Redeeming the Powers?
I’m mad at Shane Claiborne. Admittedly, I’m only half way through his and Chris Haw’s book, “Jesus for President,” but it is stressing me out. While it is visually stunning and thought provoking, I’m a bit concerned with their conclusions thus far, which amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The political overview and highlights of the Old Testament and Jesus’ ministry are an interesting interpretation and definitely shine a different light on these scriptures. But it is also an interpretation, not the sole interpretation.
What is bothering me is the extreme disregard and abandonment of the systems and structures. I hate writing that because I am not a fan of bureaucracy, but if I’m reading the author’s correctly, if you are a Christian, you really cannot be an American. You cannot be both. They write:
[The problem] was allegiance. Jesus and Paul were telling the people that they must live here with their identities as aliens. They must live by the rules of heaven amid the violent earthly powers. And to claim that one’s citizenship is in heaven is to say that you pledge allegiance not to any of the kingdoms of the world but to Jesus and the body of those who take on his suffering, enemy-loving posture toward the world…(p. 107) This is not a set of political suggestions for the world; this is about invoking and embodying the alternative… All of this is an invitation to join a peculiar people- those with no king but God, who practice jubilee economics and make the world new. (p. 108)
Amen and amen, but the authors are taking it to the extreme of abandoning these systems and structures, giving up on them because they see them as are too corrupt, too seduced by the power of kings and presidents. Yes a lot of damage has been done but aren’t we Christians in the redemption business? If individuals and communities can be redeemed, what about these power structures? Sure it is an overwhelming idea, but don’t we serve an overwhelming God?
An author I appeal to regarding this is Walter Wink, incidentally whose work the Claiborne and Haws call “brilliant” in his discussion of “turning the other cheek” in the Sermon on the Mount. Walter Wink believes we should not give up on these structures, that there is still good in them. Wink writes in his book, The Powers that Be:
The Powers were created, they are fallen, and they shall be redeemed…this schema is also simultaneous: God at one and the same time upholds a given political or economic system, since some such system is required to support human life; condemns that system insofar as it is destructive of fully human life; and presses for its transformation into a more human order. (p. 32)
Wink acknowledges our systems and structures are messed up, but that they have a purpose and they can do good. Two examples of organizations that I feel redeem the structures of the world are the International Justice Mission (IJM) and the PICO National Network. IJM goes into horrible situations of injustice around the world and uses existing justice systems in these countries to bring justice to the forgotten and oppressed- this is amazing redemption of systems. PICO is a community organizing network bringing the voices of many who did not know they had a voice to those who represent them within our local, state, and federal systems. This too is amazing redemption.
I may feel differently when I finish the book but at this point, I’m too much an optimist to give up. I’m a Christian who happens to be an American and I’ll be participating in this structure we call democracy on the first Tuesday in November in what I hope is a redemptive act.
October 21, 2008 at 11:42 pm
My question regarding the above quote from Winks would be, in what way does “God uphold a given political or economic system”? Do we assume that God is upholding certain systems simply because they are successful, or because they are at least pragmatically sufficient?
Is using a particular human system for enacting justice, for example, such as IJM does brilliantly, really redeeming the system itself, or is it playing by the rules of that system, using that system, maybe even affirming that system, to the end of doing some authentic good?
I think it’d be pretty self-righteous and ridiculous of me to look at organizations such as the ones that you’ve mentioned and glibly reply that they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing, because the ends (freeing child sex slaves, for instance) don’t justify the means (employing the legal tactics of the land). I actually tend to feel like in certain scenarios, I’d be tempted to justify almost any means, and applaud the IJM for employing tactics that seem to be as non-coersive as possible in such situations.
However, when I think of obvious abuses of human dignity and wonder what Jesus would do in response, I can’t see the answer as being, “Jesus would bring the offenders to court” or “Jesus would go to the UN and set up sanctions against countries who allow or participate in sex trafficking”. What would it be? A difficult answer, but I think whatever it was, it would be self-sacrificial, relational, and system subverting (not redeeming). It’s not the systems of this world that Jesus came to redeem, it’s the people he came to redeem from the systems: rapist and raped, murderer and murdered, the list goes on…
Nelson Mandela said, and I’m way paraphrasing here, “reconciliation is that which frees the oppressed from being oppressed, and the oppressors from being oppressors.” Is there always a practical way to complete this kingdom mandate in the real world? Obviously it’s extremely complicated (look at the moral struggle of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for instance, who, as an avid pacifist, planned and attempted to carry out the assassination of Adolph Hitler, asking God’s forgiveness the whole way). But, that being said, we do the best that we can. I think you do the best you can by exercising your American right. I think I do the best I can by choosing not to vote. I think IJM and PICO do the same. And if that’s what we’re doing, I think Jesus smiles upon, blesses, and even works through our efforts.
I guess I’m just not sure, even if we are called to redeem the economic and political systems of this world, that we can do that by following the rules that that system has set before us. After all, the notion of redemption, at least when we’re looking at fallen humanity, implies a death, a crucifixion with Christ, and a resurrection with him as a completely new creation.
October 22, 2008 at 9:16 am
You (kellydd) have just expressed so much of what I’ve been feeling over the past several weeks. As a political science major, I think there are good and bad systems, and mostly, ones that are somewhere in between.
With response to cretts, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with affirming parts of the system, any more than I think it was wrong for Israel to affirm parts of Enuma Elish. And as I understand culture, there are pieces of God in all of them. So while all political systems could be improved, it’s very unlikely for one to be 100% evil. I think that just as we celebrate the fruit of our labor in response to God’s culture-making mandate in any other area of life, we should celebrate the positive God-image-honoring work we have done when it comes to politics.
Also, while I haven’t read all of Claiborne’s book, I think there may be a comparison between apples and oranges. Sure Jesus didn’t take an overtly political route to power, even though he used political language… but his situation is too differently from ours for us to automatically infer that means politics is bad for us. In his time there wasn’t an option of working withing the system because the system was closed. In a democracy, there is that possibility. While compromise usually happens in politics, it’s nothing compared to absolute submission to an emperor. In comparison to a true empire, the opportunity to live out the gospel from within American politics (as a citizen or public servant) is immense.
October 22, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I haven’t read Jesus for President, but I have read “The Irresitable Revolution” and both books seem to be making similar points.
I would try to defend Shane by saying that, if you are defending America as a whole, you are defending a largely oppressive system in the world where the people who buy all the stuff we “need” don’t really care how or where it comes from.
What others have said I echo here: Jesus came to redeem people.
The systems are a necessary part of the present, but the only system that Jesus welcomes is those that align themselves to the kingdom of God. Perhaps what we ought to try redeeming is our local communities instead of political systems. What I’ve found in my life is that governments try to fix statistics, while local communities try to help the people in their community who are really struggling. What do you think of this?
October 22, 2008 at 9:49 pm
i agree with everything you’ve said here. i too have read the first half of their book, and am also wondering where they are going with it. as a Christian who has worked in government, particularly to work for justice from within the system, i squirm a bit when i hear Christians say we should abandon the system altogether. in fact, i think that by working within the system Christians can truly be the salt and light that Jesus (and Claiborne) speak of.
i did find one thing that Claiborne said helpful, however. speaking of the issue of our allegiance, he points out that our goal should be uniqueness and set apartness, as Jesus calls us to, rather than trying to reclaim America for God. For Claiborne, the way to redeem the systems and powers is through behavior contrary to the way the system invites (or would sometimes force) us to. To be sure, you can influence the political status quo by influencing other systems – it is interdependent with all the others. but i wonder how the church can better equip its saints to be radically different from within. to form counter communities but to also to be countercultural in the way we behave within those structures.
to be certain, i think Claiborne’s thoughts are a good kick in the pants to remind us of our true identity. i do think we can be “American,” although i say that loosely, but we are no doubt called out ones, and are to engage the systems for the purpose of redemption and transformation, and not for our own personal gain (although i do think god wants us to enjoy the world he created and the lives he gave us – but that’s for another post, i suppose).
October 24, 2008 at 4:50 am
I think if you keep reading you’ll find that they don’t call for abandoning the system altogether. You haven’t gotten to the part about voting yet, right? Do keep reading — and of COURSE you don’t have to accept everything they say in the book!
October 24, 2008 at 4:47 pm
[...] my two cents in as well. Over at Evangelical Political Analysis I pointed out a few days ago that Kelly thinks that certain Christians like Shane Claiborne, while having good intentions at heart, have [...]