August 20, 2013

Jesus' Activism Example is Quite Relevant Today

A lot of Christians have been taught to believe that it is "more spiritual" to avoid engaging in political issues altogether. On a very basic level, however, this opinion runs contrary to what scripture teaches. Christians are specifically called to be salt and light in an increasingly corrupt and dark world (Matthew 5.13-16), and the implication is that we are to have a positive influence on the society around us. Jesus, as I'll show, was highly involved in political issues in his day. And we have a lot to learn by his examples.

Many people don't even notice Christians today because we tend to blend right in with the scenery, not making a peep regarding extreme corruption, torture, indefinite imprisonment without a trial, the remote control bombing of non-combatant civilians, and so on. This is perhaps one of the main reasons that the Church is often seen as fairly irrelevant today in society. Don't get me wrong, I understand the main reason Christ came was to bring salvation to the lost. However, if you look at the effects of Jesus' life on society, you'll note that women became more respected, marriage was elevated and became more honored, the poor and the sick became viewed as valuable human beings, and so on. All of these changes came to pass because Jesus was not afraid to question social norms and status-quo political activities.


And when I refer to political activity, I don't mean mindlessly cheering for neoconservatives and
status- quo Republicans who support torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial, and so on. No, I am simply using the word activism in a broad sense, in simply acknowledging that Christians are to be involved in society and have compassion for others in society, not just people in their local church.

Many pastors teach that we are to submit to the government without question because of Romans 13, so long as we are not personally called to break any biblical laws. This is a very self-centered view of society in which corruption must be at your doorstep and in your face before you will consider taking a stand for truth and justice. This is not the example Jesus offered in scripture, who went out into society and became a positive influence wherever he was engaged.

Both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., two incredibly influential activists, attributed their effectiveness as activists to the teachings of Christ. Were they off? Or were they operating in according with the actual teachings of Christ? I would offer that their activism was in keeping with both the letter and the tone of Jesus' teachings. Jesus often took a stand in the name of truth and justice, despite the fact that this put him on the blacklist of the governing body.

The church today is encumbered by preconceptions about political issues, such as "the separation of church and state" and the desire to maintain tax exempt status. In this respect, we are following the government more than Christ, even though our collective conscience may be telling us that things such as political torture and pre-flight molestations at TSA screenings are not quite right. You may attend church regularly, but how does your affiliation with church really effect your ability to be salt and light in the world? Are you being conditioned to stand up for truth as you are taught in your church? Or are you being more strongly conditioned by society to follow the government and its standards without question? I see more of the latter today, by far.

The Apostle Paul stood up for truth in a political context.

Paul stated, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."  (1 Corinthians 11:1) And Acts 16.37 describes an incident when Paul was illegally imprisoned and the officials wanted to pass it off quietly and forget about it. And what was Paul's response?

"But Paul said to the officers: 'They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out.'" (NIV)

Paul was not afraid to engage in matters of political justice. Because Romans 13 is so often used as an excuse, let's consider what it says. Romans 13. 1 states, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." A lot of Christians believe that, because of this verse, they can pass the buck, so to speak, and abrogate their own personal moral responsibility simply because we are to be "subject to" governmental authorities. But, obviously, Paul was not just following along with whatever he was told by the government. Paul was guided by his conscience and the Spirit to be salt and light in that situation. The key is to differentiate between the position of authority and the laws and commands representative of that position. It is possible to respect a person while at the same time disagreeing with him or her. So often, however, pastors and Christians in general do not make this differentiation, but simply use Romans 13 as a cop out.

It's possible to respect the position while apposing the principle.

This principle was demonstrated by Christ, who was the prophesied King of Israel. When he was questioned by the chief priest at his trial, Jesus spoke with respect to the priest. But Jesus' accusers were offended because they had no valid reply. The officer unjustly slapped Jesus at this point: "When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. 'Is this the way you answer the high priest?' he demanded." (John 18.22 NIV)

People can get very frustrated and angry when they don't have a valid reply. If you don't believe me, check some of the secular atheist responses to my questions, such as is the case with P.Z. Meyers and Stephen Law. When a person starts getting upset and name calling in response to a simple question, that's a sign of frustration.

Another example that Christians often use as an excuse for not talking about political issues is Matthew 22, the time when Jesus was questioned regarding paying taxes to Rome, specifically Caesar: "So tell us what you think. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar? Yes or no?" This little episode is described in Matthew 22:17-22 (ERV).

Jesus offered the famous reply, "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. And give to God the things that are God's." In this case, Jesus did not offer any protest or resentment regarding paying taxes, even though he had opportunity to bring it up any possible reasons. Based on this verse, many Christians will state things like, "Jesus always avoided politics, Jesus never opposed Rome, Jesus followed the separation of church and state..." and so on.

However, when you consider the sum of Jesus' life, Jesus' engagements with the government of Rome were very brief in comparison with his engagements with the governing authorities of Israel. Though subservient to Rome, and though also religiously affiliated, the Jews had retained their own functioning political system. During his trial Jesus was passive, accepting his destiny to be crucified. During his teaching ministry, however, Jesus was frequently engaged in a confrontation with the immediate political leaders of his community, the Sanhedrin.

When Jesus turned the tables, he was confronting political and spiritual leaders.

Most Christians are familiar with the account of Jesus turning the tables in the Temple. Obviously, this was not a legally sanctioned act. It was quite illegal and extremely offensive to the Sanhedrin who received a cut of the profits from the moneychangers and sometimes held their meetings in the Royal Stoa close by. The Encyclopedia Urantia website describes the occasional Sanhedrin meeting near the moneychangers:

"At this time the Sanhedrin itself held its regular meetings in a chamber surrounded by all this babble and confusion of trade and barter."

Jesus stood up for truth and justice, which got him in trouble with corrupt officials.

Jesus did not call for an armed insurrection against Rome, something that the Jews had hoped their "real" messiah would do. No, Jesus operated on a day to day basis in the community standing for truth and justice wherever he went. Nonetheless, Jesus was in some ways a serious threat to the political establishment of Rome because he refused to bow to and worship the system and the Caesar that led it (something that would get countless Christians martyred). And Jesus also upended the social order by honoring the poor with equal respect, honoring women, marriage, and so on.

Sam Schnake's blog offers an example of the kind of social activism Jesus promoted: "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:12-14).

That was a very radical message at that time. The Jews then believed lepers and sick people were cursed of God due to a problem of sin somewhere in the family line. Unlike Jesus, today, the Church tends to follow along with the status quo patterns of society.

Sadly, cable TV is the main social influence in many Christian's lives. And many of the ideas in the news and in programs are not questioned. I've met Christian leaders, for example, who believe that waterboarding is perfectly acceptable if the government decides it is necessary. When pushed for justification, the Christian leader brought up Romans 13 as a justification for his ethical opinion. I've already addressed that problem. Jesus did not take anything or anyone for granted, but compared all things to the eternal principles established and presented in scripture.

Jesus constantly upset the status quo. He did not just accept ideas because political leaders or religious leaders made claims. He did not follow status-quo patterns. He associated with lepers, prostitutes and other untouchables.

Jesus eschewed the typical opinions and patterns of the status quo system.

Tired of having their corruption pointed out and their profits decreased, the political leaders of Israel had it in for Jesus. Jesus was officially sentenced to a criminal's death by Jews prior to the official sentence of death administered by the Romans. The Sanhedrin ruled over both spiritual and political decisions. In handing Jesus over to Pontius Pilat, the Sanhedrin stated the following:

"'If he were not a criminal, 'they replied, 'we would not have handed him over to you.' Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.'" (John 18.30-31 NIV) Also, a verse about  mentions both the "court" and the "offers" of the Sanhedrin political system:

"But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end." (KJV)

Wikipedia outlines the dual spiritual and political nature of the Sanhedrin: "By the end of the Second Temple period, the Sanhedrin reached its pinnacle of importance, legislating all aspects of Jewish religious and political life within the parameters laid down by Biblical and Rabbinic tradition." Wikipedia also notes the presence of the Sanhedrin at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. This chapter is usually entitled, "Stephen’s Speech to the Sanhedrin"

At the final stage of his earthly life Jesus did not talk back to or resist the authorities because he knew that all things must be fulfilled in his unjust trial and crucifixion. However, prior to this time, there are many instances where Jesus did not just follow along with whatever the authorities wanted, as would have been the case if the popular interpretation of Romans 13 is true.

A recent email update from Chuck Missler included the following statement by Thomas DeMont:

"The truth is that the leadership of the church must take a stand and change first. Where were all the pastors in Germany during the systematic gathering and slaughtering of Jews? Where do our pastors stand today? My prayer is that many voices will cry out of the wilderness and not worry about offending others or being politically correct."

As the church, we embrace timeless principles of justice and morality. This is not something to be embarrassed about, but something to embrace with confidence. Truth can be disseminated in a spirit of love and compassion to a world so in need of a moral wake up call. The fact is, the secular atheists who promote moral relativism do not have logical arguments to support their moral positions. But we o have strong logical arguments in favor of Christian ethics.

Today, Christians are dominating in global debates on philosophical questions of ethics and justice. So why does the Church seem afraid to speak up and take a stand on the issues?

Peter Singer, the leading ethicist at Princeton, employs flawed logic in attempting to prop up his extremist secular moral views. The work of Sam Harris, another leader in the realm of secular ethics, has been ripped apart by both Christians and secularists. The Christian apologist William Lane Craig, however, does quite well in defending objective Christian ethics against secularists, to the point where top academic secularists shun the thought of debating him publicly and being exposed for embracing illogical and untenable propositions. Instead of hiding our truth and light, we as Christians should be able to stand for it today now more than ever with the assistance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The first step for many may be to turn the cable TV off for a little while and take a deep breath. It may come as a shock to many, but cable TV news and programming does not actually represent a lot of the important issues in society. Because the Millennial Generation is Internet savvy, I believe they are disenchanted with pastors and churches who seem to be clueless about alternative news and seem to be living in a bubble of insulation from the nitty-gritty reality of what is going on today. The first step towards being involved in society is a sincere willingness to be aware of what is going on in society.

Tags: Jesus as activist, why the church is not seen as relevant today, taking a stand for truth, the last days Church

8 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Thanks! I'm glad someone got something out of it. (:

      Delete
  2. In what sense of the word is christian morality "objective"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As William Lane Craig teaches, morality is ultimately based on God's existence. Secular atheists, such as those promoting Rand's Objectivism, begin with a false dichotomy, or at least one that presupposes materialist atheism. They begin by stating there must be a primacy of existence or a primacy of consciousness. In the case of the God of scripture, God is both eternally conscious and eternally existent, so there is no dichotomy in God. And because God exists eternally, and morality is based on God's good nature, then morality has an objective basis.

      Delete
    2. "Rand's Objectivism, begin with a false dichotomy, or at least one that presupposes materialist atheism. "



      I don't see objectivists presupposing materialist atheism. The kind of end up there anyway more as a collateral consequence of other presuppositions of theirs, namely identity is existence as they say. That A is A. They are not going to waste any time on anti concepts that can only be described in terms of negatives.


      "God is both eternally conscious and eternally existent"


      Well if god is conscious it goes without saying that he exists but this does not address the question posed by the objectivists nor myself. Consciousness is not an entity onto itself, it is something an entity does, namely conscious ones. It is a process, an action, it has intend and it has content. So we can say for the sake of argument that god is eternal and as a consequence has an eternal consciousness. This however says nothing about god's relationship with the objects of his consciousness. What is the relationship between his own awareness and everything apart from himself that he is aware of. Is it objective or subjective. If it is subjective how can anything anywhere including morality ever be truly said to objective?

      Delete
    3. >They are not going to waste any time on anti concepts that can only be described in terms of negatives.

      - Rand did offer a concept antithetical to hers, though it is not describes "in term of negatives."

      There are a number of quotes under this heading:

      Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

      http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/primacy_of_existence_vs_primacy_of_consciousness.html

      The paragraph sentence proposes a "maxim" that is loaded with atheistic philosophical presuppositions.

      "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity."

      The statement "existence exists" is false. Existence does not "exist." Things exist. But existence is simply an abstract concept.

      The second point is a bald assertion, i.e., because things have identities then they exist independent of any consciousness.

      And, supposedly, If I reject the primacy of existence as a philosophical maxim then Rand states the following:

      "The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness..."

      No it does not. I ascribe to neither independently as holding metaphysical primacy. As a theist, I understand that God is eternally existent and eternally conscious. God's existence is absolute reality, not the existence of existence. And Rand has offered no basis for me to reconsider my position.

      The universe is not necessarily all existence, as Rand implies in her quotes. She conflates the two as though she has already somehow demonstrated that God does not exist. She has not. She is merely offering her own presuppositions as so-called "maxims" with no philosophical logical arguments beneath them.

      In reality, maxims are principles that are beyond question and readily assumed. Rand hasn't arrived there. All she does is propose a straw-man alternative to her favored choice. Most serious philosophers consider Rand a hack. It's not hard to see why. It's pretty amazing that she still has so many devout followers today who attempt to defend her theories, and with little success.

      When asked some hard questions, her followers seem to digress to regurgitating Rand quotes that don't really address underlying problems and questions.




      Delete
    4. >What is the relationship between his own awareness and everything apart from himself that he is aware of. Is it objective or subjective. If it is subjective how can anything anywhere including morality ever be truly said to objective?

      - You have touched upon a subject that Randians have a bit of trouble with, that is, the distinctions between a person's nature and consciousness. In human terms, Rand believed the mind and body are one and the same, as noted, "You are an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness."

      http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/soul-body_dichotomy.html

      In one of my articles I offered two separate peer reviewed and documented cases where people left their bodies during medical work in a hospital and viewed the work from a perspective outside of their bodies. There is no accounting as to how it was physically possible for these patients to describe in detail what they saw and heard from the perspective they had while their bodies were either unconscious or sensory deprived. The links to the peer reviewed articles are at this link:

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

      Getting back to your question, why do you assume that their is no distinction between God's timeless eternal nature and God's active consciousness?

      If morality is based ultimately on a standard of God's eternal, unchanging good nature then it is not subjective and there is no necessity for a primacy of consciousness with regard to morality.

      Delete
  3. ah, sorry I typed this in a hurry at work today and see that I made some mistakes. I meant to say "they" not "the" when discussing objectivists in reference to their presuppositions. Later I described consciousness has having intend and content. That was meant to be it has intent and content. Sorry for any confusion.

    ReplyDelete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!