What does John 13:35 say to the Christian Right?

[micatala]

I have been reading a book entitled "I was just wondering" by Philip Yancey, who has written several books from a conservative but somewhat iconoclastic Christian viewpoint, including "The Jesus I never knew."

In the book I am reading, he writes the following passage.

. . . I am not calling for an ostrich-like stance of hiding from the issues that confront Christians in a secular society. They must be face, and addressed, and legislated. But Paul's words continue to haunt me: If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, and have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, but have not love, I am nothing. Somehow - unless our power is to corrode like that of the well-intentioned religious leaders who preceded us - we must approach power with humility, and fear, and a consuming love for those we will exercise it over.

Jesus did not say, "All men will know you are my disciples . . . if you just pass laws, quash immorality, and resotre decency to family and government, " but rather " . . . if you love one another" (John 13:35).

Yancey notes further that at the moment of his death, according to Christian theology, Jesus chose a path of "deliberate powerlessness." In Yancey's view, he did this because the one thing power is unable to do is the most important thing to be done in God's mind, and that is to engender love. Love cannot be forced, but only given.

Since God is most interested in our love, he is least interested in showing his power.



So, the questions for debate are:

1. Is Yancey's analysis good Christian theology? Why or why not?

2. If Yancey is correct, what does this say about current political activities of Christians in the U.S.?

3. To the extent that some Christians might be engaging in political activity 'without love' and counter to God's purpose, how might they correct this? Is it possible for Christians to engage in exercising political power and act in love?

4. In particular, concerning some of the current hot button issues, can Christians engage in constructive political engagement on issues like abortion, homosexualtiy, world peace/terrorism, women's rights, etc. and still maintain committment to "loving one another"? If so how? What would this look like and how would it be different from what is happening now?

[Alamanach]

Interesting. But before we go on, am I correct in interpreting your view here that if you do take up a cause, it is because you can identify directly with that cause, and have a strong emotional attachment to it?

Not quite. It's because that cause has entered my life in some real way, that it is not an abstraction, but that it is materially affecting me, or someone I know, or someone I've just met, or someone that I'm suddenly in a position to help. I guess what I'm saying is that we help people, not causes. The cause is just the backstory, and it's often irrelevant; my job is to aid the person or people who are being affected by it and who are within my sphere of influence.

But I don't advocate adjusting that sphere of influence specifically so that I can get mixed up in such-and-such cause. My goal, my only goal, should be to do what's right, here and now. All the rest is window dressing.

My view is that individual contributions to such large-scale political issues should be weighted from an objective standpoint, but also with an eye to ability. For example: the Madison Christian Community (the first link I posted) does environmental advocacy, but they also do social work that is more local and immediate. Likewise, the Madison Mennonite Church (the second link) does (or did, last time I attended) prioritise local charities before its secondary big-name Causes and Projects. Giving to the one does not necessarily exclude giving to the other.

(That's swell, but who do they love?)

I can see how the Israeli/Palestinian conflict might seem distant to you, but where would you draw the line between what 'affects' you and what doesn't? Given that U.S. foreign policy right now has its fingers firmly on the pulse of Israel, one could rationally make the argument that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict could have very real consequences for U.S. citizens.

I should point out that I do hold opinions on that conflict. Should circumstances ever call them out, I'll be acting on those opinions. That action might be a simple vote cast at a ballot box. Or who knows, I may get mixed up with some commando and find myself deep behind enemy lines with a Uzi in my hands. But I've yet to have any legitimate opportunity to act on those opinions in any way great or small.

Well, I'd imagine that if you're just a street preacher with twelve hangers-on and a reputation for speech that doesn't make friends of the authorities, it's not very likely that you'll have the political leverage to have to organise action committees or outreach programmes or seminars. As such, I'm not quite sure what point it is that you're trying to make.

It seems you and I see Jesus very differently. Seeing as how he's 2000 years gone, I doubt we'll have enough evidence to resolve our different interpretations.

[Nucc]

Sadly I think modern relativists want to sweep this God under the table and falsely form ONLY a gentler more peaceable, smiley face God. However, for objective observers of Scripture that God is just NOT IN THE BIBLE. There are times that God DOES GET ANGRY and RIGHTLY SO.

Indeed. In fact, I pointed some of the few places where Jesus does get angry. But notice that the objects of his anger are never the sinful, the outcast or the downtrodden. One observes that the objects of his anger are the scribes and the Pharisees and the racketeers, who subscribe to a legalistic, mechanistic view of Scripture and the Law and whose closest equivalents today would be the authority figures of the religious right.

One merely has to look at the actions and words of such people as Ted Haggard to get some idea of what Jesus meant when he referred to 'white-washed tombstones'.

Did Jesus really go "out of his way" to help the downtrodden? or did he merely choose a way that was sure to bring him into contact with some downtrodden, and then helped whomever he happened to actually encounter? The difference is major. If Jesus set out to tackle the issue of, say, poverty, then his life was an unmitigated failure; we have poverty with us now. But if Jesus set out to help feed the particular folks that came to hear him speak-- because it turned out that they were hungry-- then the Bible reports that he succeeded.

For these reasons, count me amongst those who are uncomfortable seeing churches getting involved in politics. Are they really doing that because their spiritual path brought them there? Or is it just a mechanism so that they can feel good about themselves? I suspect it's more often the latter, and then they are not loving as Jesus loved. They are really loving only themselves, aggrandizing themselves, and acting for the "greater good" out of a camouflaged selfishness. If people would just reach out to the individuals around them, right there in arm's reach, then these greater social issues wouldn't exist.

Don't try to heal the world. That's a vanity.

In answer to the first, yes, Jesus went way out of his way to help the poor and the outcast. You need only look at the Pharisees' reactions to Jesus' ministry to realise just how far out of his way Jesus was going. He didn't draw much attention to himself in the ordinary course of events (he even went as far as telling the people he aided not to speak of what he had done for them), but when he felt it necessary, he spoke boldly and brazenly about the injustices he saw (and then drove the perpetrators of those injustices out from the holy places with a whip in hand).

My primary objection to the second part is that Jesus didn't come solely to battle poverty and social injustice. He came to preach the good news, that all people have been freed from sin and the grave. He came into a broken world and gave his own life so that in the end it might be completely healed and restored; what more could be asked? However, the fact that we still inhabit a broken world with us today, where poverty and sin and injustice still exist, does not mean that we should sit on our hams and accept them as inevitabilities, but rather that we should do what we can and let God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Or did Jesus not tell his followers:

'Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

'Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

'Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

'Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.'

Are the actions of these churches vain? (In particular the Madison Mennonite Church's Peace and Justice projects.)

While you consider the answer to this question, here for your perusal is a letter by a famous modern liberal theologian who took the principles of the Social Gospel deeply to heart and delivered a message in defense of his activities in a spirit of love to those ministers whose line of logic in criticising him was similar to Alamanach's.

[Nucc]

I made a long post and submitted it only to find the post I was responding. Sorry fellas this format is to confusing and time consuming.

[micatala]

Are the actions of these churches vain? (In particular the Madison Mennonite Church's Peace and Justice projects.)

Quite possibly. Allow me to clarify: there will be times when a person or group is legitimately driven to political action in the course of his/their spiritual walk. But there is a very grave danger in taking up some cause just because one thinks one ought to have a cause taken up. The efforts put forth won't be genuine, and love will be nowhere to be found.

Take the Israel/ Palestine conflict, for example. I never do anything involving that, because that problem never reaches me. I realize it affects a lot of people, but I don't happen to know any of them. Meanwhile, I know a woman who is going through a third divorce, her dad just died, she lost her job, and she had to move out of her house before they foreclosed on it. There is somebody who needs some help, someone right in front of me. I'm deluding myself if I think I should find a way to get involved with Israel/ Palestine right now, or any other big-name social issue.

As far as I'm aware, Jesus didn't assign any of his followers to a leprosy action committee. I don't know that he organized any seminars on the poverty problem. I doubt he set aside his Tuesday afternoons to work on his Gentile Outreach program. When I read the Bible, I see him addressing leprosy, poverty, and all the rest of it as the problems arise. He helped people who came to him needing help, and he doesn't strike me as the sort who was terribly concerned about categories: "Ah, you, you're a leper, you get this kind of help. You're a widow, for you I do this..." He dealt with people on an individual basis.

While you consider the answer to this question, here for your perusal is a letter by a famous modern liberal theologian who took the principles of the Social Gospel deeply to heart and delivered a message in defense of his activities in a spirit of love to those ministers whose line of logic in criticising him was similar to Alamanach's.

I'm happy to say, I predicted what you had linked to before I clicked on it. As I clarified above, there's nothing wrong with political action per se, I just worry that people engage in it for the wrong reasons. Of course, King was in the right on that issue, and the folks he was writing to had dropped the ball; this was their turf, and they should have been there with him.

People tend to gravitate towards big social issues I guess because it makes them feel they're doing something important. And they often don't notice the person right beside them who's quietly losing out to some deep personal crisis.

I find myself agreeing with both Alamanach and Magus. As Alamanach says, we should definitely do the good we can in the milieu we are in. We also need to be aware of our motives in what we do. Just as Jesus admonishes the hypocrites who give alms with blasts of trumpets, so we might expect him to admonish us if our deeds, political or otherwise, are done to draw attention to ourselves rather than for the result of the deed itself.

However, I also think social/political activism can be a noble endeavor and a worthy pursuit. Jesus did fight the 'powers that be' in his time, he did 'speak truth to power' as many do today, and as ML King did in his.

I don't know that I have any kind of a rule which says 'doing social/political activism in X circumstance or in Y way is not good'. Like injustice, it is usually easier to identify bad examples when they crop up, and move away from them and hopefully towards something better.

[MikeH]

1. Is Yancey's analysis good Christian theology? Why or why not?

Yes, as long as he doesn't take it too far to the other side and propose that a good Christian should be a doormat.

2. If Yancey is correct, what does this say about current political activities of Christians in the U.S.?

Depends on what activity you're talking about and the motivation that christians have for acting. There are secular arguments for most of the "hot topic" issues as well that would side with christians.

3. To the extent that some Christians might be engaging in political activity 'without love' and counter to God's purpose, how might they correct this? Is it possible for Christians to engage in exercising political power and act in love?

While I think it is an interesting angle to look from, I don't think political action should be taken based on whether or not it is loving. The laws of the land should uphold the personal rights of its citizens.

4. In particular, concerning some of the current hot button issues, can Christians engage in constructive political engagement on issues like abortion, homosexualtiy, world peace/terrorism, women's rights, etc. and still maintain committment to "loving one another"? If so how? What would this look like and how would it be different from what is happening now?

I think I answered this question already in 2 and 3. "Loving one another" should have nothing to do with a political stance, and neither should a religious belief. A christian should stand up for personal rights as defined in the constitution, just like everybody else.

[MagusYanam]

Yes, as long as he doesn't take it too far to the other side and propose that a good Christian should be a doormat.

Mphm. I agree, but it does depend a little on what you mean by 'doormat'. I believe that Christians should hold fast to what they know to be good, but that physical force should not be necessary to do so. I wouldn't call the non-violent resistance of Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, being a 'doormat'.

Depends on what activity you're talking about and the motivation that christians have for acting. There are secular arguments for most of the "hot topic" issues as well that would side with christians.

Again, I agree, but with certain reservations. I can sympathise with the aims and worldview of the pro-life movement (for example), but much of it seems more like a publicity stunt by some conservative groups to 'get their foot in the door', so to speak, by putting one of their pet issues at the centre of the public discourse. I also have some problems with the Students for Life group on our campus because I know the debate tactics they use to contain numerous appeals to emotion, inappropriate analogies and various other forms of intellectual dishonesty.

Actually, here I am in complete and hearty agreement with Alamanach (gasp!), that we should help people, not causes. I don't think a political organisation or cause should elicit support from the religious without some assurance of honesty and fair-dealing, so that we know that people will somehow benefit. (As to Alamanach's question, whom do they love? I would answer, it is shown through their actions. If they spend more effort on publicity stunts than on the actual charity and ministry work, that's a fairly clear warning sign, but again, it's always circumstantial, isn't it?)

I think I answered this question already in 2 and 3. "Loving one another" should have nothing to do with a political stance, and neither should a religious belief. A christian should stand up for personal rights as defined in the constitution, just like everybody else.

Amen to that. But even so, I think there are other responsibilities that Christians can and do have. Personal rights are well and good and should by all means be protected, but community-building should be taken as equally important, and the protection of positive rights (the right to a clean living environment, decent health care and education among them).

[MikeH]

I wouldn't call the non-violent resistance of Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, being a 'doormat'.

Yes, I agree. A doormat would be somebody who doesn't even express their opinion out of fear of confrontation.

I would answer, it is shown through their actions. If they spend more effort on publicity stunts than on the actual charity and ministry work, that's a fairly clear warning sign, but again, it's always circumstantial, isn't it?)

I think that of all the "hot topic" issues, pro life types of efforts in general can be seen as the most viable without needing a religious motivation. I'm not talking about people who rally against condoms or whatnot, I mean agencies that counsel young pregnant girls through the adoption process instead of undergoing unnecessary surgery.