merefaith: discipleship in the ruins of empire

Sounds strikingly similar to some of the anarchist material I have been mulling over lately.

P.S. Dr. Hix, who was -- I think -- a dispensationalist, talked about this interpretation of the language in 1 Thessalonians in the Paul class back when the religion department was still known as the religion department. I took it to heed then, but of course this plays as much into my politics as it does my theology these days.

Doesn't seem too much different from NT Wright's stuff. I've read Romans 1 as a counter to the Caesar cult.

I see the strengths in both anarchism and a form of statism. Ultimately, I am an agrarian communal anarchist (like the Cossack hetamante), but I also realize that many ethnoi today need a strong state to protect them from predatory influences. Part of my project is to work through that tension.

I have an empire question for you. Let's say enough prophets prophecy against a totalitarian (or right wing) empire, publically noting its evils.

Surprisingly, the emperor agrees. He steps down, or asks you what should be done? Do you:

1) tell him the state is evil and leave it at that and that you are a prophet, not a court preacher?

2) Tell him which specifics need to be done for reform. But if you do this, aren't you positing the fact that a state is not always bad?

I guess what I am asking is this,

I know you are real big into outlawing smog, or cutting down emissions, or something like that. That's fine. I'm actually against big business myself.

But aren't you using the venue of the state to do so? If you are doing that, hoping the state outlaws cars or something, aren't you acknowleding some form of legitimacy to the state?

Jacob,

1. No, this isn't terribly different from Wright. What's interesting about the political reading of Paul is that it is shared by persons who would otherwise be classified in differing schools of interpretation: evangelicalism, postcolonialism, literary-humanist, historical-critical, etc.

2. I have never said the state is "always bad" and neither does Yoder...or even Hauerwas. One of Yoder's books is titled The Christian Witness to the State after all. In an essay on Christianity and Democracy for The Priestly Kingdom he acknowledges points where he thinks democracy is praiseworthy as a secularized version of the deliberative ethics practiced in the free churches.

As for the hypothetical, well, it is what it is and I really don't expect it to happen. But, playing along, I at least would take option #2 and suggest to the emperor steps to take. I doubt the emperor would agree with all of them, unless in the end he wants so consistently to live by the gospel that he would rather let the state be potentially conquered by a foe than surrender the principle of nonviolence.

3. As far as government action and combating climate change, what I prefer is broad-based, grassroots social transformation rather than some mandate from on high. It's become clear, after Copenhagen, that governments are not particularly adept at resisting the status quo, questioning the dogma of unlimited economic growth, or even proposing the moral challenge of sacrifice for the sake of future generations.

I would grant "some form of legitimacy" to governments, yes, unless I become some sort of anarchist in the future. Again, I don't think a "Yoderian" is so extreme as to suggest a government can claim no legitimacy at all. The simple point was always that powers are subject to Christ and the recipients of witness from a critically-distant Church. Governments cannot be "Christian" and remain expressions of a fallen world. But, as with all other things, some glimmers of glory may yet be discovered within from time to time.

thanks for answering, and thanks for the replies.

I meant to finish Yoder, but I had to turn the book back in to the library.

In many ways I guess I am more anarchist than you. I accept the anarchist claim that the State has killed billions in world history. But I also know that sometimes without a strong state, the people are at the mercy of outside predatory influences (armies, NATO, the IMF, World Bank, Joe Biden, etc).

Even the Orthodox guys I read, while they support tactical moves done by some political leaders who are Orthodox, realize the state is a problem more often than not.

Another interesting idea is medieval Iceland: it really didnt' have a state structure, and not surprisingly it flourished.

I accidentally posted a comment on "Decline Going Mainstream." I meant to post it here. I said I actually liked this blog post.