Good Citizens?

Maybe I am too naive, but I think that the message of Jesus was deeply subversive. That it was not something people had heard or necessarily thought before in the way Jesus presented it, so therefore, it caused at first minor ripples, which turned into massive waves, crushing the messenger, i.e. Jesus himself. Jesus' own family saw something about his message which was subversive, and attempted to distract him from proclaiming the kingdom. His mother probably was saying, "Jesus, you are creating discomfort for the leaders, you are going to get in trouble for saying what you are saying, so be a "good" citizen and stop!" (Of course this is my translation). The amazing part of Jesus' message was that he was attempting to offer mercy and forgiveness to an entire nation of people, which would in turn offer mercy and forgiveness to the entire Cosmos in his name. How is that not being a "good" citizen?
This is the reason that theologians such as N.T. Wright are so popular, not because every 'jot and tittle' of their theology is without criticism, but because they present Jesus' message within the context of 1st century Judaism where it belongs. This enhances our understanding of Jesus' resurrection as his defeat of sin and death. If we only read our worldview, i.e. Western culture, division of church and state, Deism, materialism, consumerism into our understanding of Jesus, we have made Jesus into our own IMAGE. That is serious, because we will end up losing out on the incredible offer of participation with the God who cares deeply for all things in this world.
We will limit God to only being able to work within our thoughts and culture. Jesus' proclamation was not accepted in his day as it not in our day, because I suspect that it was thought of as weakness. At least the apostle Paul thought that it was weakness. That weakness was what would have saved an entire nation from possible destruction. (Matthew 5) Does it make a difference today? Why are we afraid of weakness? If we deny our weaknesses, insecurities, fears, we will only rely on violence to bring what we think is peace. That is what Rome was. We have to remember that if we rely on violence, the stronger will always defeat the strong in the paradigm of violence. I think that Jesus thought that violence never defeats the violent. He thought that the cross defeats the manifestation of evil, which is violence.

Too many Assumptions

My mother had become a Christian in 1977 as part of the tail-end of the Jesus Movement, in which numerous people had become Christians, but I am yet to hear anyone ask the question, "Why did so many people become Christians in the 60's and 70's?" There was a movement of God, I don't know many who deny that, but why? It could be that the '60's started a Revolution against the system, which will naturally causes people to start asking questions about what had been assumed for so long; mainly in reference to the structures of organized religion. Many would say, "We were not angry at people, we were frustrated with the abuse of authority, and the fact that the Church in the U.S. overall was not that accepting of people that were not white."
The Jesus Movement could have been preparing people for the 80's and the growth of the U.S. economy. Maybe God was preparing a generation of people who would not allow the rise of wealth, the War on Drugs (as Nancy Reagan named it), and an overall disdain for anything that prohibited rampant globalization, from interfering with God's concern for those to whom our policies directly and indirectly affect. Did Christians do these things?
I have seen the second generation of Christians more socially astute than the first generation after the Jesus Movement, so maybe these things take time. I believe that when God moves in miraculous ways, we as people are called to respond. We initiate action, we become concerned for the renewal of all things, because we believe that if Jesus is Lord, then everything is under his dominion. We also do not simply assume that the way the system operates, is the way God wants it to operate. We participate with Christ in reconciling everything into the kingdom of God. If we need to reconcile, then that means it is not already there.
I heard a quote about Jerry Falwell when he first became a Christian in 1952. He said, "And my heart burned inside me for Jesus Christ and I knew life would never be the same." Although he may have done some good things, his theology shaped what he believed. He was a product of his environment, the segregated '50's, and he opposed integration in the '60's, because he thought, "If it is operating this way, then it must be what God wants." Obviously it wasn't.

Politics, why do I need to choose a side?

So, in the past few weeks a few different people, not to "name names", have labeled me with the political title of "liberal", and some have even gone so far as to ask, "Why are you for socialism?" I have never advocated for socialism or liberalism, yet I also do not advocate for conservatism, or unchecked capitalism. I think that each system has its place within the sphere of this nations politics.
Capitalism can function well, but with the massive amounts of wealth available through capitalism, some people and nations will sink into deeper debt, creating horrendous environments of child labor, war, and greed, with greed then recreating the cycle. Sometimes we may not see it, but it does not mean that it doesn't exist. As Christians we need to understand the structures so that we can work within the systems themselves to bring hope in a holistic manner.
There was an amazing quote in a book I read by Walter Wink called "The Powers that Be". He details how everything we do is spiritual. He does not work from the standpoint of dualism, where spiritual realities are within the structures of religion and physical realities in the structures of the world, but links them through his study of scripture. His experience also came from working with Latin American countries, in attempting to overcome some of the poverty which has plagued those nations. The quote was, "A corporation exists for the general welfare of society and the means to provide for that society is the wealth of the corporation." "If a corporation makes wealth the ends and not the means, then the corporation has the right to cease to exist." The problem has to do with consumerism. As consumers we are trained to buy, and buy, and buy some more. This creates habits, because we are shaped by our environments, therefore, before we know what to do, we no longer think for ourselves, "our imaginations have been captured", by corporate America.
I believe that a country driven by consumer practices can never simply maintain its economic productivity, it has to continually grow its economic productivity outwards. The McWorld is at our fingertips, literally.
I just spoke with a friend who lives in France and he said that there is a huge split between the private sphere and public sphere of humans lives. This split can make dialogue very difficult, because people will not want anyone to infringe on their space. Not that we should, although I have been known to do that sometimes. :) Therefore, we as Christians should connect people with something so that they can participate in the kingdom of God, which will allow all of us in small ways to renew God's creation.

The Next Step?

I was having a conversation with someone concerning incarceration, because they were asked at a jury selection whether they thought it was better to incarcerate someone in prison who was innocent or let someone go who was guilty? Coming up with an answer to that question by itself is non-sensical, because it presupposes that the system itself is hugely flawed. If the criminal justice system asks that question, then it already understands itself to be flawed, because it assumes that locking up innocent people happens. When a society has already incarcerated the "poor" into ghettos and projects, what is the big deal with locking them in prisons? This is only the next logical step in dealing with those who look differently than the people in power. Many who work within the system think, "Well, people we lock up have probably committed crimes they got away with, so justice is 'simply catching up with them."' Most of those incarcerated today are for "drug offenses", which contribute to violent crime, but in reality are criminalizing addictions. I agree with the criminal justice system in order to prevent the violent from preying on those who are weak. The problem becomes when the weak are the ones being incarcerated. I am not saying that there is an easy answer, which is the problem with modernity in the first place in that there is the unified science of rationalism to provide for answers to all the questions. When something appears outside of the scope of this paradigm, we have put it "out of sight and out of mind", refusing to address it or even look at it. Tell me from this picture, where is hope to be found? Reconciliation is hard work, but above the hard work, it takes time, patience, and love. I think if the apostle Paul were alive today, he would use those three words instead of "faith and hope", because "time and patience", is the result of faith and hope. Reconciliation also does not involve me coming to another and telling them that everything will be alright, because in a lot of situations, it won't be. N.T. Wright has written a blog entry for the Washington Post/On Faith section which can be accessed through my blog, read his post entitled, "Start by understanding salvation", in which he fuses faith and works; i.e. grace is about the outworking of faith to produce followers of Jesus.

"A Nation" or just nationalism, rewrapped?

So, I have not posted in a week. That seems a long time for me not to say what it is that I think. :)
Last week I did a paper on a topic that was interesting to me and something I have not studied at all. It was from the book of I Peter and involved what the death of Jesus meant in that book. Meaning, how did Peter interpret the death of Jesus for his audience, which were the Diaspora Gentiles living in various parts of the Mediterranean world. I came across a passage which made me start thinking about who the 'people of God' are and what these people do.
The language which the author uses illustrates that he believed the 'people of God' were designed as a 'new temple', using language such as "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation." (I Peter 2:9)
I was struck because we as the 'ekklesia', the church are 'a nation of priests, chosen by God.' I know this is a very Evangelical blog post for me, but this changed something about what we are called to do. This makes me more aware of the continuation of the story of Israel, brought to life in Christ, proclaimed to the world. That seems like "good news" to me.
I have often wondered if the message of the church is "good news" to those that are living in poverty, brokenness, abandonment, etc...because how does the gospel bring people into a "new community" where we can experience health, healing, liberation, and also are taught that we can "suffer" with people to bring above mentioned reconciliation.
I think that living as "a nation", which is defined by Peter as "a spiritual nation", and if you know me I struggle with the way we in the Western Church have defined that word, "spiritual"; but I believe that Peter did not think of it as something which did not possess physical characteristics, but only meta-physical or invisible qualities. Anyways, the "good news" of the gospel is that we can live as individuals in the midst of communities; sharing, laughing, crying, loving, and desiring to "know and be known."
Thanks for the time, I now have to write an 18 page paper by tomorrow. :)