Alan Storkey contributes to the conversation about Christian
interaction with politics in his book Jesus
and Politics: Confronting the Powers.
He argues that Jesus must be central to the relationship between Christians
and politics. It is the responsibility
of Christians to understand how Jesus factors into political history, if for no
other reason than because church history is full of examples poor relationships
with politics.
For Storkey, politics is not party-based. It is “the business of the state,” including
aspects such as law, national identity, use of power, economics policy, and justice. Storkey hopes that Christians can see the
gospel as something that confronts political power, but he warns not to make
the gospel only about politics. Politics
are important in the gospel, but are only a part – not even the most important
part.
Understanding Jesus’ thoughts about politics requires
understanding his political discussion partners. Jesus primarily interacted with his fellow
Jews, who saw religion and politics as closely related. Jewish groups – such as the Pharisees, the
Sadducees, and the Essenes – operated with relative freedom with Rome typically
only in the background. The groups were
similar to our contemporary political parties.
They were sometimes honourable and sometime had mixed motivations. They believed they knew what was best for society
and presented political visions to explain these thoughts. Jesus existed outside of this approach to
politics, instead offering an approach free of self-exaltation.
What does politics without self-exaltation look
like? We can learn from the account of
Jesus’ temptation. Rather than grasping
honour, prestige, and popularity, Jesus began his ministry by giving honour to
the Father. The power that Jesus drew on
was not the usual political power. We
also learn from how Jesus understood his role as messiah. Isaiah’s prophecy presents the messiah as a
political leader in the line of David. In
taking the title of messiah, Jesus claimed the prime leadership role in Israel.
Saying that Jesus is messiah and King requires examining his
rule. Most importantly, his political
rule is only part of an even larger reign.
His rule has three characteristics.
First, it is good news rather than ideology. Jesus attempts to change people’s hearts,
minds, and attitudes. Political reform
will then follow. Second, it is
offensive. It tells secular authorities*
that God is the ultimate authority. Such
rulers are therefore accountable to a standard beyond themselves. Third, it is subversive. Rulers cannot dominate subjects and they
properly rule only when recognizing God as sovereign. Any submission of Christians to the state is therefore
under God’s authority.
There are principles to glean from Jesus’ approach to
politics. The first group shows politics
as expression of human relationship. Jesus’
approach has a consistent respect for everyone and privileges no one. It uses peacemaking to resolve conflicts
before they begin and focuses on forgiveness rather than who is right or
wrong. It defines truth as an entirely
consistent lifestyle. It is willing to be
unpopular when an unpopular opinion is the better response to a situation. It sees freedom as relational. It is reconciliatory to ensure that situations
do not have a single “winner.” It
acknowledges God’s ownership of property, which he wished to share with all people
and generations. It is compassionate to
the poor and requires everyone to be “poor in spirit,” ensuring that no one is
exploited, looked at with contempt, or neglected. It is tolerant of other opinions – even wrong
and damaging opinions – without being morally neutral.
The second group of principles concerns governmental
function. Jesus saw leadership as an act
of service instead of dominance. He saw
a difference between leadership posts and the fallen persons in these posts. He saw law and restriction as necessary for
freedom and understood that the standard of what is right is not set by popular
opinion. He limited the power of the
state. He sought justice to prevent one
group from having favour over another.
He held people accountable.
It is necessary to acknowledge that people are sinful in
order to follow Jesus in his approach to politics. Sinfulness
means that both rulers and societies fail to meet political obligations. Criticizing secular authority is sometimes
necessary. Criticism should be in the
form of prophecy. Prophecy is not a
selfish attack.
Jesus’ response to the Temple moneychangers demonstrates
prophecy. First, he showed people how
leaders failed to meet the standards they themselves set. Second, he demonstrated that leaders were
motivated only by the appearance of good rather than actually being good. Third, he spoke directly to the leaders,
instead of only the people.
Storkey concludes that the greatest political act is to follow
Jesus. Self-identified Christians also
need to understand this. In political
relationships, Christians follow Jesus when we are “a community of political
wisdom.” This means learning from our predecessors
who addressed politics. It means
criticizing our own mistakes before those of our neighbours. Most crucially, it means humbly showing Jesus
as our leader.
Alan Storkey’s book provides me with three helps as I
consider the relationship between social justice, politics, and my faith. First, his examination of freedom as
something that requires restriction is both thorough and convincing. He states this principle most bluntly in the
series of principles regarding proper government function. Unlike the Big Brother maxim that “Freedom is
slavery,” it is not paradoxical to state that freedom requires
restriction. The restrictions that Jesus
suggests do not enslave anyone. Instead,
they prevent the most powerful people from using their power to take away
freedom from weaker members of society. Freedom
and justice are impossible if absolute power – whether of the government or of other
powers – is allowed.
Second, Strokey demonstrates that politics – as matters
of the state – have an important role in ordering the types of social
relationships that result in justice.
The government is able to institute the types of restrictions that Jesus
proposed as necessary for freedom. I
think there is an application for social justice here, as well. When a government functions properly – that
is, when a government allows the principles of Jesus to come through – it
restricts people’s ability to harm the weak.
Justice is impossible if certain actions are left unrestricted. It is not governmental imposition or an attack
on freedom to restrict a powerful person’s ability to take advantage of a
weaker person’s position. It is within the
responsibilities of the government to ensure that people with access to the
most resources are not allowed exclusive ability to define either legitimate sources of power or
what is right and wrong.
Third, Storkey provides an explanation of how to
criticize by using the tradition of prophecy.
As a person who takes a certain level of joy from criticizing stupid or
harmful (and sometimes both) decisions made by political leaders, I do not need
to be convinced that our leaders often demonstrate human sinfulness. Storkey’s differentiation between selfish
attack and prophecy is helpful in showing that my criticism also sometimes
demonstrates human sinfulness. The role
of the prophet is essential if justice is to happen. The prophet is only effective in her or his
critique, however, when approaching such criticism with humility. By providing an analysis of the Temple scene,
Storkey demonstrates how to have such an approach.
Of the books that I have read about Christianity and politics
thus far, Jesus and Politics has been
the most insightful and helpful.
*Again, I follow Oliver O’Donovon and use “secular” to
mean of this place and age, rather than evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment