Christology and Politics

There are those in America who support the separation of church and state; there are those who don't care too much as long as they are left alone to their own business; and then there are those who radically believe that religion and the state should not be distinguished as two separate entities (though perhaps in a rather naive sort of way). Christians fall all along this spectrum holding onto varying values inherent within the confines of the meaning illicited by the term "Christian." Some hold on to biblical inerrancy (though perhaps this too does not grasp the historical ambiguity that this phrase has drawn in the past century and a half); some perhaps value the individual family unit characteristic of the late 19th century and early 20th; some may value the example of Jesus' life as recorded in the gospel narratives. Behind the "Christian" values that a person holds, these values originate from the interplay of individual experience, the gospel narratives, and an interpreted christology that comes out of this interplay. Because the religion of the Christianity centers around the person and work of Jesus who is considered the Christ, then the Christ becomes the criterion for normative action. But how does any particular Christian view Jesus as Christ? Not in the same way for sure due to the plurality of individual experience and the interpretation of the gospel. For many the Christ could be atoning figure who makes the ultimate sacrifice fulfilling a messianic function and allowing all humanity the possibility of escaping sure death. This is perhaps well documented and argued. There may be others who interpret the Christ-figure to be merely an ethical example for all of human-kind -- more of a Buddha figure, which inherently lends Jesus' actions before his death as significant, though perhaps not his actions afterward. Depending upon a Christian's christological understanding of Jesus, their values may shift. Again, some may, within their interpretation of Scripture and in their personal experience understand violence to be a necessary maneuver in counteracting evil. And on the other hand there are others who find backing for pacifism within Scripture and in their personal experience. Is either one right or wrong? For the Christian to do christology, he or she must ask how Jesus fits the role as Christ and what that means within the biblical narrative. Within the narrative the atoning work of Jesus is surrounded by a particular environment at a specific time in history within a particular governing structure. This last comment is important for those taking the gospel seriously. Looking at Jesus' life as a whole, he was never truly politically successful while he was alive in terms of Roman governance. Jesus' ways were not the ways of Pax Romana as is evident in his confrontation with Pilate and (flawed trial). His ways were not the ways of the world. Everything Jesus did worked against him from the very beginning until eventually he met his demise. Jesus as the Christ was not a figure who had material wealth, who aligned himself with the government of the time, who befriended the prestigious. The Christ that Christians proclaim was on the road to the cross his whole life. To live according to a politics that is not the politics of the day (in this case that of the Pax Romana) is to invite violence and suffering into one's life. Does Jesus fight the world as other Jews envisioned the Messiah to do? Jesus does not go into battle, he merely goes to the cross. Whether a person's christology involves a purely ethical Jesus or salvific Jesus or Jesus as Son of God, the highly political nature of Jesus' life and ministry cannot be ignored. The Christian Right has it right in this regard! There is no separating the church and politics for Christians. Karl Barth wisely put that one should read Scripture in one hand and the Newspaper in the other. For a Christian merely to ignore the politics in their own country is, I would suggest, to misread Scripture. I am not a proponent of the Christian right recognizing its many flawed actions and naivete in politics, though I wanted to point out that it does recognize this connection. Contingent upon one's christological interpretation is one's interpretation of the church and its function. And the function of the church, as the body of Christ, is to act as the actual body of Christ, doing the will of Christ on earth. What is known of the will of the Christ is witnessed in Scripture and their to be interpreted -- upbuilding of the community, spread of the message of Christ, social justice, aid to those in need. In these interpretations I find it hard to locate the calling for violence in the Christian life. In my own exegesis, what stands out as being Christian (but not solely a Christian notion), what stands out in my christological interpretation of the biblical narrative and my own personal experience is the notion of agape -- not just in the sense of a pure love, but a pure love that exists to build up positive relationships between people and people, people and nature, people and God, God and nature...thus my criterion for normative action derived from exegesis, experience, study, etc is asking whether or not what I do contributes positively to relationships -- not a positivistic notion or utilitarian slanted standard. The Christ died for us means that the Christ died to save us from a broken relationship with God once divided by "sin" (to use another loaded term). To the non-Christian, perhaps one can gain a bit of a sociological or anthropological insight into the ambiguous and plural religion that the Christian holds to. To the Christian, perhaps doing Christology can help render normative guidelines that might be helpful in life and in the political sphere in which one lives.