Why We're a Party (Principles reflect Vocabulary)
It seems that the initial principles or petitions that were proposed in previous posts are a good start. Anthony raised an important issue, however, and that is this matter of being what we want to see in the world, which is what we believe God wants to see in the world (the love, peace, and justice of Jesus Christ). The petitions that I outlined are actually an attempt to align our desires with the reality of the Kingdom of God, which is the new world that God has created (Mark 1:15, 2 Corinthians 5:17). This new kingdom/world has it's beginning in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (i.e. the apocalypse) and we now live in the tension of the passing away of the old world and all of it's competing rulers and powers and the emergence of the new world which is under the lordship of Jesus Christ. Not that God was not always in ultimate control of his Creation, but through Christ now the Creation is finally capable of being what it was always meant to be - God's Kingdom on earth, which is why we pray daily for that Kingdom to come here as it is in heaven.
This reality of the Kingdom of Heaven down here, is best evidenced when the people of God, the church, live according to the divine will of the Father, loving and worshiping Him alone and loving each other as Christ loves. This love is not restricted to "members" of the church however, because the second of the greatest commandments is to love our neighbors as ourselves, even if our neighbor happens to be our enemy. This is a very tall order, yet only when we live up to these duties of citizenship in God's Kingdom, do we truly see and experience the New Creation. It is this understanding that we are citizen's of a Kingdom not of this world that leads us to a very biblical, yet strangely and unfortunately rather obscure, understanding of the church's political role in society.
Anthony has been a big fan of a theologian named John Howard Yoder for more than a few years now. I have been reluctant to really grapple with Yoder's theological insights, but my spiritual journey and fellowship with Anthony has made it impossible for me to not explore the revelatory perspectives that Yoder offers. I did not learn that the Greek term for church, "ekklesia" referred to a political assembly of citizens gathered to do the city's business from Yoder, but he (along with those who study his writing such as scholars Stanley Hauerwas and Douglas Harink) are helping me see the full implications of the social, and political origins of the early first century church. Knowing that "ekklesia" is derived from the ancient Greek word "polis" which was the town hall meeting and directly relates to our word "politic", hammers the point home even further.
But, if the term the church appropriated from Greco-Roman culture had inherently and unavoidable political denotations as well as connotations, in what way was the church political? It seems that the church was political not in a civic sense, but rather in a communal sense. In other words, the church's aim was not to participate in the politics of the Roman Empire and jockey for position, so that they might lord over people, as the Gentiles did (Christ instructed against that kind of activity; Matthew 20:25-26), but instead they were to form an alternative community with it's own political structure and dynamics patterned after God's Kingdom, rather than the kingdoms and governments of the world.
While Caesar's peace and security is dependent upon war and violence, the church's peace would be dependent upon grace and the non-violent way of Christ, for the Lord said "My kingdom is not of this world, if [it] were... my servant's would fight, so that I would not be delivered to the [Jewish leaders] ; but now My kingdom is not from here," (John 18:36). It is interesting to note that Jesus fell out of favor with the other revolutionaries of his day, because he did not desire to be an imperial Messiah. After feeding about five thousand people, "Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone," (John 16:15). Jesus rejected the power of the world and all the violence that inevitably comes with it. As followers of Christ we are called to be exemplars of true peace in an Orwellian world that says "War is Peace."
While the empire's prosperity means abundant riches for a handful of citizens, as millions languish in poverty, the church is that alternative political/socio-economic system in which the believers share everything in common, sell possessions, goods, land, and/or houses so that there is no one who lacks what they need (Acts 2:44-45, Acts 4:32-35). Jesus said, "in as much as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me," (Matthew 25:40). Jesus identifies "the least" as the hungry, the homeless, the poor, the sick, and the incarcerated. "If Jesus is our model," my good friend Minister Eric Smith likes to say, than we too must enter into solidarity with the least of these. You may happen to fall into this category, which means you are blessed, because our Lord was and is anointed to preach the gospel to you. You are the heart of His ministry and when the church in America once again comes into alignment with Christ's heart in regards to the poor, we will see an outburst of God's kingdom like never before.
Most of all, if the gods of this world are money and power, we must proclaim the true and living God who was revealed through a Galilean peasant named Jesus Christ. He told us that you can not serve God and money, because you will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13). It is only through loving the God of justice and peace above any other god, whose Son "being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." Indeed it was a cross reserved for those who threatened the political status-quo. For the Jewish elites, the death of Christ was a way to maintain what little power they had. For Pontius Pilate, ordering Jesus' execution was simply politics as usual.
I have just presented you with a view of Christ and the call of the church, that may seem radical to you. I believe that once you begin to read the holy text, in a way that is closer to what the early disciples understood, one realizes that this thing called Christianity is radical or if you prefer as I do, revolutionary. But in an age when church has come to symbolize a place where people come to realize their individual potential and the "good news" of the Gospel has been reduced to an optimistic, economic forecast, it is difficult to see the this revolutionary power in the Jesus of the Bible, and the church that He has constituted. Because, the church has become too infected with the individualism and materialism of the larger society, the term "church" itself, may be inadequate for conveying a more politically conscious message.
There are some who are very comfortable mixing church with politics, but they tend to do so in a very narrow and partisan way. The Common Christian Party is not interested in the false dichotomy of Left v. Right, Democrats v. Republicans, and Liberals v. Conservatives. We believe the lens by which we interpret reality, including political matters, should be Jesus and His cross. As finite, infinitely flawed human beings our sight will never be perfect, but wedding yourself to worldly ideologies will ensure that you are half-blind, with a patch over at least one eye. We must engage in a politics that is particular to the way of the Christ.
Perhaps (at least until we regain our Christ-centered political consciousness), we should at certain times refer to our selves as the "Body Politic of Christ", instead of simply the Body of Christ, and "the party," instead of the church. The notion of a body politic is very explicit in it's representation. Party is slightly less so, yet still provides much more clarity in terms of ecclesial politics, than the word church, currently does. When it is not used in a recreational context (e.g. birthday party) or in reference to a person or group, the term party has very strong political connotations and can be defined as a "political group organized to promote and support it's principles and candidates for public office," (dictionary.com). We believe in promoting, supporting, and more importantly living the principles of Jesus Christ, which have profound political implications, and this is why we designate ourselves as a party.
As far as endorsing and funding candidates for public office, on principle we are unable to officially support any political candidate. We have no problem evaluating candidates in light of the values of God's kingdom as we understand them. The reality is, the two dominant parties in this country put critically thinking Christians in a dilemma. Neither has platforms which are adequately conducive to the emerging New Creation (I plan to expound upon this issue in the future). It would be nice to see candidates which reflect a comprehensive Christian position that goes beyond one or two hot button issues (e.g. abortion or healthcare), but in my estimation it would be almost impossible to get elected, because of the degree of truth-telling that would be required. But, we do believe in a God of the impossible.
Before closing I wanted to draw your attention back to that word party. As noted, the term can be defined in a variety of ways. There is one other definition that we think is appropriate for our usage. In addition to being a politically oriented group of Christians, it would be quite acceptable, to also think about us as Christians who celebrate and have fun. Granted we are somewhat like nerds and writing this stuff is fun for us, but we also like to enjoy life in a number of ways. To be "saved" in orthodox Christian teaching is to have true life; it is to be liberated spiritually, mentally, economically and politically, in part now and in greater measure tomorrow on one side of the grave or the other. That's something to celebrate every chance we get. Join the party!
This reality of the Kingdom of Heaven down here, is best evidenced when the people of God, the church, live according to the divine will of the Father, loving and worshiping Him alone and loving each other as Christ loves. This love is not restricted to "members" of the church however, because the second of the greatest commandments is to love our neighbors as ourselves, even if our neighbor happens to be our enemy. This is a very tall order, yet only when we live up to these duties of citizenship in God's Kingdom, do we truly see and experience the New Creation. It is this understanding that we are citizen's of a Kingdom not of this world that leads us to a very biblical, yet strangely and unfortunately rather obscure, understanding of the church's political role in society.
Anthony has been a big fan of a theologian named John Howard Yoder for more than a few years now. I have been reluctant to really grapple with Yoder's theological insights, but my spiritual journey and fellowship with Anthony has made it impossible for me to not explore the revelatory perspectives that Yoder offers. I did not learn that the Greek term for church, "ekklesia" referred to a political assembly of citizens gathered to do the city's business from Yoder, but he (along with those who study his writing such as scholars Stanley Hauerwas and Douglas Harink) are helping me see the full implications of the social, and political origins of the early first century church. Knowing that "ekklesia" is derived from the ancient Greek word "polis" which was the town hall meeting and directly relates to our word "politic", hammers the point home even further.
But, if the term the church appropriated from Greco-Roman culture had inherently and unavoidable political denotations as well as connotations, in what way was the church political? It seems that the church was political not in a civic sense, but rather in a communal sense. In other words, the church's aim was not to participate in the politics of the Roman Empire and jockey for position, so that they might lord over people, as the Gentiles did (Christ instructed against that kind of activity; Matthew 20:25-26), but instead they were to form an alternative community with it's own political structure and dynamics patterned after God's Kingdom, rather than the kingdoms and governments of the world.
While Caesar's peace and security is dependent upon war and violence, the church's peace would be dependent upon grace and the non-violent way of Christ, for the Lord said "My kingdom is not of this world, if [it] were... my servant's would fight, so that I would not be delivered to the [Jewish leaders] ; but now My kingdom is not from here," (John 18:36). It is interesting to note that Jesus fell out of favor with the other revolutionaries of his day, because he did not desire to be an imperial Messiah. After feeding about five thousand people, "Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone," (John 16:15). Jesus rejected the power of the world and all the violence that inevitably comes with it. As followers of Christ we are called to be exemplars of true peace in an Orwellian world that says "War is Peace."
While the empire's prosperity means abundant riches for a handful of citizens, as millions languish in poverty, the church is that alternative political/socio-economic system in which the believers share everything in common, sell possessions, goods, land, and/or houses so that there is no one who lacks what they need (Acts 2:44-45, Acts 4:32-35). Jesus said, "in as much as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me," (Matthew 25:40). Jesus identifies "the least" as the hungry, the homeless, the poor, the sick, and the incarcerated. "If Jesus is our model," my good friend Minister Eric Smith likes to say, than we too must enter into solidarity with the least of these. You may happen to fall into this category, which means you are blessed, because our Lord was and is anointed to preach the gospel to you. You are the heart of His ministry and when the church in America once again comes into alignment with Christ's heart in regards to the poor, we will see an outburst of God's kingdom like never before.
Most of all, if the gods of this world are money and power, we must proclaim the true and living God who was revealed through a Galilean peasant named Jesus Christ. He told us that you can not serve God and money, because you will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13). It is only through loving the God of justice and peace above any other god, whose Son "being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." Indeed it was a cross reserved for those who threatened the political status-quo. For the Jewish elites, the death of Christ was a way to maintain what little power they had. For Pontius Pilate, ordering Jesus' execution was simply politics as usual.
I have just presented you with a view of Christ and the call of the church, that may seem radical to you. I believe that once you begin to read the holy text, in a way that is closer to what the early disciples understood, one realizes that this thing called Christianity is radical or if you prefer as I do, revolutionary. But in an age when church has come to symbolize a place where people come to realize their individual potential and the "good news" of the Gospel has been reduced to an optimistic, economic forecast, it is difficult to see the this revolutionary power in the Jesus of the Bible, and the church that He has constituted. Because, the church has become too infected with the individualism and materialism of the larger society, the term "church" itself, may be inadequate for conveying a more politically conscious message.
There are some who are very comfortable mixing church with politics, but they tend to do so in a very narrow and partisan way. The Common Christian Party is not interested in the false dichotomy of Left v. Right, Democrats v. Republicans, and Liberals v. Conservatives. We believe the lens by which we interpret reality, including political matters, should be Jesus and His cross. As finite, infinitely flawed human beings our sight will never be perfect, but wedding yourself to worldly ideologies will ensure that you are half-blind, with a patch over at least one eye. We must engage in a politics that is particular to the way of the Christ.
Perhaps (at least until we regain our Christ-centered political consciousness), we should at certain times refer to our selves as the "Body Politic of Christ", instead of simply the Body of Christ, and "the party," instead of the church. The notion of a body politic is very explicit in it's representation. Party is slightly less so, yet still provides much more clarity in terms of ecclesial politics, than the word church, currently does. When it is not used in a recreational context (e.g. birthday party) or in reference to a person or group, the term party has very strong political connotations and can be defined as a "political group organized to promote and support it's principles and candidates for public office," (dictionary.com). We believe in promoting, supporting, and more importantly living the principles of Jesus Christ, which have profound political implications, and this is why we designate ourselves as a party.
As far as endorsing and funding candidates for public office, on principle we are unable to officially support any political candidate. We have no problem evaluating candidates in light of the values of God's kingdom as we understand them. The reality is, the two dominant parties in this country put critically thinking Christians in a dilemma. Neither has platforms which are adequately conducive to the emerging New Creation (I plan to expound upon this issue in the future). It would be nice to see candidates which reflect a comprehensive Christian position that goes beyond one or two hot button issues (e.g. abortion or healthcare), but in my estimation it would be almost impossible to get elected, because of the degree of truth-telling that would be required. But, we do believe in a God of the impossible.
Before closing I wanted to draw your attention back to that word party. As noted, the term can be defined in a variety of ways. There is one other definition that we think is appropriate for our usage. In addition to being a politically oriented group of Christians, it would be quite acceptable, to also think about us as Christians who celebrate and have fun. Granted we are somewhat like nerds and writing this stuff is fun for us, but we also like to enjoy life in a number of ways. To be "saved" in orthodox Christian teaching is to have true life; it is to be liberated spiritually, mentally, economically and politically, in part now and in greater measure tomorrow on one side of the grave or the other. That's something to celebrate every chance we get. Join the party!
posted by R.G. at 2:07 PM
3 Comments:
Sign me up! This all resonates with me at a very deep level. I will be checking back to see how things develop. All the best.
This is cool, Rod. Thanks for describing what you all are up to.
I would like to become a part of this discussion; where do I sign on?
Post a Comment
<< Home