Is Jesus for “Law & Order?”

[ken_sylvania]

I agree with you that we are to generally to follow civil laws unless they conflict with God's laws. But I also think that what you're describing is a contemporary understanding of the separation between "civil" and "religious" law that wouldn't have existed during the 1st Century.

In occupied Israel, Jewish and Roman law were overlapping systems. The Sanhedrin was a political and religious body. The Torah contained both religious and civil regulations. When Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath or chased the moneylenders out of the Temple, he wasn't just defying religious law in the way we understand it, he was also challenging the civil order built around those laws. After all, when the Romans posted "King of the Jews" on Jesus's cross during the crucifixion, they weren't just making a theological or spiritual accusation, but also a political one -- they effectively accused Jesus of treason.

This doesn't mean I think that Jesus calls us to anarchy -- the double love commandment is also a kind of divine order. But like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus also demonstrates that divine order's concern for justice, not just compliance to civil law.

No, I used the language I did intentionally, referring to the legal system of Jesus' time. As you mentioned, the Sanhedrin did enforce both religious and civil law. But neither the Sanhedrin nor the Romans nor Herod convicted Jesus of violating any civil or criminal law. The only charge that "stuck" was for blasphemy, a very distinctly religious charge - because he claimed to be the Messiah.

You mention the sign "King of the Jews" - Pilot very clearly did not believe that Jesus had committed treason against the Romans. In fact, being "King of the Jews" wouldn't have necessarily been an act of treason - unless you want to try to convince me that King Herod and King Agrippa were committing treason by taking the title of "King."

When Jesus healed the sick, cleansed the temple, etc, he wasn't violating the law. Sure, what he was doing bothered the Pharisees, but it all appears to have been legal.

I think it’s telling that while Jesus may not have been accused of any specific Roman crime, he was executed by civil authorities, not religious ones. In the Torah, punishments for religious transgressions -- like stoning -- were handled internally, but here it’s not just the state, but an unpopular occupying power that does the dirty work for the religious leaders.

Pilate may not have believed that Jesus did not do anything wrong, but still has him executed. Isn't it an injustice -- a failure of the legal system -- to execute someone you believe is innocent? Jesus’s crucifixion becomes an indictment of both the legal and religious authorites who are working together. They are two sides of the same coin.

Scripture repeatedly links faith and justice together. For example, in Amos 5:21–23, the prophet condemns empty worship:

I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me… I will not listen to the music of your harps.

And then in verse 24 comes the counterpoint:

But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Amos insists that worship is meaningless when it takes place within an unjust system. Earlier in the chapter (vv. 10–15), he describes that injustice:

There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court… Those who oppress the innocent and take bribes and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

For Amos, worship and civil justice are not separate spheres. Worship is hollow precisely because it coexists with exploitation and inequity.

I believe this connection between faith and justice carries all the way into Revelation. There, Jesus the slaughtered lamb, is revealed as the only legitimate power in creation, and not just in a spiritual or religious sense. His crucifixion and resurrection inaugurate the new reality of New Jerusalem, where humanity finally lives in redeemed relationship with its creator.

Yes, the execution of an innocent man is clearly an indictment of the legal system of the day that allowed that to happen - but that is a totally separate issue from the question of whether Jesus defied the political systems of his day.

As a side note, the example of Jesus' cleansing of the temple is actually interesting to consider in the context of "Law & Order." Where was the due process for the vendors who were selling in the temple? If the argument is that everyone is entitled to a hearing and due process before action is taken against them, how to you reconcile that with Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers (almost certainly resulting in property loss)? If what they were doing was legal, then we have a situation where people were being penalized for perfectly legal behavior - if the US Government would do that you would say they are doing wrong.

Jesus, and God, clearly reserve the right to ultimate power. Jesus teachings to his disciples and to us is that we submit to earthly government, submit to unjust demands, except where obedience to Him demands non-compliance. In fact, he tells us not just to submit to injustice, but to go above and beyond - when forced to carry the Roman pack a mile, carry it an extra mile voluntarily. This is totally opposite to the carnal response - where after the tenth instance of being forced to carry a soldier's pack, we throw it down and fight the soldier.

[ken_sylvania]

That what I find strange about this move -- when it comes to moral example and private beliefs, Jesus is the authoritative example for us today. When Jesus steps out that lane and disrupts earthly power and authority, then suddenly he's special and what he does has no bearing on us.

Not strange at all. We don't primarily look to order our lives by copying Jesus' actions - we look to what He and the Apostles taught and follow His teachings. If you think you want to follow Jesus' example in cleansing the temple, are you also going to follow his example in shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sin and the redemption of all mankind?

See, what I think is strange is if people who do not have the power to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, open the eyes of the blind or raise the dead to life, and who most certainly lack the perfect knowledge and wisdom that Jesus had - despite lacking all these things they still think they have the right to imitate any of Jesus actions that they choose.

[ohio jones]

Honestly, I have no idea whether to agree or disagree with either of you, because you’re both using terms that you are not defining.

There are distinct differences among the Anabaptist and Mennonite versions of Two-Kingdom theology. Grebel & Blaurock, Michael Sattler, Pilgram Marpeck, Menno Simons, and Bathasar Hubmaier all used the phrase Two-Kingdom theology, but their two kingdom theologies differed.

And all of them differed from Martin Luther's similarly-named concept. Of course none of them used that exact phrase, but their words may be capable of being translated to say that. Perhaps we should look at their writings (in English) to see how they explained the New Testament on the subject, rather than relying on summaries and interpretations of their thought.

[ken_sylvania]

Let me see where we agree or disagree about how the law should function. I think everyone in this thread agrees on the following:

1. Law is important and ordained by God. Good law promotes justice.
2. Law can be perverted and become an instrument of injustice and oppression.
3. Civil order is good, and leads to safety and prosperity.

I assume everyone would also agree on these - am I wrong?

1. Rulers who shout "law and order" have often acted like the law does not apply to them at all.

Some have acted that way, as have some who shout "rule of law." As have many rulers who haven't made either slogan an important part of their rhetoric. I dislike the use of phasing such as "have often" in situations like this because it's a phrase designed to suggest a high level of correlation without the accountability of having to demonstrate that the correlation actually exists.

[*] What a ruler says in a political speech may not reflect what he actually does.

Certainly true.

[*] Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Checks and balances are important because "men are not angels".

There is some truth to this but checks and balances aren't necessarily a cure-all.

[*] Police power and military power have frequently been abused, killing people and destroying their lives unjustly. When someone has the power to kill or harm others in the name of the law, there must be real oversight and transparency. Without that, abuse is likely.[/list]

Depends what is meant by real oversight and transparency. If the idea is that the general public gets to armchair quarterback every action taken there's a whole additional set of problems that comes along with that. A lot of people like the sausage but they don't like the details of how the sausage is made. They want well behaved children but don't want the discipline that is needed to help children become well behaved. And they want an orderly society without evenhanded administration of the law.

1. The rule of law means nobody is above the law — not leaders, not institutions, not regular people.
2. Laws should be clear and open so everyone can know what they are.

Generally yes.

[*] The same laws should apply to everyone, rich or poor, powerful or powerless.

Not necessarily. I think it's right that certain powerful or large corporations or people are held to a higher standard in certain areas because of a greater potential for abusing others.
Do you take the position that it ought to be a crime for the government to lie to the people, and that police should be prohibited from lying to suspects, people under investigation, etc.?

[*] Judges should make decisions fairly, without pressure from politics or power.

How are you defining politics and power here? Who gets to decide if a judge is making decisions fairly? If a judge is inclined to make an unfair decision, is it wrong for someone in power to pressure him to make the right decision instead of an unfair decision?

[*] Everyone has a right to due process — fair treatment and a real chance to be heard before any punishment or loss of rights.

The devil is in the details, as the saying goes. What "due process" looks like probably varies depending on the circumstances.

[*] The laws themselves should protect people’s basic rights and human dignity.

Again, that probably depends what is meant by "human dignity."

[JohnH]

I remember when my conservative Mennonite grandfather started listening to Rush Limbaugh during lunch. He listened religiously every weekday. He frequently expressed opinions about Bill Clinton and other political issues. I don't think Grandpa ever voted, but I also think he was political in ways he nevef acknowledged.

And this is why conservative Mennonite groups tended to teach against having the radio.

[Szdfan]

I remember when my conservative Mennonite grandfather started listening to Rush Limbaugh during lunch. He listened religiously every weekday. He frequently expressed opinions about Bill Clinton and other political issues. I don't think Grandpa ever voted, but I also think he was political in ways he nevef acknowledged.

And this is why conservative Mennonite groups tended to teach against having the radio.

Do you have a radio?

[barnhart]

I wouldn't characterize it as "contemporary misunderstanding." I think we're reading scripture from our own post-Enlightenment context, which has very clean lines between faith and politics. But the ancient and medieval worlds didn't have this clean separation between church and state that we do. Our Anabaptist forbears weren't persecuted just because rebaptism was spiritual defiance. It was a political threat. Lutheranism didn't spread just because the German princes were theologically persuaded -- they also saw it as an opportunity to claw back political power from Rome. This strict separation between civil state and church is our division, not theirs.

The point I'm making is that it was a political threat because of the marriage of church and state, not because of rebaptism itself. In other words if the church would not have compromised the separation Jesus intended and that it was known for before Constantine, the persecution and opposition would have remained, not because of issues like baptism but rather because of the distinct separation that caused the early Christians not to participate in things that were clearly against the NT Kingdom of Jesus. It may have been interpreted by Rome as an act of political opposition, but to the Christians it was simple obedience to the way of Jesus.

I do like Two Kingdom theology. It's a bulwark against theocracy and the abuses of a tight union between Church and State. It's a good way for a minority faith to survive Empire. But I think that its insistence that Jesus life, death and resurrection was completely apolitical and only spiritual, misses its political dimensions.

Again, I don't believe that Two Kingdom theology, as I understand it, functions from a political perspective, in that it looks for ways to oppose earthly politics by taking political stances. Rather, I believe it functions from the belief that we make a societal difference by addressing the spiritual condition of humanity.

Gary, I think you're expressing an articulate view of Two Kingdom theology. I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to it. It's a part of my own spiritual and theological DNA and there are many things about it that I appreciate about it. But like everything in creation, I think it also has limits and misses.

When I argue that Jesus's life, death and resurrection had a political dimension to it, I'm not saying that Jesus is a Republican or Democrat. I'm not saying that Jesus engaged in partisan politics (and the Gospels do refer to different political factions vying for power and influence). I'm talking about politics in a broader sense -- the question about what it means for us to live in society and how society makes decisions. In that sense, Two Kingdom theology and separation from the world is in itself just as political as any other theory about the relationship with power.

I'm very familiar with the argument that the Early Church was apolitical before Constantine and that it was corrupted when Christianity became the religion of the Empire. What also strikes me is how Two Kingdom theology parallels post-Enlightenment secularism. To me, the secular separation of Church and State mirrors Anabaptist separation from the World. Both believe that politics is public and faith is private and never shall the two meet. And yes, I think it's important for both the Church and State to have some sort of separation between them, but I also think it's not that simple.

I remember when my conservative Mennonite grandfather started listening to Rush Limbaugh during lunch. He listened religiously every weekday. He frequently expressed opinions about Bill Clinton and other political issues. I don't think Grandpa ever voted, but I also think he was political in ways he nevef acknowledged.

Faith and politics constantly seep into each other in informal ways. Faith affects how people vote and which politicians they support. Politics can influence people's theology and which parts of Scripture they emphasize.

In that sense, I don't think an argument that Christ wants his followers to submit to an unjust political order is a politically neutral position. I think it is a political choice and I think it risks ignoring the complexities of how both Scriptures and Jesus confront the injustices of worldly power.

This is a well crafted discussion and I somehow agree with both angles.

I differ a little from the Sdzfan viewpoint in that I am far more resistant to actual engagement that supports or opposes a specific party or candidate but his primary point of faithfulness will have political ramifications (neutrality will collapse with pressure) seem true to me.

My practice is far closer to that presented by GaryK but I suspect this relies too heavily on a neo-gnostic dualism of the material world vs. spiritual world that would have been labeled heresy by apostle Paul. The entire Bible is written from the perspective of those two worlds as a single arena where God rules.

[JohnH]

I remember when my conservative Mennonite grandfather started listening to Rush Limbaugh during lunch. He listened religiously every weekday. He frequently expressed opinions about Bill Clinton and other political issues. I don't think Grandpa ever voted, but I also think he was political in ways he nevef acknowledged.

And this is why conservative Mennonite groups tended to teach against having the radio.

Do you have a radio?

No, unless you count the one in a 22-year-old vehicle I recently purchased and haven’t pulled out yet, but the antenna has been pulled. Our conference has maintained a strong stance against the radio.

[Szdfan]

And this is why conservative Mennonite groups tended to teach against having the radio.

Do you have a radio?

No, unless you count the one in a 22-year-old vehicle I recently purchased and haven’t pulled out yet, but the antenna has been pulled. Our conference has maintained a strong stance against the radio.

But you engage with other forms of mass communication like the Internet?

[GaryK]

The point I'm making is that it was a political threat because of the marriage of church and state, not because of rebaptism itself. In other words if the church would not have compromised the separation Jesus intended and that it was known for before Constantine, the persecution and opposition would have remained, not because of issues like baptism but rather because of the distinct separation that caused the early Christians not to participate in things that were clearly against the NT Kingdom of Jesus. It may have been interpreted by Rome as an act of political opposition, but to the Christians it was simple obedience to the way of Jesus.

Again, I don't believe that Two Kingdom theology, as I understand it, functions from a political perspective, in that it looks for ways to oppose earthly politics by taking political stances. Rather, I believe it functions from the belief that we make a societal difference by addressing the spiritual condition of humanity.

Gary, I think you're expressing an articulate view of Two Kingdom theology. I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to it. It's a part of my own spiritual and theological DNA and there are many things about it that I appreciate about it. But like everything in creation, I think it also has limits and misses.

When I argue that Jesus's life, death and resurrection had a political dimension to it, I'm not saying that Jesus is a Republican or Democrat. I'm not saying that Jesus engaged in partisan politics (and the Gospels do refer to different political factions vying for power and influence). I'm talking about politics in a broader sense -- the question about what it means for us to live in society and how society makes decisions. In that sense, Two Kingdom theology and separation from the world is in itself just as political as any other theory about the relationship with power.

I'm very familiar with the argument that the Early Church was apolitical before Constantine and that it was corrupted when Christianity became the religion of the Empire. What also strikes me is how Two Kingdom theology parallels post-Enlightenment secularism. To me, the secular separation of Church and State mirrors Anabaptist separation from the World. Both believe that politics is public and faith is private and never shall the two meet. And yes, I think it's important for both the Church and State to have some sort of separation between them, but I also think it's not that simple.

I remember when my conservative Mennonite grandfather started listening to Rush Limbaugh during lunch. He listened religiously every weekday. He frequently expressed opinions about Bill Clinton and other political issues. I don't think Grandpa ever voted, but I also think he was political in ways he nevef acknowledged.

Faith and politics constantly seep into each other in informal ways. Faith affects how people vote and which politicians they support. Politics can influence people's theology and which parts of Scripture they emphasize.

In that sense, I don't think an argument that Christ wants his followers to submit to an unjust political order is a politically neutral position. I think it is a political choice and I think it risks ignoring the complexities of how both Scriptures and Jesus confront the injustices of worldly power.

This is a well crafted discussion and I somehow agree with both angles.

I differ a little from the Sdzfan viewpoint in that I am far more resistant to actual engagement that supports or opposes a specific party or candidate but his primary point of faithfulness will have political ramifications (neutrality will collapse with pressure) seem true to me.

My practice is far closer to that presented by GaryK but I suspect this relies too heavily on a neo-gnostic dualism of the material world vs. spiritual world that would have been labeled heresy by apostle Paul. The entire Bible is written from the perspective of those two worlds as a single arena where God rules.

I agree that faithfulness may have political ramifications at times and that neutrality, in the sense that Jesus' Kingdom attempts not to engage in society at large, should not be an option for the church.

Where I think the danger lies is if the church relies on the politics of earthly government to dictate what it involves itself in. If the church would closely and consistently follow the teachings and ways of Jesus I believe she would be out front of earthly politics as it relates to societal involvement and would have somewhat of a "so what" attitude if issues of the day occasionally intersect between the two. That attitude frees the church to do her work regardless which way the political winds blow.