tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post8420213909794081331..comments2024-01-09T16:17:22.327-06:00Comments on Bring the Books: The Politics of Jesus Chapter 2: The Kingdom Coming (Part 1)Adam Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05826908205996140341noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-1072304185377874032009-07-20T08:44:52.718-05:002009-07-20T08:44:52.718-05:00Thanks, Chris. I appreciate the answer. And I th...Thanks, Chris. I appreciate the answer. And I think it was pretty brief; I mean, I could see the whole answer on one screen, so that's short by my estimation.Adam Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826908205996140341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-48873313552803758032009-07-20T08:23:33.595-05:002009-07-20T08:23:33.595-05:00Ah, brevity, wrote Shakespeare, is it not the soul...Ah, brevity, wrote Shakespeare, is it not the soul of wit?<br /><br />I fear I lack in that regard. But here goes: It is true that the 2K model, counterintuitively, is for the church, so that it not suffer under the delusion that it can usher in a golden age through transformationist efforts. In the modern sense of "politics," then, the church is apolitical. But if we keep this current conversation in mind (i.e., the sense in which Jesus the Messiah was "political"), then no doubt the church is as much a political entity as her head.<br /><br />What this means (as simply and as succintly as I can state it) is that the church, which occupies a distinct, sacred sphere, never adopts the machinations of the secular sphere to promote its agenda. For in so doing, the church would become merely one secular institution among many. No, rather, the church always must maintain its distinction from the culture by simply being what it has been called to be: the ekklesia which practices regularly Word and sacrament. Under this rubric falls all sorts of actions in the world that the church may perform (not least, mercy). But foremost, its duty (agenda) is the evangel, the calling of people out of darkness into light. This is as much a "political" act in this world as a "spiritual" one; but it's Christ's politics, not those of the left or right, that must inform the church's agenda (and therein often lies the rub).<br /><br />Of course I could ramble one. So much for brevity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-81047726642541111592009-07-19T22:15:45.627-05:002009-07-19T22:15:45.627-05:00Hey, Chris. I was wondering if you have any brief...Hey, Chris. I was wondering if you have any brief (crossing my fingers) thoughts about the relationship of a political Jesus and the two kingdoms model?Adam Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826908205996140341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-33281943092540474772009-07-19T21:10:54.488-05:002009-07-19T21:10:54.488-05:00Great comments in here. I just wanted to add that,...Great comments in here. I just wanted to add that, having already drunk the Kool-aid so that I now cannot conceive of the concept of messiah apart from the political (keeping in mind that no political/religious dichotomy existed back then), that Yoder's intrepretations of the Temptation narrative seem natural and obvious to me.<br /><br />Not sure if there are any precedents upon which Yoder is leaning here…Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-50841729309646400152009-07-17T10:58:05.021-05:002009-07-17T10:58:05.021-05:00Yeah, you are right. When you aim that broadly it...Yeah, you are right. When you aim that broadly it almost seems anticlimactic. But in context, I do think he is quite revolutionary, because he is really asking us to reject definitions we have received from modernity. Why does the government born out of modernity (which is, historically speaking, a rather novel invention) get to decide what is and isn't "tradition" with respect to politics? Furthermore, why is it seen as within their exclusive purview to determine how people interrelate? Yoder is reminding Christians that the Spirit has overcome the law, and Christ is God's definitive revelation for how we are to interrelate. <br /><br />What I suspect you are most interested in, if you are granting Yoder his definition and its logic, is the relationship between Church and State/Christ and Culture, etc. As you undoubtedly see what your tradition (and to some extent my own) calls the institutions of "government" and the "church." This will for you be the primary issue I believe. I am not sure how well TPOJ answers it, as this is the part that for me I received from Hauerwas. I rather like his answer, but we will see how Yoder handles it on his own here.Jaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894393131185988485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-68077852483290793602009-07-16T20:08:52.195-05:002009-07-16T20:08:52.195-05:00First of all, Jared, I really appreciate all of yo...First of all, Jared, I really appreciate all of your input and comments. One thought which occurred to me referred to Yoder's definition of politics. If Yoder's definition of politics is really that broad, I would go ahead and his case over to him and declare it airtight. As I have read the book I have been expecting a bit tighter and more traditional definition of politics, so now I am asking myself the question how this definitional change would really affect my evaluation of Yoder.Adam Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826908205996140341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5970683153008645393.post-74484945653804600432009-07-16T16:41:16.048-05:002009-07-16T16:41:16.048-05:00You are certainly right to maintain that Yoder str...You are certainly right to maintain that Yoder stretches his argument. I remember thinking some of the same things that you have mentioned when I was reading him. However, I myself do think that there is a more political undertone to the whole scene than is conventionally seen. I would also caution against viewing Calvin as the representative for the "Tradition," though undoubtedly he is representative of your tradition.<br /><br />And whether or not you agree with Yoder's interpretation of these parables (in terms of their specific political import) at the end of the day they are entirely political in my estimation. And this is seen by looking at Yoder's definition of Politics. <br /><br /> I remember reading the whole book through and not finding an adequate definition of the word, until I was writing a response paper and went through the footnotes. In my version (the purple and grey cover) it is on p42/43, I am not sure which because i am quoting from memory.<br /><br />Politics is "the structuring of relations between individuals in groups." <br /><br />He is responding to another person's definition if i remember the context correctly. Nevertheless, this definition for me clarified the entirety of his argument. The problem with modern man thinking in terms germane to the text of scripture is that we view "politics" as a separate sphere of reality from "religion" as a result of the enlightenment bifurcation of reality (in keeping with gnostic dualism, subversively). Yet, if we take Yoder's definition as coherent, then everything Jesus did was political because he was supremely concerned with how individuals relate to each other (i.e. that they love each other). Furthermore, one could argue that the gospel affirmation "Jesus is Lord" was the first Christian political slogan! Kavin Rowe's recent work on narrative christology and the exact content of Luke's kurios helps to prove Yoder's point here. For both, Kurios holds a political signification because our corporate proclamation of the gospel is our way of constituting ourselves as the body of Christ (a body-politic, as it were). We are the people who proclaim the Word, yes, but as importantly, we are the people CONSTITUTED by the Word as well. This structuring is politics.<br /><br />As I see it, the entirety of Yoder's argument hinges on this definition. If you grant him that politics loosely defined is "structuring relationships," then You have to concede that Jesus is all the way through political. Obviously this is not modernity's definition of politics, because modernity presupposes the split between the public and private sphere's of reality (as if the public wasn't composed of many privates!). I view Yoder's definition as necessary to see Jesus as "Messiah" in any sense of the term that Israel would have recognized (and thus in an way for him to have been the fulfillment of the promises of Israel). <br /><br />I realize this is a little disjointed, but i am not trying to prove much with my arguments. I am really just trying to encourage thinking outside the box here, as I believe Yoder to be inaugurating a paradigm shift for those of us captured in modernity's stranglehold. And the only way to do that is to try and draw as many lines of connection as possible. <br /><br />But once you grant Yoder the defintion, he still must prove the content of that politics, or in what way Jesus structured relationships. And this is where pacifism comes into play.Jaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894393131185988485noreply@blogger.com