I was taught to believe that Jesus was an a-political figure, and that Christians, therefore, could be good Christians and still retain their right to belong to this or that political party. The logic strikes me as faulty; it would seem to me if Jesus were a-political, then his followers ought to be, too. But that is beside the point, because Jesus most certainly was not a-political. In truth, he was the embodiment of God’s politics, and, as such, stands in judgment of all other ways of being political.
No one has argued this more effectively than Yoder:
Because Jesus’ way of rejecting the sword and at the same time condemning those who wielded it was politically relevant, both the Sanhedrin and the Procurator had to deny him the right to live, in the name of both of their forms of political responsibility. His alternative was so relevant, so much a threat, that Pilate could afford to free, in exchange for Jesus, the ordinary Guevara-type insurrectionist Barabbas. Jesus’ way is not less but more relevant to the question of how society moves than is the struggle for possession of the levers of command; to this Pilate and Caiaphas testify by their judgment on him….
Jesus refused to concede that those in power represent an ideal, a logically proper, or even an empirically acceptable definition of what it means to be political. He did not say…’you can have your politics and I shall do something else more important,’ he said, ‘your definition of polis, of the social, of the wholeness of being human socially is perverted.’
The Politics of Jesus, 107
Would you say he is trans-political?
No space or sphere of life- political, social, religious, familial, or cultural, was then or now is insulated from Jesus. He judged them all not from a lofty distance, but from the dusty bottom. Jesus never moved simply. He was not only-always-one way or another- he was not above against below, he was not only in he was out as well, he was not just with he was as well against- he was either and or both. The Gospel record show time and time again his unscripted movings. He had a such a cultivated sense of pitch and timing when it came to seeing the problem- issue- cause- and had such creativity in seeing how he could be a solution. I like the use of trans-political, and I like what Chris says here: “…he was the embodiment of God’s politics, and, as such, stands in judgment of all other ways of being political.” Indeed he was. I agree Jesus had no particular political apparatus he championed- no: “Vote for me, because I will make it so you don’t have to pay taxes.” No platform, he rallied the masses around, but he did engage in the political sphere, and he did it in such a way that turned it botth upside down and inside out. Are we not to go and do likewise?
Mark,
I’m cautiously comfortable with “trans-political,” but not if that is taken to mean that Jesus is above politics, for that is tantamount to the very de-politicization I was arguing against. Instead, I would say his politics is at least at some points in direct competition with the political structures of Rome, Jerusalem, Athens, Washington, London, Moscow, etc. I’m more comfortable with saying flatly that Jesus is political, in such a way that all other politics are called into question and are revealed as in need of redemption and judgment.
Of course, as Teal says, Jesus didn’t run for office! In that sense, he certainly was “trans-political.” But I don’t think he didn’t run for office because he thought politics doesn’t really matter; on the contrary, I think he didn’t run for office because he knew that that is not the best way to effect political change.
I think I agree . . . Christ positions himself above or perhaps even against ways of doing politics in the their most typical and flawed forms (then and now), not against politics itself. You mentioned partisanship, which I certainly think makes being consistently politically Christian impossible. The closest models for Christian political activism that I know of come from civil rights and human rights efforts which have worked against-the-state-for-the-state (King, Tutu, Ghandi, Bonhoeffer, etc. We’ve discussed many of them at length on your blog). I guess I am tempted to think of these efforts as being “trans-political” in the sense that they stand outside of if not rise above the typical ways of being political and the typical avenues to political power. You are right, however, to insist that they are still political by nature. The difference is in quality rather than kind.