too!

Laptop Campaign: Success!

You’ll notice that I removed the donation form from my sidebar…that’s because I’ve reached my goal of $1000 for a new laptop (actually not yet…though a check is on its way that will put me over the top).

Thank you to those who gave.  I really didn’t expect such a response.  I’m blessed. 

Pictures of my new laptop will soon be up.

Incarnational versus Incorporational

I just stumbled upon a fascinating post by Geoff Holsclaw that is well worth a look.  You may not agree with him, but his proposal shows the sort of creativity and radical shift that needs to happen among Christians in this country (imho).  The basic idea is:

…that the emerging/missional/organic church of progressive evangelicals mmust move beyond a critique of corporate influences on ecclesial life, to a robust practice of stepping outside of the circulation of money between multinational corporations and instead begin investing in local cooperatives. Only then we will succeed in escaping the grip of the Corporation.  (Read the rest here)

From an old faith to atheism to a new faith

A friend of mine has been going through the existential ringer for the past week.  A couple weeks ago he began to delve deeply into a study of Jesus (in particular the historical Jesus).  Along the way, he renounced his faith in God and became an atheist.  I got a gut-wrenching email from him.  He was miserable because he felt like he had to give up the faith that he had grown to love.  But in that crucible something profound happened.  Check out his post here.  Here’s an excerpt:

…I wanted desperately to recover the faith that had brought me so much joy and purpose. I asked close friends for help. I spent time with Christian apologist materials, which encouraged me that there might, after all, be a God. As it turned out, there are many problems inherent to atheism (the existence of morality, good, free will, and beauty), phenomena science cannot explain (consciousness, certain instances of irreducible complexity, much macro-evolution, finite history, miracles), and good counter-arguments to many of the atheist arguments that had destroyed my faith. But ultimately, the way of Jesus was the most beautiful thing I could think of, and worth living…

I went looking for a fresh faith and God took me further than I wanted. Now I have a completely new faith, with few doctrines or traditions or religious hangups. I’m now free to seek God’s truth without intereferance from “2000 years of theological engineering and religious propaganda”.

But now I’m walking towards God with a limp. I’m scared about my gullibility and God’s mystery. I have questions he won’t answer. I want him to show himself unequivocally, but he hasn’t. I’m more motivated than ever to pray regularly and commune with his Spirit, because now I know I can’t do it in my own strength. I can be led astray. I’m not smart enough to figure it out. I am more dependent on God than ever.

I appreciate Luke’s intellectual passion.  He is one of those friends that I’ve stumbled upon recently, but already feel richer for knowing him.  His blog reflects the depth and thoughtfulness that I’ve come to expect from Luke.  Please pray for him.  His spiritual journey is pretty painful right now.  Pray that God would show himself to Luke in profound, unexpected ways.

Church and State pt 1: Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s (but to God what is God’s)

Mark 12:13-17:

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

And they were amazed at him.

Most interpreters of this passage (which occurs in the other synoptics as well) assume that it is referring to two separate spheres of obligation. In our relationship with the State, we are to pay taxes (and by extension, to be good citizens); in our relationship to God, we are to offer our obedient fidelity. This interpretation, it seems to me, is foreign to the text. You see, we come from a time and culture that has a separation of Church and State—a separation of religion from the political order. This sort of separation is a relatively recent innovation. As Richard Horsley asks: “…if Jesus’ questioners and listeners all assumed such a separation of Caesar and God into utterly separate spheres, then how could the question have possibly been part of a strategy to entrap Jesus?”

We must try to hear Jesus’ response through first century Jewish ears, if possible (which is ultimately impossible, but still worthy of an attempt). Remember, we are talking about Jews under the rule of Rome. There was no distinction in the minds of the Jews between the socio-political sphere and the religious sphere—Israel was a theocracy who was occupied by a foreign, pagan, world power.

And so, the Pharisees and Herodians, knowing well that it was indeed UNLAWFUL under Mosaic Law to pay taxes to Rome (especially with idolatrous coins that contained an image of the Emperor). At the same time, however, a refusal to pay taxes would have been understood to be an act of rebellion against Rome. In other words, they had created the perfect trap for this “Jesus.” This man had already upset the established socio-economic-religious order (read Mark 11, where Jesus comes into Jerusalem as a King (political), cleanses the temple (religious and economic), and then implies that his authority comes from heaven (religious). In other words: Jesus is holistic in his subversion!

And so, as a sort of “payback” the Pharisees (who were supposed to be the great spiritual leaders of the people) and Herodians (who were likely a faction that supported the Roman-supported Herodian political dynasty) join forces (even though these two factions should have been political enemies) to trap this fellow. In his response, Jesus avoids the trap by saying “give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

Jesus doesn’t directly say that “it is not lawful” to the question of paying taxes to Rome. But it is hard to imagine that they would have interpreted his words to mean that he supported the Roman government. Instead, it seems to me, given the context, he is saying: “let Caesar have his stupid money…but give to God his due.” Jesus is clearly and simply reasserting the Israelite principle that Caesar, or any other imperial ruler, has no claim on the Israelite people, since God is their actual king and master.

In my mind, this points to a form of Christian anarchy…but not in the sense of open rebellion against the political rulers. Instead, Jesus seems to be discounting Rome’s authority. If Rome was serving any function, it was as God’s instrument to judge Israel (read N.T. Wright for more on this). But in no sense would faithful Israel be under Rome’s authority. Especially in light of Mark 11, where the new King has come who will restore proper worship and establish economic justice.

Next, I’ll look at Romans 13…

« Previous Page — Next Page »