Thursday, June 21, 2007
Playing tag with Jesus...
RevRockStar tagged me. I don't think I will keep tagging people, but I do want to offer my response. The challenge is to name 5 things you like about Jesus.
Here is my list:
1. He was bold and brave - Jesus didn't live in a democracy and couldn't go to the polls to make the important changes he sought, but that didn't stop him. He used what little power he had to the best of his ability. He marched to Jerusalem to protest both the Roman Empire and the collaboration of the temple leaders. He knew from watching his family and friends persecuted that he would likely get killed for these types of protests, but he did it anyway.
2. He was compassionate - His compassion had no limits.
3. He was inclusive - He taught about including people that were traditionally excluded from community. He also applied this teaching to his own life by restoring community to many outcasts.
4. He was open minded - He was willing to imagine solutions to problems outside the normal way of thinking. For instance, he felt the best way to end oppression and bring peace was to love your enemy instead of trying to kill them. That is thinking outside the box!
5. His solutions were flexible and relative to the particular situations he faced. When people asked him about salvation or for advice he always tailored the answer to the specifics of the individual. He didn't offer a one-size-fits-all solution because not everyone needs to be saved from the same thing.
11 comments:
I think that you are perhaps… really stretching when you attempt to place the overthrow of the Roman Empire so closely at the heart of Jesus mission. One of the big reasons that the crowd that received Jesus on the donkey (Palm Sunday) in several days wanted Him dead was the fact that deliverance from the Romans was not on His “to do list”.
Livingsword,
Please explain your logic for assuming Jesus was not concerned with deliverance from the domination system(s) of the day.
Hi Mike;
It seems that within the New Testament many opportunities arise in which political aspirations of the destruction of the Roman Empire could have been promulgated but yet we do not see that.
Instead we are told to give God what is God’s, and to Caesar what is Caesar’s. We are told to pray for our rulers. We are told to pay our taxes.
Roman soldiers were not told to go back to Rome, they were not told to throw down their weapons.
When Jesus went to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday it was a parade not a march.
Jesus before Pilot had a perfect opportunity to declare revolution but did nothing of the kind, He submitted to authority, but made spiritual statements.
Paul when held prisoner did not declare the overthrow of the Roman Empire.
But Jesus and Paul did have a very different conversation with the “religious leaders”.
Understand that I am not against followers of Jesus making political commentary, it just seems that when I read “religious” infused blogs (left or right) from the US they are soaked with politics, so much so that the focus of the Jesus following message is shifted to politics (as a US dynamic) from Jesus true mission.
Livingsword,
I realize that conservatives do attempt to push Jesus back into the realm of spiritual theory and out of politics, but it just isn't possible without ignoring the entire Bible.
Jesus entry into Jerusalem was definately a political MARCH. It was non-violent, but that doesn't make it any less political. I think you confuse the absence of violent intent with the ansence of politics. That is a big mistake.
Calling Jesus the "son of god" and "lord of lords" was a slap in the face to Caesar.
When Jesus says to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's" then what do you think he assumed is belongs to God? I'll tell you.... EVERYTHING BELONGS GOD! What else could he have been thinking?
Jesus did declare a revolution when he said the kingdom of God is here. He was saying the kingdom of Ceasar is over. How much more political could he be?
His conflict with the temple leaders was clearly about their concessions to the romans which was causing the poor Jews to be neglected. He quoted Jeremiah calling the temple a "den of robbers". He surely meant to imply the same message that Jeremiah had made which was about the horrible treatment of the poor. What could be more political than quoting a OT prophet speaking out against the unjust treatment of the poor?
Didn't the cross also have political ramifications? I thought it was Romans way of dealing with insurgants of a political scale
Another good point Heather! I also see the cross as a statement of how the values of Empire directly oppose the values of God.
Please keep in mind my first comment; I am talking about the “heart of Jesus mission”. If politics was at the heart of His mission why did He not order the Romans to throw down their weapons and leave? Why did He not make a political attack upon Pilot and order him to go back to Rome when He was before him? Why did John the Baptist’s dialogue with the soldiers not have him telling them to go back to Rome? Paul used his citizenship for justice, but it was not the core of his message, his core message was Christ crucified.
Where there political ramifications? Sure, and there are today. Should we comment upon politics? Certainly. Direct support, membership, and affiliation I think blurs the Jesus following mission. It may interest you to know that I have been making the same kinds of comments on blogs to the right (what you would label as conservative) and most feel the same as you.
If you visit my blogs you will see that I care deeply about the environment, nature, and animals, the poor, mercy, and justice. These are not just intellectual arguments, I actually do things to help in regards to these matters (I just realized this could be taken the wrong way, I am NOT attacking anybody).
Keep in mind that there were two thieves crucified, one on either side of Jesus, crucifixion was not just for political reasons.
Livingsword,
You said: "If politics was at the heart of His mission why did He not order the Romans to throw down their weapons and leave?
answer: Why would he do that? If he did, would you expect them to listen? Actually he would have been killed faster if he had said it and they still wouldn't listen. His best action was what he did... motivate the Jewish citizens and educate them about non-violent ways to protest (turn the other cheek, cary roman packs 2 miles, give the Romans your inner garment as well as your coat, etc.) He did the most effective things given his lack of political power and financial resources.
Do you think Pilot would have gone back to Rome just because Jesus told him? I think it is implied that he opposed Rome. NO Jewish citizens would have wanted Rome to stay. It wasn't necessary for the Gospel writers to say that. When Jesus was called "king of the Jews" that WAS A POLITICAL ATTACK AGAINST PILOT!
you said: "Why did John the Baptist’s dialogue with the soldiers not have him telling them to go back to Rome? "
answer: why don't Iraqi detainees tell American forces to go back to America when they are captured or approached in tanks w/ guns? Because they would get beaten or worse! I'm sure John felt the same way.
Paul emphasis on "Christ Crucified" means that the emphasis should be on the fact that Jesus was killed by the Roman forces which occupied their land and Paul urged Christians to never forget that (e.g. preach Christ crucified).
As far as the idea that the other 2 people alongside Jesus were "thieves" then you need to look back at the Greek word kakourgos, " 'criminal, evil-doer,' one who commits gross misdeeds and serious crimes. The term "thief" is debated as an accurate translation. Even different greek words are used in the different gospel accounts. If Rome crucified them, then they were enemies of Rome and likely insurgents or outspoken rebels NOT common thieves.
I'm not trying to say Jesus didn't teach people to change their character, but I do think the personal changes are a path to public (communtiy) changes. That is the definition of politics. It doesn't start with Jesus. The old testament is largely about building community also. Politics is the act of creating and improving community.
Mike;
Please keep in mind that I am not attacking any and all political interaction by followers of Jesus. The portion of your article I commented upon is the part about Jesus that is why I am not delving into the OT.
I am asking about His core message. Do you really believe that the primary reason Jesus chose to die on the cross was for political reasons? Is this what He said when He was resurrected? Do you really believe that the core message of Paul was political? As for the comment about John the Baptist and your answer I think I will leave that to you since you mention about Iraq and America, I am not American.
I will be posting an article upon this theme on one of my blogs if you are interested, thank you so much for the courtesy of this conversation.
Do you really believe that the primary reason Jesus chose to die on the cross was for political reasons?
1. What makes anyone think he "chose" to die? Nobody would chose to do die if they had a choice. He was killed because he spoke out against the values of Empire during a time when Empire was in power. He did chose to protest in spite of the fact that he know it could likely get him killed, but that is much different than chosing to die.
2. Yes, I do think the primary reason they killed Jesus was his political statements. I think his primary message was making public changes to the structure of Jewish community (under roman rule). It is clear from studying the accounts we have of his teaching that his priority was a vision for a different type of "rule" of Israel (and ultimately the world). Calling his new vision for community a "kingdom" implies that their would be a KING which means he was calling for a different political system than the Roman Empire. How is that not political?
When a man in the 1st century says "the kingdom of God is at hand" then that is the most politcal thing a person could say. I guess he could have said "everybody rebel and kill Caesar" but to be honest that is exactly what the Romans likely understood he was saying when he said "the kingdom of God is at hand" which meant that the kingdom of Caesar is over.
I thought this topic was worthy of an article, so I wrote one about it. If you would like to have a look at it come over for a visit, I would like to "hear" your thoughts.
http://www.lifeontheblade.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment