Rome, Religion, and Power

[Szdfan]

Ken, if you’re right that Jesus’s messianic claims weren’t political because the Roman Empire didn’t notice, what does that mean for Christian discipleship today? How should the Church relate to power now?

[Ken]

Ken, if you’re right that Jesus’s messianic claims weren’t political because the Roman Empire didn’t notice, what does that mean for Christian discipleship today? How should the Church relate to power now?

It depends on your definition of politics. I would define politics as the activities associated with governance of a country, and the debate or conflict among individuals hoping to achieve political power.

If you believe in two kingdoms theology then the church was not overtly political in ancient times and nor should it be today. The church may witness to power, or speak truth to power. But it shouldn’t be political and seek power.

Jesus did not join any particular political faction nor did he seek to influence politics within Judea or the Roman Empire writ large. Even though many people sought for him to do so.

[Szdfan]

Ken, if you’re right that Jesus’s messianic claims weren’t political because the Roman Empire didn’t notice, what does that mean for Christian discipleship today? How should the Church relate to power now?

It depends on your definition of politics. I would define politics as the activities associated with governance of a country, and the debate or conflict among individuals hoping to achieve political power.

If you believe in two kingdoms theology then the church was not overtly political in ancient times and nor should it be today. The church may witness to power, or speak truth to power. But it shouldn’t be political and seek power.

Jesus did not join any particular political faction nor did he seek to influence politics within Judea or the Roman Empire writ large. Even though many people sought for him to do so.

So are you arguing that when the Church did speak truth to power -- like during Abolition and the Civil Rights Movement -- it wasn't being political? Again, that seems like a thin and selective definition of politics to me.

[Ken]

Ken, if you’re right that Jesus’s messianic claims weren’t political because the Roman Empire didn’t notice, what does that mean for Christian discipleship today? How should the Church relate to power now?

It depends on your definition of politics. I would define politics as the activities associated with governance of a country, and the debate or conflict among individuals hoping to achieve political power.

If you believe in two kingdoms theology then the church was not overtly political in ancient times and nor should it be today. The church may witness to power, or speak truth to power. But it shouldn’t be political and seek power.

Jesus did not join any particular political faction nor did he seek to influence politics within Judea or the Roman Empire writ large. Even though many people sought for him to do so.

So are you arguing that when the Church did speak truth to power -- like during Abolition and the Civil Rights Movement -- it wasn't being political? Again, that seems like a thin and selective definition of politics to me.

We are getting wrapped around the axle here. I suppose at some level everything is political if you define the term broadly enough. But not everything is about seeking political power and overturning the existing order.

During abolition and the civil rights movement the church was not a threat to the existing political power structure. It took a brutal war to end slavery. Not northern ministers speaking out about slavery from the pulpit. While at the same time southern ministers spoke in favor of it. Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the confederacy feared being overthrown by the church. Any more than 1st century Roman Emperors did.

During the civil rights movement the Black church was part of the civil rights movement to be sure. MLK was a minister. But that was also because church was one of the uniquely free places that Black people had to meet and organize. Everything else was closed to them. They literally couldn’t engage in politics any other way. For example, if southern Blacks under Jim Crow had sought to form labor unions or political parties they would have been brutally put down. But they could show up to church every Sunday. MLK was also not preaching a 2 kingdom type of theology. He was preaching the opposite and overtly engaging in a political movement not a religious one. He wasn’t trying to evangelize to southern racists. He was trying to break their grip on power.

Now throughout history the church has overtly engaged in politics endlessly. The crusades, for example. Or the conquest of the Americas. Or the Inquisition. But none of that was remotely reflective of what Jesus was teaching. Revolution and insurrection was swirling around 1st Century Judea. Jesus refused to get drawn into it and for good reason. It brought nothing but ruin down upon Jewish society. He was preaching something radically different.

So have Christians engaged in politics? Of course. Constantly for the past two thousand years. But was Jesus engaging in politics? No he was not. In fact if he was overtly engaged in politics then the entire two kingdom theology taught by Anabaptist is false.

[JohnH]

During abolition and the civil rights movement the church was not a threat to the existing political power structure. It took a brutal war to end slavery. Not northern ministers speaking out about slavery from the pulpit. While at the same time southern ministers spoke in favor of it. Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the confederacy feared being overthrown by the church. Any more than 1st century Roman Emperors did.

That's what I was thinking, too - "the Church" often was speaking on behalf of slavery, or else different ministers were simply expressing their political alignments from the pulpit. It's hard to see much of a clear witness when "the Church" wasn't even united on the issue.

Later on, "the Church" did have a highly unified message - at least in Methodist circles - against alcohol, culminating in "the Church" having a strong enough witness to first pass women's suffrage, which then gained enough political power to pass a Constitutional amendment against alcohol. I think we can all recognize the problems that caused in retrospect.

[Ken]

During abolition and the civil rights movement the church was not a threat to the existing political power structure. It took a brutal war to end slavery. Not northern ministers speaking out about slavery from the pulpit. While at the same time southern ministers spoke in favor of it. Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the confederacy feared being overthrown by the church. Any more than 1st century Roman Emperors did.

That's what I was thinking, too - "the Church" often was speaking on behalf of slavery, or else different ministers were simply expressing their political alignments from the pulpit. It's hard to see much of a clear witness when "the Church" wasn't even united on the issue.

Later on, "the Church" did have a highly unified message - at least in Methodist circles - against alcohol, culminating in "the Church" having a strong enough witness to first pass women's suffrage, which then gained enough political power to pass a Constitutional amendment against alcohol. I think we can all recognize the problems that caused in retrospect.

Yes. And I think if we are talking about the context of Ancient Rome (the subject of this thread) then the Romans were not at all concerned with religious leaders weighing in on various social issues: poverty, vice, healing the sick, feeding the poor, etc. All of which can take a political slant in the modern world. Their idea of politics was about seizing power, insurrection, revolting against the empire, and so forth. None of which Jesus or early Christians engaged in. But other religious leaders across the empire most certainly did. Often stirring up rebellion, leading armies into battle, and that sort of thing.

[mike]

As long as the Church is a non-violent entity that has no intention of supplanting the government's institutions or armed forces, it is not a geo-political threat to any government. And as long as the members of the Church live by the ethics of Jesus Christ, they are generally a force for good in society, so they should not represent a threat to any government except in that they are not a resource for its civil and military workforces.

Where it seems to me that Christianity as a religion represents an actual threat to power is when the government mandates what goes against Christian ethics, such as worship of the emperor or participation in pagan rituals in ancient Rome, or forcible military service, as has been the case many times and places. There are probably many more examples.

[Ken]

As long as the Church is a non-violent entity that has no intention of supplanting the government's institutions or armed forces, it is not a geo-political threat to any government. And as long as the members of the Church live by the ethics of Jesus Christ, they are generally a force for good in society, so they should not represent a threat to any government except in that they are not a resource for its civil and military workforces.

Where it seems to me that Christianity as a religion represents an actual threat to power is when the government mandates what goes against Christian ethics, such as worship of the emperor or participation in pagan rituals in ancient Rome, or forcible military service, as has been the case many times and places. There are probably many more examples.

Pretty much the entire history of Europe from Charlemagne (or Constantine) to the 20th Century was one of endless religious wars in which Christianity was directly engaged in one or both sides. And Christianity also lent itself to European colonialism and expansionism from the days of Columbus onwards.

[seinetsodumm]

As long as the Church is a non-violent entity that has no intention of supplanting the government's institutions or armed forces, it is not a geo-political threat to any government. And as long as the members of the Church live by the ethics of Jesus Christ, they are generally a force for good in society, so they should not represent a threat to any government except in that they are not a resource for its civil and military workforces.

Where it seems to me that Christianity as a religion represents an actual threat to power is when the government mandates what goes against Christian ethics, such as worship of the emperor or participation in pagan rituals in ancient Rome, or forcible military service, as has been the case many times and places. There are probably many more examples.

Pretty much the entire history of Europe from Charlemagne (or Constantine) to the 20th Century was one of endless religious wars in which Christianity was directly engaged in one or both sides. And Christianity also lent itself to European colonialism and expansionism from the days of Columbus onwards.

Right, and with Constantine, came a fusion of church and state. Something that New Testament Scripture does not support.
Horrible atrocities happened in the name of "christianity." As you mentioned, Charlemagne and the successful centuries were more examples of the terrible deeds that occur when the church seeks to align itself with the worldly kingdoms. Christ does not teach power wielding through the state. He teaches servant leadership. Laying down self etc.
Anytime God gives a gift, Satan will seek to twist it. This was done and continues to be done.

[JohnH]

During abolition and the civil rights movement the church was not a threat to the existing political power structure. It took a brutal war to end slavery. Not northern ministers speaking out about slavery from the pulpit. While at the same time southern ministers spoke in favor of it. Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the confederacy feared being overthrown by the church. Any more than 1st century Roman Emperors did.

That's what I was thinking, too - "the Church" often was speaking on behalf of slavery, or else different ministers were simply expressing their political alignments from the pulpit. It's hard to see much of a clear witness when "the Church" wasn't even united on the issue.

Later on, "the Church" did have a highly unified message - at least in Methodist circles - against alcohol, culminating in "the Church" having a strong enough witness to first pass women's suffrage, which then gained enough political power to pass a Constitutional amendment against alcohol. I think we can all recognize the problems that caused in retrospect.

Yes. And I think if we are talking about the context of Ancient Rome (the subject of this thread) then the Romans were not at all concerned with religious leaders weighing in on various social issues: poverty, vice, healing the sick, feeding the poor, etc. All of which can take a political slant in the modern world. Their idea of politics was about seizing power, insurrection, revolting against the empire, and so forth. None of which Jesus or early Christians engaged in. But other religious leaders across the empire most certainly did. Often stirring up rebellion, leading armies into battle, and that sort of thing.

Augustine did it sort of in reverse of “speaking truth to power”: he told those who had power it was OK to be both a Christian but retain Roman ideals of military and political power at the same time. Needless to say, this was quite popular.