Jesus for President

I read this on my nephew’s blog.  there is much to think about in this quote…

Through inheriting al the "kingdoms of the world, " the church became the kind of beast that Jesus worked and taught against.  The history of the church has been largely a history of "believers" refusing to believe in the way of the crucified Nazarene and instead giving in to the very temptations he resisted -- power, relevancy, spectacle.
Today the logic goes something like this: "Calling a ruler 'Son of God' is out of style.  No one really does that nowadays. [like they did with the Caesars many years ago]  We can support a president while also supporting Jesus as the Son off God."  But how is this possible?  For one says that we must love our enemies, and the other says we must kill them; one promotes the economics of competition, while the other admonishes the forgiveness of debts.  To which do we pledge allegiance?  Surely, one of them must have the wrong idea of how to move history.  Can a servant serve two masters?  To say that we must kill our enemies and join the popular project to "rid the world of evil" is to call Jesus unrealistic.  And that is possibly desirable for many; surely his ideas do not resonate with any common wisdom.  But can you call Jesus the Son of God and also say, "He just doesn't understand the world today"?  How ironic is it to see a bumper sticker that says "Jesus is the answer--but not in the real world."  Remember, Jesus' followers were burned alive, beheaded, or fed to lions.  They knew evil and the "real world".  They would meet it face to face.  If there was anyone who tried to deal with evildoers and terrorists, it was certainly first-century Christians.
When the church takes affairs of the state more seriously than they do Jesus, Pax Romana becomes its gospel and the president becomes the Son of God.  After all, what is the point in calling anything God is it doesn't also hold sway in every part of one's life -- especially one's politics?
For Jesus and his followers, the central question was, How do we live faithfully to God?  But then the church inherited a kingdom.  And it wasn't the kind of servant kingdom Jesus imagined and incarnated, not the kingdom of the slaughtered Lamb; it was the dominant and coercive force in charge of the world, even in its pursuit of establishing "justice for all."  Instead of faithfulness, the question was, How do we run the world as Christians?  This question would eho throughout the centuries in questions like, How do I run this profit-driven corporation as a Christian?  How can we make culture more Christian?  How would a responsible Christian run this war?  But Jesus taught that his followers -- or even the Son of God! -- should not attempt to "run the world."

Pages 166-167 from 'Jesus for President'

 

We have such a distorted view of Christ from so far away, it is formed by those who have won the arguments in the past, this is not to say that all arguments were won by those who were right.  Some of the battles of the past were won by those who argued the best.

How do we answer the question as to how do we live with Jesus as Lord?  I fear we are too scared to answer the questions for fear of having to give up our lives!

Do we spend more time lobbying the governments to pass laws that we want rather than becoming communities who make a difference?  For us here in Victoria have we moved on from the abortion debate?  We lobbied hard with letters and petitions, but now the law has passed, what are we doing?  May be if we had worked harder as communities of faith to create places that are safe for pregnant teenagers to come to for help we might have made a difference to more!  But the law was passed and we just point our fingers at the authorities and say how badly society has failed!  May be it is we who have failed, and continue to fail to be salt and light!

hmmm much to ponder in our journey from here.