In the end, it is all very simple.
Love God. Love neighbour. (In this way you will learn to focus on others more than on yourself.)
Care especially for the vulnerable and the abandoned. (In this way you will discover that these people are the agents of your salvation.)
Do good in secret, and be especially tender with those who refuse to do good to you. (In this way you will learn that good overcomes evil — both in yourself and in the world.)
Share. Give generously. Rejoice. (This is what love requires.)
Tremble. Mourn. Be silent. (This is also required by love.)
Smile when you cry, and cry when you smile. Dance when you hurt, and hurt when you dance. Laugh when you fail, and fail when you laugh. Hope.
Eat. Sleep. Live. Die.
Be made new.
Simple.
Hypocrisy and the Search for Respect: The 'Big Sin Meme'
Awhile ago, Roger Mugs started a ‘Big Sin Meme‘, asking bloggers: ‘If you were to be taken out by one sin (or a couple, whatever) what would it be?’
Not surprisingly, the big three (money, sex, power) showed up frequently in the responses of various bloggers. However, as I’ve thought about this question on-and-off for the last few weeks, I think those answers are a bit of a cop-out.
I mean, sure, most anybody has the potential to be taken out by any combination of these three things, but I’m more interested in asking what sin is there in my life that is already acting as an obstacle and has the potential to do future damage? Thus, rather than positing some hypothetical scenario that may or may not occur in the future, I’m more interested in asking myself, ‘What is the big sin in my life that is already ‘taking me out’?’
The answer? I am convinced that my desire for recognition from others is the ‘big sin’ in my life that does take me out, and has the potential to totally do me in, in the future. That is to say, it is the search for (increased) status that I think could be very devastating in my own life.
Now, I don’t think that I’m alone in my struggle with this sin. In fact, in a world dominated by capitalism, in what Guy Debord refers to the ‘Society of the Spectacle’, the ubiquity and force of brands, and the process of branding, tends to reduce us to self-disciplining, self-branding individuals. Hence, each one of us is driven to advance our own personal brand status. There are many seemingly contradictory ways of pursuing this — increasing my own brand status as a competent businessperson, increasingly my own brand status as a committed clergy member, increasingly my own brand status as a radical Christian — but the contradictions between these paths are often more apparent than actual. In one way or another, we become enmeshed in the pursuit of status and the marketing of Me™.
Now, there are a few things that make this search for status especially insidious. First of all, is the observation that branding is primarily about image. We advance our own brands not by being a certain way, or by doing certain things but, first and foremost, by appearing in certain ways. Hence, I affirm Debord’s observation that in the Society of the Spectacle — wherein social relationships between people are mediated by images — social being has devolved from being (pre-capitalism), through having (early capitalism), to appearing (contemporary or ‘late’ capitalism). This means that we are all inclined to desire to appear to be a certain way, and are not accustomed to thinking about whether or not who we actually are aligns with this appearance — or, rather, we are used to thinking that we are who we appear to be, when this is usually not the case. (This, by the way, is why Žižek can refer to ‘culture’ as ‘the name for all those things we practice without really believing in them, without “taking them seriously.”‘ This then, Žižek argues, is why we treat fundamentalists as a barbaric threat to our culture — ‘they dare to take their beliefs seriously’.)
Thus, I can’t help but ask myself: am I truly living as a person committed to the Way of Jesus Christ, or am I simply manifesting a simulacrum thereof (NB: the notion of simulacra is how Jean Baudrillard develops Debord’s reflections on the Spectacle)? The simulacrum part comes fairly easily — it’s low-cost and carries a high pay-off. Let me give a few examples:
- I work with street-involved youth and have spent quite a bit of time with sex workers. This gains me a lot of ‘Christian radical’ respect dollars. But, really, it’s a job, and I get paid to do it. It’s a far cry from solidarity with the marginalised or that sort of thing.
- I spent a couple of years living in the poorest urban neighbourhood in Canada (Oooo! Ahhh!) in an ‘intentional community’. However, I found it very easy to live in that neighbourhood but not really engage the community or become known by our neighbours. Again, I gain a lot of ‘Christian radical’ respect dollars, but the cost, for me, is quite low — a far cry from the costly discipleship we are called to in Christ.
- I have a blog (with a picture of one of the alleys in Vancouver’s downtown eastside!) which I use to talk about issues of justice, solidarity, cruciformity and so on. This also gains me ‘Christian radical’ respect dollars, but it costs me pretty much nothing. I can talk until I’m blue in the face about things like solidarity, but that talk is a far cry from actually practising solidarity.
So, I don’t know if the search for (brand) status will take me out in the future, but it’s already doing a number on me now!
Secondly, this search for status is insidious because it necessarily produces hypocrisy. Here it is important to precisely define what the bible means when it speaks of ‘hypocrisy’. In particular, the bible doesn’t usually mean what we think it means — people who just play a role and ‘fake’ being good or whatever. Rather, according the the bible, ‘hypocrisy’ describes ‘a person whose conduct is not determined by God and is thus ‘godless.” (I’m indebted to Joel B. Green’s commentary on Luke for this understanding). Hence, hypocrites are not ‘play-actors’ but those who are ‘misdirected in their fundamental understanding of God’s purpose and, therefore, incapable of discerning the authentic meaning of Scripture and, therefore, unable to present anything other than the impression of piety’ (Green again).
Therefore, when we act out of the desire to advance our own brand status, we are acting as hypocrites because our focus is on ourselves, not upon God’s purposes (even if we talk a lot about those). We are acting as godless people and all of our (highly praised!) actions are simply impressions of piety — simulacra of piety.
Again, applying this to myself and to the whole notion of ‘Christian radicals’, I can’t help but wonder if Jesus’ criticisms of the Pharisees are more directly aimed at me, and others in this bracket, and not at the figureheads of the type of Christianity that dominated modernity (I reckon Jesus’ words to the Sadducees are more convicting for that lot!).
Thirdly, this search for status is insidious because it is self-destructive. This is true across the board but is, perhaps, most easily observed in the search for respect one finds in street-culture. ‘Respect’ (i.e. status) is one of the dominant themes in street-culture. Thus, for example, people are willing to beat, torture, and kill others, if they feel disrespected — even in very small ways (say you look at a person wrong, you make the wrong joke at the wrong time, etc.). Yet this desire for respect then develops into a downward spiral, as Philippe Bourgois notes in In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio: ‘although street culture emerges from a personal search for dignity and a rejection of racism and subjugation, it ultimately becomes an active agent in personal degradation and community ruin’. The same is true of other more acceptable or middle-class efforts to attain respect and status.
Thus, to once again apply this to myself, by simply posing as a person who loves others in ‘radical’ ways, I am in fact doing no good and thereby contribute to the ongoing oppression of the poor and the maintenance of the status quo wherein all of us are dehumanised.
In conclusion, I find it particularly interesting that the New Testament voices, especially the voices of Jesus and Paul, are united in an unrelenting campaign against social ways of being that are driven by the notion of status. It is interesting how, in the world of contemporary capitalism (wherein social relationships are mediated by the process of branding) we find ourselves in a situation that has some amazing parallels to the Graeco-Roman world in the first-century CE. Both of these cultures were and are dominated by the desire for status, and both of these cultures were and are confronted with a Gospel that overthrows this desire and replaces it with a call to show unconditional hospitality, serve all people, and (tangibly) love even our enemies. Rather than being motivated by notions of status, we are called to disregard such issues and humiliate ourselves in the service of others.
An Abundance of Manifestos
I’ve noticed that more and more manifestos are being published these days. We have an ‘evangelical manifesto‘, an ‘emergent manifesto‘, a ‘new Christian manifesto‘ and I’m sure I could multiply examples (heck, one of the blogs I link to is called ‘Jesus Manifesto‘).
Now, by definition, a ‘manifesto’ is ‘a public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature’ but I think our recent love of manifestos goes beyond the dictionary definition of the word. Indeed, in contemporary discourse, I believe that this term carries ‘radical’ or ‘counter-cultural’ connotations, largely because of the work we must commonly associate with the notion of manifestos — The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.
Thus, by publishing this range of manifestos, I believe that the various authors are might be appealing to these connotations, in order to brand themselves as radicals, or counter-cultural, or cutting-edge, or whatever. This, of course, is just another way of pro/claiming an higher status than others. To be radical is, primarily, to be more radical than others. To be counter-cultural is, primarily, to be more cool than others. To be cutting-edge is, primarily, to be more advanced than others. It’s a move made in comparison to others — it’s a power-play.
Furthermore, this use of language is often both a symptom and a cause of the drift from living genuinely different lives, to claiming ‘radical’ language while continuing to live lives that are little different than others. Hence, the use of ‘radical’ language becomes of means of claiming higher status, while not actually changing one’s own life.
It’s a sweet deal, no?
Unfortunately, even those who are genuinely attempting to integrate what they say with how they live, still often fall into this brand-status trap, by continuing to use language that has been so thoroughly co-opted. It is not necessary to call ourselves ‘radicals’, it is not necessary to call our publications ‘manifestos’ and yet we continue to use this language and by doing so — whether we intend to our not — we engage in an act of self-branding that carries repercussions related to our own status and, particularly, how others perceive our status.
It’s a sticky situation, eh?
Towards a Properly Political Reading of the New Testament
The fact of the matter is that every reading of the New Testament (NT) is a political reading of some sort. Even readings that fail to find political significance in the NT are expressions of (often unconsidered) political positions — so-called ‘spiritual’ readings of the NT, which fail to find any significant political dimensions in Jesus’ teachings, or Paul’s epistles, or whatever else, are often expressed in life by a focus on one’s individual salvation, and a lack of attention to broader social structures… and this itself is a form of politics! The same is true of any reading.
Therefore, the question is not whether or not we should read the NT politically; rather, it is about what type of political reading we should practice.
Consequently, I have begun to compile a list of ‘commentaries’ that can help us properly understand the politics of the NT. This list is just beginning, has many holes, and I would be curious to hear what titles others might wish to add. Here is what I have thus far:
- Mt: Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations by Warren Carter
- Mk: Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Gospel by Ched Myers
- Lk: The Gospel of Luke by Joel Green (NICNT)
- Jn: John and Empire: Initial Explorations by Warren Carter
- Ro: Romans: A Commentary by Robert Jewett (Hermeneia)
- Gal: Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter by Justin K. Hardin (WUZNT2)
- Phil: Philippians: From People to Letter by Peter Oakes (SNTS Monograph Series)
- Col: Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire by Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat
- 1 Pe: A Home for the Homeless: a social scientific criticism of 1 Peter, its situation and strategy by John H. Elliott
- Rev: Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now by Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther
There are, of course, several other studies that deal more generally with the politics of the NT, of Jesus, of Paul, and so on, but I am especially interested in exploring commentaries that take this ’empire-critical’ approach. What would you add to this list?
Down but not Out
One Gypsy Punk band playing live + several drinks + good friends + dancing = one seriously broken ankle + one major surgery + several prescription painkillers. Damn.
Just Sayin'
Not that I know anything about this stuff, but I reckon that, if the global markets were to crash and we were to be heading for some sort of Great Depression at some point in the future then… well… then it makes sense for the Spirit to begin stirring now-ish in order to create communities of Christians who are learning how to share the basic elements of life, who are economically dependent upon one another, who are making connections across national boundaries, and who are trying to bridge the gap between the West and the Rest of the world.
6. What Would You Do?
I was standing with my wife, waiting for the traffic light to change. Just behind me was a woman sitting on the sidewalk, panhandling. She looked unwell. Like she was high, or like she needed some kind of medication for her mental health. In front of her was a sign that said: “Abusive Ex Left Me Homeless, Please Help With Money for Food and Shelter”.
Anyway, I was standing with my wife, waiting for the traffic light to change, when I heard a voice behind me:
God! That is the most retarted sign I have ever seen. I mean, seriously, you really need to change your sign. Fuck. It’s so fucking retarted.
So, I turn around and see a young man — probably in his early twenties, standing in front of the homeless woman. He’s looking down on her contemptuously, and mocking her in between drags on his cigarette. Taking his time with it, you know?
There are other people walking by, not taking any notice.
So… if you were in this situation, what would you do? Seriously, not what would you want to do, but what do you think you would actually do?
The Parousia Problematised by Divine Cruciformity
The deeper we root Jesus’ actions, and his embrace of powerlessness and suffering, at the heart of God’s character, the harder it becomes to posit a Jesus who returns triumphantly to judge the world and make all things new.
That is to say, if Jesus reveals to us a cruciform God, and if Jesus’ act on the cross are an act of “family resemblance” to a God defined by suffering, humble love (as Michael Gorman argues), then returning to impose the kingdom of God upon the world (rather than inviting others to participate in the kingdom, like Jesus did the first time around) seems somewhat problematical.
After all, it seems to me that this notion of God’s humility and cruciformity has been one of the foundations for our acceptance of this whole terribly messy history of the world. If God is humble, suffering, and ever inviting — if God is like Jesus — then it makes sense that God hasn’t simply put an end to all of this already. If God is revealed as a suffering servant, then it makes sense that God hasn’t rushed in to knock some heads together and sort things out. However, the question then becomes this: if God hasn’t sorted things out by now, if God is committed to inviting us, and working with us, then what is the foundation for God to return to us in order to finally make all things new? Doesn’t the return of Jesus seem like exactly the type of forceful act that Jesus refused to practice in the first place?
So, I would be curious to hear how others might resolve this apparent contradiction. How does a triumphant and forceful return fit with a cruciform God?
I mean, maybe this explains the so-called ‘delay of the Parousia’ — maybe Jesus left thinking, ‘I’ll be back soon!’ and then, once he had time to think about things, he realised that returning with force would be to contradict his own character and commitments. Maybe he’s been sitting in heaven the last two thousand years thinking, ‘hot damn, how do I get out of this one?!’
While the Plague Persists…
September Books
Surprisingly, given how busy everything has been, September was still a decent month for reading. There are some really good books on this list (in my opinion, anyway!).
1. Rituals and Power: The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor by S. R. F. Price.
In any political or ’empire-critical’ reading of Paul there are two books that always get mentioned — The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus by Paul Zanker (which I am currently reading) and Rituals and Power by Simon Price.
Upon completing Price’s book it is easy to see why it is so widely referenced and why it created a paradigm shift within studies of the Roman Empire (this is apparent in the reviews offered on the back of the book… I’ve never seen such glowing reviews, wherein scholars confess to having their own minds changed because of the authors arguments). What Price does is demonstrate the ubiquity and importance of the Roman imperial cult within Asia Minor, thereby making it impossible for modern readers to treat this aspect of Graeco-Roman society as some sort of tangential aside.
Price’s central thesis is that the Roman imperial cult became the means by which cities in Asia Minor where able to accept subjection to an authority external to the traditional structures of the city (hence, the Roman ruler is slotted within the framework of traditional cults of the gods). Thus, we see the imperial cult as a nexus of religion, politics, and power. We also see an important give-and-take dynamic occurring between ‘Greek’ populations, and the Roman rulers, wherein the cult is often initiated and developed by the Greek cities, and only then controlled and routinized by the Roman rulers.
Of course, there is far more detail in Price’s richly rewarding study (of everything from Hellenistic cities, imperial festivals, architecture, images, and rituals) and I would strongly recommend this book to any reader of Paul’s letters. After reading this book, there can be no doubt that the imperial cult was a fundamental aspect of the society in which Paul lived and wrote his letters and must be factored into our readings of him.
2. Philippians: From People to Letter by Peter Oakes.
Thankfully, Peter Oakes is one of those who takes the imperial cult, and the Graeco-Roman context of Philippi, very seriously in his study of Paul’s epistle to the Philippians. As the subtitle implies, Oakes first builds a model of what Philippi might have looked like in Paul’s day, and then he builds on this to try and build a model of what the church in Philippi might have looked like. This then leads to a rewarding and exciting reading of Philippians focused upon a call for unity under economic suffering.
After spending some time tracing the development of Philippi as a city and then as a Roman colony, Oakes argues the composition of the population roughly breaks down in this way:
- Service Sector (artisans, bakers, fire wood collectors, and others working at a subsistence level): 37%
- Slaves: 20%
- Colonist Farmers: 20% (who, being second or third generation by the time of Paul’s writing, wouldn’t necessarily be amongst the elite, although some of them would have been living a little above the subsistence level)
- Poor (those living below the subsistence level): 20%
- Elite: 3%.
This then breaks down into a population that is 40% Roman and 60% Greek.
From this model, Oakes argues (rather convincingly) that the church of Philippi would then be composed of the following members:
- Service: 43%
- Slaves: 16%
- Colonist Farmers: 15%
- Poor: 25%
- Elite: 1% (Oakes notes that there is no indication of any elite members at Philippibut he does not want to exclude the possibility of them altogether).
Thus, the church would be 36% Roman and 64% Greek.
From here, Oakes lays out four key elements of life at Philippi: the centrality of agriculture, the relatively modest size of the city, the ethnic and social profile of the city and, most importantly, the ’emphatic Roman domination’ of the colony. This was a colony wherein the Romans owned almost all of the land, monopolising the wealth and the status, while the Greeks were economically dependent on the Romans.
From this model, Oakes then turns to Paul’s letter to the Philippians and argues that it is structured around the themes of suffering and unity. Oakes thesis is that conversion to Christ has caused the Philippians to suffer economically and, given that the largest segment of the church was probably living at the subsistence level, any economic loss would be devastating. However, for the less vulnerable in the congregation, association with Christians, and with Christ, seems to be resulting in a loss of honour… which could rapidly develop into economic loss as well. Therefore, this economic suffering results in a call for increased unity: ‘what the Christians would need to do in order to survive is to enter into a new set of economic and other relationships among themselves’. This would require ‘substantial’ economic rearrangement, which would carry additional risks for the wealthier, more established, parties involved.
Consequently, Paul offers himself as a model to the Philippians, in his surrender of privilege, his willingness to suffer for the sake of the gospel, and his concern for others. Thus, the model Paul offers of himself would probably encourage the lower members of the congregation, and disturb the more well established members.
Of course, Paul’s model of himself is a mirror of the model of Christ offered in Phil 2.5-11. However, to properly understand this passage Oakes argues that we must first understand the relationship between Christ and the Emperor. Noting the political overtones of language related to ‘citizenship’, ‘salvation’, and power, as well as the political idea of the ruler providing an ethical model to imitate, Oakes argues that the Philippian audience would naturally think of imperial messages when listening to the recitation of this passage. This is strengthened by several other connections: that (a) Christ (like the emperor) is given universal authority; (b) that authority is granted; (c) that authority is granted by a competent body; (d) that authority is granted for a reason; (e) that authority is granted for the same reasons that the emperor was granted authority (demonstrated victories, intimate connections with the rulers or the gods, universal agreement, and moral qualities such as a demonstrated concern for others and a lack of self-interest); (f) universal submission connected to the saving of the world; (g) the granting of high names; (f) the application of the title ‘Lord’; (g) and the role of the leader to define the ethics embodied by the people.
Thus, Paul responds to the issue of suffering and unity in Philippiby offering Christ as a paradigmatic example, over against other examples (like the emperor and the standards he upheld). That is to say, by moving from being like God to being like a slave, Christ went from one extreme of status to another — and so the Philippians should be willing to following in his footsteps out of their concern for each other. In particular, those of higher status, must be willing to provide economic assistance to those of lower status, even if this results in a loss of status. For this, the Philippians will be rewarded because their leader has already been victorious (and so, just as parties aligned with victorious emperors or generals would share in the gains of those victors, so also the Christians are promised a share in the gains of Christ). Thus, Oakes writes:
On both these issues [suffering and unity] the key practical point is likely to be that the Christian has grown up thinking that following society’s imperatives is the right thiing to do and the safe thing to do. Although they will be keen to follow Paul’s calls, the pressure of these social imperatives will be very great. For Paul to present Christ as the one who outdoes the lord of the political and social sphere seems a very appropriate rhetorical strategy…
If Christ has replaced the Emperor as the world’s decisive power then we are no longer in the established Graeco-Roman social world. Instead of a world under the high-status man, whose Roman Empire has commanded the hardening of an already stratified Mediterranean society into stone, the world is under a new lord whose command is [to imitate him] and who enjoins [self-lowering and loss of status]. The lord even exemplifies these things. The whole basis of Graeco-Roman society is done away with.
Furthermore, the result of this is a new confidence, and a new understanding of status, which ‘de-marginalises’ the Christian community.
Thus, I think that Oakes successfully defends his thesis. This is an exceptional book, and I would highly recommend it.
3. In the Steps of Paul: An Illustrated Guide to the Apostle’s Life and Journeys by Peter Walker (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).
A big thanks to Chris Fann from Zondervan for this review copy!
For a long time, I was fairly blind to the importance of visuals for our understanding of Paul. I used to think that books like this one — full of photos — or tours of the cities Paul visited were a bit over the top, reflecting our cultural shift from the word to the image, from the intellect to the experience, and so on.
However, the more I am convinced of the importance of visual elements within Graeco-Roman society (after all, most of the population wasn’t literate!) the more interested I have become in exploring those visual elements (city layouts, architecture, sculptures, coins, inscriptions, and so on). The more one tries to understand a person like Paul, the more important it becomes to immerse oneself, as much as possible, into all areas of Paul’s life. Really, it was a basic act of snobbery to think that books with pictures are for first year students (or non-professionals), whereas books full of text (say even Greek text! Ooooo!) were for the more advanced. Good grief, sometimes I really am embarrassed by myself.
Therefore, I was delighted to receive a review copy of In the Steps of Paul by Peter Walker. Although I may take issue with Walker’s dependence upon Acts, and some of the ways in which Walker presents Paul and his theology, this is a beautiful reference book full of historical and geographical details. The book is structured to follow Paul’s travels chronologically from city to city (although Paul visited some places more than once, so there are some inevitable breaks in this chronology). Each chapter begins by telling the story of Paul within that location, goes on to provide a list of key dates and events related to that location (extending both before and after Paul), and then concludes with a section describing the location as a visitor might encounter it today (a handy guide for those who might actually travel to these places). Personally, I am most grateful for the tables with key dates and events for each city (and for the Roman Empire as a whole) as I was thinking I needed to develop something like that for my own research… so this has saved me a lot of time. I was also grateful for the maps provided for each city (because, you know, city plans are often an important ideological tool). Oh, and the photos are beautiful. All in all, an enjoyable book.
4. Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping our World by Vinoth Ramachandra.
This book has received a lot of high recommendations — both from the international array of scholars represented on the back of the book, and from other bloggers I respect (like Halden and Christian). So, despite my far too long list of ‘books to read’, I decided to bite the bullet and jump into this book. As the reader might guess, based upon my recent references to Ramachandra, I am very glad that I did so. Subverting Global Myths is impressive in both its readability and its erudition. It certainly made me want to read Ramachandra’s earlier book, Gods That Fail.
Within Subverting Global Myths, Ramachandra explores six areas of public discourse today — terrorism, religious violence, human rights, multiculturalism, science and postcolonialism (the chapter on myths of postcolonialism alone is worth the price of the book) — and offers a profoundly historically-informed perspective. For, as Ramachandra reminds the reader, without that historical perspective, we cannot properly understand these things. Unfortunately, the dominant ethos of contemporary capitalism is profoundly anti-historical, so it is no wonder that so much of what Ramachandra writes might strike the reader as something new. Thus, for example, those lacking this historical perspective will find themselves shocked by what Ramachandra has to say about events in Afghanistan, whereas those who have been reading the writings of our more historically-informed Marxist or anarchist friends, will find themselves nodding along (the chapter on Afghanistan, and myths of terrorism, reads like a chapter out of something by Chomsky… which is a good thing as far as I’m concerned and, who knows, may even give Chomsky some more credibility in Christian circles). Consequently, it is no wonder that Ramachandra describes his book as ‘an invitation to journey with the author in heretical subversion of the present reality in order to make way for another.’
What I found especially enjoyable about Ramachandra’s book (apart from the historical perspective already mentioned) is the way in which he doesn’t really appear to have any allegiances to any particular party-lines or movements. Rather, although he is aware of much that has been written by these various parties (in politics, cultural theory, and theology), he comes across as a thoughtful and sincere person, trying to think and live Christianly within the contemporary global context. Ramachandrareally doesn’t seem like he his grinding any particular axes in his writing. Consequently, he is both a refreshing read and a challenge to all others who have drawn their own lines in the sand and have been working on building up the barricades (I might include myself in that group).
5. Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals by Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).
A big thanks to Chris Fann from Zondervan for this review copy!
This book surprised me. After The Irresistible Revolution, and given the subtitle of this book, I was expecting a book that mapped out some of the concrete details of the community living practiced by Claiborne and Haw. I was expecting a more detailed follow-up to some of the things Claiborne mapped out in his previous book.
Instead, what we have in the first two-thirds of Jesus for President is a political and empire-critical reading of the biblical narrative and the experiences of the early Church, with only the final third devoted to an eclectic account of what some ‘ordinary radicals’ are doing in the world today.
Now, there is nothing wrong with this kind of project… I was a little disappointed but that’s only because I came to the book with the wrong expectations. I was expecting something of a sequel to The Irresistible Revolution and instead I got the prequel — a project focused on ‘renewing the imagination’ instead of a project focused on the details of action.
Of course, I suspect that this sort of prequel is necessary for a good many people. Many (or most?) North American Christians haven’t ever read or considered Scripture from a perspective that is critical of Empires — many have never read the likes of Walter Brueggemann, Daniel Smith-Christopher, John Crossan, Ched Myers, Warren Carter, Walter Wink, Klaus Wengst, Brian Walsh, and a host of others who have written on this theme — so this sort of introduction to this perspective can be invaluable. Besides, even for those (like myself) who are familiar with these authors, it is always worthwhile to read a review of the biblical narrative from this perspective (after all, paradigm shifts occur from repeated readings, not just from a first read).
What one gains from this overview of the biblical narrative is a clear and consistent call to a form of Christian politics that sees the Church as an alternative community (think polis), modeling new creation realities to the world in which she finds herself. Thus, ‘the greatest sin of political imagination’ is ‘thinking there is no other way except the filthy rotten system we have today.’ Again:
A curious politics is emerging here: the early Christians weren’t trying to overthrow or even reform the empire, but they also weren’t going along with it. They were not reformists offering the world a better Rome. They offered the dissatisfied masses not a better government but another world altogether.
And, just to be clear on what the authors are saying, this ‘other world’ is not the ‘pie in the sky’ of heaven, but ‘another world’ here and now.
As for as my own interests, I found the last section, although a little disjointed and not entirely helpful (for transitioning the reader from where she is to where she is wanting to go) to be the most interested. It is in this section that we find a series of ‘snapshots of stories, reflections, and practical expressions of the peculiar politics of Jesus today.’ It is here we read about Christians exploring alternative and clean forms of energy and housing, about Christians who grow their own food and make their own clothes, about Christians living in community with the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the imprisoned, about Christian acts of nonviolence and peacemaking, about Christians sharing economically with one another (check out Christians who help pay for health care, or the notion of the relational title), and so on. Thus, this section ends with a call to newness in all elements of our life together: we need new celebrations, new language, new rituals, new heroes, new songs, new liturgy, new eyes, and new holidays.
The book itself concludes with a series of appendices illustrating some of these things and also dealing with some problem areas (available on the book’s website).
However, as I stated with my hopes for this book, and implied above, I also found this section a little disappointing. While it may inspire the imaginations of some readers, it also provides those readers with little assistance in making these transitions in their own lives. Thus, we may have a bunch of people who love this book, and who feel inspired by it, but who do not know how to proceed and develop in these directions. The results of this could either be a bunch of pseudo-radicals (i.e. those who feel radical because they read the book… even though nothing changed in their own lives) or a bunch of guilt-ridden well-intentioned Christians (who want to change but don’t know how).
My hope, then, is that those like Claiborne and Haw, or other representatives of the ‘new monasticism’, will go on from here to write a much more practical action-oriented book, mapping out how they themselves made this transition, what lessons they learned along the way, and so on and so forth.
6 & 7. The Becoming of G-d by Ian Mobsby (already reviewed here) and The emerging Church by Bruce Sanguin (already reviewed here).