by David Bishop
In the opening chapter of his book, “The Original Revolution”, author John Yoder examines the four major political attitudes that dominate Christian thinking today. Yoder demonstrates from Scripture how each of these attitudes were also present in the days of Christ, and how one or two might very well have been a temptation for Christ, even if just briefly. Whether one agrees with Yoder’s final conclusion or not, one thing is certain, his examination is a fascinating read.
Yoder begins by pointing out the fact that Jesus was born a displaced person in a country under foreign occupation and the rule of a puppet government. He had come to preach good news for the poor, bad news for the rich, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the captives. However, because the socio-political environment in which He had been born found itself far less than receptive to His message of liberty, justice and favor, the choices He therefore faced would be the same political choices later faced by a Pennsylvanian in 1778, by an Algerian in 1958, and by a Vietnamese in 1968. That is to say, the social-political choices He faced then are the same social-political choices that politically oppressed people face today.
Realism
The first choice that Jesus faced was Realism. This was the path taken by the Herodians and the Sadducees. To the mind of a realist, unjust rule cannot be changed whether people want to change it or not. It is the proverbial immovable object. The realist, therefore, strives to save what he can by aiming at what he thinks is possible. The Sadducees, for instance, had managed to keep the temple worship going, had managed to maintain public recognition and teaching of the Jewish law, and thereby had secured as much as possible a little breathing space for the Jewish people and their culture.
Yoder reminds us that it would be a mistake to condemn the realist as members of the establishment, because the fact is, the realist does work for justice and for change, and not at all without effect. The work of the Herodians and the Sadducees, for example, included some very costly and effective, non-violent direct action against the desecration of their temple by the Roman armies. Of course, however, in order to effect this, they had to accept and directly sanction the social system of Roman occupation under which they lived and ultimately under which they profited.
It is the same today. Yoder argues that despite the theoretical separation of church and state, Western society is never without a chaplain in the army and in congress (parliament). It is as though, “the service of the chaplain is to sanctify the existing order with the hope of being able to progressively improve it.” Realists are the sort of people who advertise the use of religion as a means to improve one’s personal lot and ultimate contribution to society. It does not matter much what religion just as long as it is not too uncomfortably violent. Conservative talk radio is filled to the brim with people like this.
Realism was never actually a temptation for Jesus. Quite the opposite, in fact. The realists were against Him from the very start; whether it was Herod, who sought to murder Him as a child, or Caiaphas, who claimed that it was expedient that His life should be sacrificed in order to preserve the order.
The Zealot
Standing opposite realism is what Yoder terms, “Righteous Revolutionary Violence”. This choice was best represented by the Maccabees, and later in Jesus’ time by the Zealots. The Macccabees and the Zealots were both underground political and military groups. Today, righteous revolutionary violence might be best represented by groups like the Black Panthers or even Islamic terrorists.
The goal of the Zealots was to express its zeal for the Lord in holy warfare against the infidels. Since the only language Rome understood was force, it was thought that the only effective response was force. Similar propaganda is heard today among certain pockets within Christian groups. Postmillennialists, for instance, and theonomists see Western economic policies and military might as one arm of Christ’s dominion. In these pockets, Jesus’ ministry is understood as representing a constant struggle with the social option of revolutionary violence.
Yoder argues that this position was indeed a temptation for Jesus. He was, after all, perceived by some of His followers as the nearest thing to a Zealot. The Romans executed Him on the grounds that He was one. He used their language, took the side of the poor as they did, condemned the same evil they did, created a community of committed followers as they did, and even prepared Himself to die for a divine cause as they did.
Yet in the end, Jesus did not take the same path the Zealots had. In fact, in the end, it was a former zealot, a member of His own community, Judas, that betrayed Him.
It must be understood, however, that Jesus did not reject the path of the Zealots for the same reasons that we might. We might reject the path of the Zealots, because, “being secure, we would stand to lose in a revolution, or because, being squeamish, we want to avoid social conflict.” Jesus was not afraid to die. Nor was He afraid of conflict.
The reason Jesus rejected the path of the Zealots was because He disagreed with them on the meaning of “real need.” The Zealots saw a change of society brought about a change in political rule as the real need. Jesus disagreed. He had not come to change society, but rather to effect the eternal salvation of the individual, therefore He saw no need in changing political rule.
Jesus rejected the path of the Zealots not because it changed too much, but rather because it changed too little. He had come to preach good news for the poor, bad news for the rich, freedom for captives, recovery of sight for the blind. A change in society could not and cannot effect this. This is never made more clear than in that most clear of differences between Jesus and the Zealots; namely, the fact of His readiness to associate with the impure, the unrighteous, the publican, the Roman. What was ultimately wrong to Jesus about the Zealot’s path was the righteous arrogance of the Zealot. The problem was not that Zealot’s path produces a new order by use of illegitimate instruments, but rather that the order it produces cannot be new. An order created by the sword is at center still not the new heart of the kingdom Jesus had announced.
Isolation
A third choice was isolationism. Jesus might have withdrawn to the desert and there remained, pure and perfectly faithful now that He had no longer had the stress and conflict of urban life to interfere. The Dead Sea Scrolls have introduced us to several sizeable Jewish colonies that did just this. We find this sort of thinking today among groups like the Amish, the Quakers, and to a lesser extent nowadays, the hippie communes of the sixties and seventies.
But Jesus did not withdraw. Though raised in a small village, He left it behind, and having openly called His disciples to set aside their nets and their plows, He set out for the city and for the conflict He knew would be waiting for Him there.
The Pharisees
The fourth choice was that of “proper religion” represented in Jesus’ day by the Pharisees. The Pharisees lived in urban society, but sought like the isolationist to keep themselves separate and pure. They tried to accomplish this by keeping rules of segregation. Certain coins, certain crops, certain persons, certain occupations, certain days, certain elements of culture were all considered taboo.
Yoder argues that today we find this thinking among Christians who believe it is possible to distinguish “spiritual” and “moral” issues from “political” and “social” issues. The Scriptures may teach us that the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but it would be presumptuous on our part to suppose that the kingdom is also not a matter of criticism and protest. If justice, peace and righteousness is not the business of the Christian, then whose business is it? The Muslim’s?
While I agree with Yoder’s conclusion here, I nevertheless wish he had taken a more careful approach. It is easy for one to overstep the bounds here, and commit a logical blunder. One might conclude from this that to avoid revolution means to take the side of the establishment. This is an appeal to a false dichotomy though. It is like arguing that if you’re against the war then you’re against the soldier too, or that if you don’t vote then you have already voted.
We must be careful to stay within the bounds here though, rather than succumb to a logical error. We must take care not to say, for instance, as some do say, that we take the side of the establishment if we avoid revolution. I did not vote, for instance, in the last presidential election, not because I think voting is not the business of a Christian, but rather because I believe I had no actual choice from which to choose. I see no difference in voting for a Sadducee over against a Herodian. Withholding my vote was an act of protest. One might argue as to the effectiveness of that protest, but this is of no consequence. I remind one that I am not a realist. I shall not surrender my choice to the “lesser of two evils” in order to effect some small change in the direction led me by an establishment dog.
The Fifth Choice
Jesus did not take the side of any of these four political choices. He was not a realist, an isolationist, a Pharisee or a Zealot. Rather, He brought to ultimate fulfillment the original revolution – that is, the creation of a distinct community with its own set of values and its own coherent way of incarnating them. Jesus created around Himself a society like no other society mankind had ever seen.
Jesus gave the members of his society a new way to live. He gave them a new way to deal with offenders – by forgiving them. He gave them a new way to deal with violence – by suffering. He gave them a new way to deal with money – by sharing it. He gave them a new way to deal with the problems of leadership – by drawing upon the gift of every member, even the most humble. He gave them intellectual clarity and freedom from guilt – by giving them doctrinal meat to digest and a heritage to appreciate. He gave them a new way to deal with a corrupt society – by building a new order, not by smashing the old. He gave them a new pattern of relationships between man and woman, between parent and child, between master and slave, a radical new vision of what it means to be a human person. He gave them a new attitude toward the state and toward the “enemy nation”.
His is a society in which a person cannot be born into. A person can only enter into His society by God’s grace through faith in Christ. His is a society in which there is no promise of second generation members. His is a society in which only those He has chosen from eternity will enter.
His is a kingdom that, counter to all precedent, is mixed in its composition – racially, culturally, economically, sexually. It is for men, it is for women. It is for poor, it is for rich. It is for slave, it is for free. It is for jailed, it is for jailor. It is for Zealot, it is for Roman.
Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
My chosen one I whom I delight.
I have bestowed my spirit upon him,
and he will make justice shine on the nations.
He will not call out or lift his voice high,
or make himself heard in the open street.
He will not break a bruised reed,
or snuff out a smoldering wick;
He will make justice shine on every race,
never faltering, never breaking down,
He will plant justice on earth,
while coasts and islands wait for his teaching.
– Isaiah 42:1-4