Elections 2008: Does the Gospel of Jesus Christ Speak to the Issue of Politics?
As the political atmosphere in this presidential election year begins to heat up, and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al., go around promising salvation/resurrection from the George W. Bush era, I'm sensing and hearing a lot of voices, some loud, some quieter, either wondering or exclaiming whether or how the Gospel of Jesus Christ speaks to the issue of politics and power in general, or to specific political issues in particular. The issue is, of course, complex and dense, but let me throw my two cents into the mix, not as an answer, but as a signpost to the answer.
Have you ever tried to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—imagine that you are doing so for the first time—while consciously suspending any familiarity and presupposition? It is a very interesting thought experiment. Were you to do so, it would be difficult to avoid the realization that the Gospels are not primarily theological discourses. They are, at their most basic level, political stories, stories about a man who spoke and acted in such a way as to lead to His capture, trial, and execution. They are stories about conflicting perceptions of power, truth, and knowledge, and how those conflicting perceptions met head-on and were resolved. I heard a story about a theatrical play about the life of Jesus, and in the crowd was a man who had never heard of Jesus. He sat enthralled throughout the production, and as the plot began to reach its climax, he stood up and shouted, “They’re not going to kill him, are they?”
We in the Western world over the last few hundred years have tended to segregate the political message of the Gospels from the theological, due in large part to the Enlightenment’s insistence that religious and spiritual matters, if given any credence at all, should be quarantined from such real-world issues. But it is precisely within that story of power and politics that we glean the theological picture of Jesus saving the world, and only within that picture can we make sense of the personal theology of Jesus dying for me and saving me.
In Mark 10, we find the following passage:
James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you."
And He said to them, "What do you want me to do for you?"
They said to Him, "Grant that we may sit, one on your right and one on your left when you come in your glory."
But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"
They said to him, "We are able." And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.
"But to sit on my right or on my left, this is not mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared."
Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John.
Calling them to himself, Jesus said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.
"But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.
"For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:35–45)
For centuries, the Church has jumped to the final verse of the story because it saw there a direct proof-text for one of its favorite doctrines, substitutionary atonement. This doctrine asserts that Christ was sent to atone for our sins, thus reconciling mankind to our Creator through Jesus’ death on the cross. That’s fine, and I believe dearly in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, and I praise God every day for Jesus giving His life as a ransom for many. But the only way to understand what Jesus meant by, “For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many,” is to look at it in the context in which He said it. And that context is this: true power lies not in lording over one’s subjects, or exercising authority over people. True power is achieved through service to others. Jesus was not talking about waiting tables. He was deadly serious. Serving others to the utmost means giving up one’s transient moments of happiness, even one’s life, for and in that service.
And that’s the point of the final line. Even the “Son of Man,” the One whom the Jewish tradition said would be King of Kings and Lord of Lords, has not come to exercise power in the manner of those who are recognized as rulers in this world, but in ultimate loving servanthood, “to give his life as a ransom for many.” When Jesus died on the cross, He did not finalize an arbitrary transaction in heaven by wiping our sins off of a cosmic ledger and transferring it to His, thereby appeasing His angry father whose primary goal was to be paid in blood for our sins. The parable of the prodigal son does not end with the father torturing the Prodigal’s brother in order to forgive the returning son. When Jesus died on the cross, that was an indication of the lengths He was willing to go to be a servant for His people, the ultimate act of ultimate power. And it is precisely by the exercise of this power, and its vindication by the resurrection, that the second-rate powers of the world, to which each of us bows a knee dozens of times a day, were exposed and defeated, named and chained. It is only within that victory that I, personally, am saved when I come to “believe in Jesus,” through and through, including this lesson about the meaning of true power, and strive to live in faith based upon such a belief.
So if you were to ask me what the Gospel of Jesus Christ has to do with politics, I would humbly respond...
Everything.
So become educated on the issues, speak your voice, and vote wisely...but don't stop there.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Good stuff.