The other things of course deserve comment, they should not be allowed to pass by without mention lest they be ignored by a wider public, though in the last case it has already been done with such blistering brilliance by Laurie Penny that there is truly nothing further to say on my part.
Fact of the matter is though that coming from a religious perspective as I do, the so-called politics of Christ and the Gospels surely comes at the heart of whatever response I should wish to make. In trying to align myself towards the divine goodness, the words and deeds of the Incarnate Deity should act as an anchor, a polar object which other ideas revolve around. For a theological response to have any worth in its contribution to a debate it must find agreement with its sources.
And I wish I could say that I felt the matter was as open and shut as Mike and Mehdi wish to make out, but I can't quite see the evidence for the assertion either that Jesus would likely have been throwing stones at Fred Goodwin's house, or that the implications for the Roman Empire were the 'single most important fact' of the Nativity. My principal objection to this is that both these sorts of views actually represent and narrowing, and a limiting of the Gospel proclamation.
There is always a certian amount of twisting involved when we apply 19th century social and economic theories to what has preceded it- and we shouldn't automatically assume that a particular action is always prompted by the same motivations. Ultimately, I do not believe that Jesus should be seen as a left-wing activist bent on improving society. This isn't the whole story. We should be careful about portraying Jesus as a political figure at all- if we look at the gospels in their wholeness, rather than commit the factionalist/fundamentalist error of quoting scripture shorn of wider context and then assume the fragment speaks for the whole, then it becomes quite clear that there is a distinct...otherworldly quialty to Jesus.
Jesus came to preach the Kingdom of God, not tear down the Kingdoms of Men. His activity, his mission, his very being is directed towards the will of God, and his ministry is not presented as simply a shaking up of the earthly order (quite the opposite in fact) but rather a cosmic 'game-changer' in the relationship between God and Man, that also opens itself to a reshuffling of human relationships towards each other.
I don't wish to claim that Jesus is right wing, left wing whatever wing really. The Jesus of the gospel accounts always seems to evade sloppy categorization and anyone who takes the accounts seriously would have a hard time trying to make him the poster boy for any social movement. This is not the first time of course that individuals have tried to make a political figure out of the Messiah when Mike Ion asserts the most important thing about Jesus is that he represents 'a drastic political challenge to the imperial power of Rome.' He makes common cause with many first century Jews who hoped, nay, expected the same thing. The Messiah was meant to be a political liberator who would restore Israel to its former glory. Yet the Messiah when he came did no such thing.
If Jesus overthrew Roman Rule, he picked the most impractical way of doing it; wandering around and engaging in religious teaching and dispute before getting executed as a criminal, leaving behind a seminal faith that would later go on and eventually ally themselves with the Empire- the effects of which can still be felt today, notably with the Bishops in the Lords for example.
I am not saying of course that one cannot be Christian and stand up for the things outlined in Mehdi's article, I truly believe that one can hold both without tension; Jesus is a countercultural character- he associates with the marginalised of society and dishes out a strong critique of the religious authorities and teaches that he who is last shall be first, but we shouldn't try to impose a political, ideological system onto this. There must be room for the religious, spiritual dimension to the message of Christ if we are to understand him at all. Healing the sick isn't signalling support for a tax-funded system of healthcare its a revelation of what the future holds and what a life of faith entails. It seems more likely to me that the workers at the vineyard is more likely first and foremost about salvation in the fullest sense being available whenever one takes it rather than being literally about workers wages.
My fear is that by hammering Jesus into a particular ideological straitjacket we risk alienating those of religious sentiment but with different political opinions. Jesus is not a partisan, for the faithful at least, he is meant to act as a force for unity and holding together the contradictions that arise between people. He is a bridge, not a barricade. the idea that any side would want to score cheap points by claiming him for their own is a little disgraceful. It's difficult to know who the other 'side' is meant to be- simplistic media reporting would suggest 'Evangelicals = Right Wing' yet Lausanne shows us that a commitment to social (and increasingly environmental) justice is not just a preserve of the liberals or mainliners. Yet by exploring the spiritual/religious side there is common ground, which can open up fruitful discussion as to how the Kingdom of God would be organized, what discipleship entails and so on.
Jesus may appear left wing, but when he sat down on the mountain, he did not outline his view of society and the reasons for its injustices and then plan how to topple the lot, no he rather gave commands that every disciple was meant to follow- and how to work them out as part of an active citizenship, he seems to have allowed space for personal consideration and growth, and I hope that we will be able to do it united in faith rather than divided by politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment