OK, got some interesting input last week on how we might define politics. It’s an interestingly difficult animal to pin down. Here are some initial thoughts I have. Not well organized, nor deeply analyzed, just initial thoughts. I’ll need your further input to steer me in the right direction.
Merriam-Webster tells us that the principal definition is “the art or science of government.” I’ll confess, that’s not really what I’m talking about when I’m discussing Christians and politics, although there is some attraction in this definition. My principal focus is on M-W’s third definition:
3. a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)
My focus is on the obtention and preservation of an elected office, the struggle for control. At times, this comes out as a struggle over a specific issue, yet the question behind that is typically one of control. As the dictionary says, it’s about power and leadership, not mere governing. When I’m thinking about politics, I’m thinking about campaigns and parties, or more importantly, partisanship.
Is that a reasonable limitation or should I focus on M-W’s primary definition?
Tim,
I am really glad that you’ve become a consistent voice among our people on this subject. And I say that not just because I think we possess extremely similar views. I appreciate the fact that you keep pointing your readers to something better!
I must admit, I am terribly tired of the politics of our land. It’s incredibly deconstructive and immensely time consuming. It has gotten some of us off track of the things that matter most. I appreciate what you regularly serve up on this subject. I say keep it coming.
Thank you Doug. I hope we’ll all keep studying and growing as regards this matter.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
Somehow I missed last week’s question, so I will give a definition by breaking down the word politics (tongue firmly implanted in cheek).
poli – form of poly meaning many.
tics – form of tick, a blood-sucking parasite.
politics – “many blood0sucking parasites.”
Tim, the main problem I struggle with, in regard to your definition, is that it removes both Jesus and most Christians from politics altogether. It seems to support the old saw that Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure — even though “kingdom” and “Lord” and “Anointed One” were all terms with serious political import.
Still, as long as the ‘kingdom of God’ is understood as a party with a leader, a distinct methodology (self-sacrificial love and truth-telling as opposed to violence and manipulation), and a vision for the future, I guess it would still work.
I don’t know if you’ve read Mark Moore’s essay on the Politics of Jesus – it is pretty influential in my understanding of the idea.
Nick,
A quick reading of Moore’s article leads me to think he’s guilty of what Hunter calls “the conflation of the political and the public.” Why use politeuomai to define politics? He offers no explanation for that, just does it.
As for Jesus’ using the term “Kingdom of God,” we need to see that he took terms like that, like Messiah, etc. and transformed their meaning. That’s why when John looks for the Lion of Judah (seed of David) in Revelation 5, he finds a sacrificed lamb.
A glaring weakness in Moore’s analysis is the fact that Pilate didn’t consider Jesus to be guilty. Moore makes much of the fact that Jesus was executed in a way fitting treason, but doesn’t point out that the Romans didn’t believe the charge! They knew that the Jews had accused him out of jealousy, not out of any truth to the claim.
I’ll try and analyze it further in the future. Maybe I could write a response to the article and you could respond to my response.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Moore’s definition of political figure: “By political I mean a public individual who wields
power over an identifiable group of supporters with the intention of carrying out a specific social agenda.”
I agree wholeheartedly that Jesus redefined his terms, but I do not believe he made them apolitical. Saying, “My kingdom is not from this world” is a far cry from saying, “My kingdom isn’t really a kingdom.”
By your definition, Tim, Gandhi and MLK Jr were not political figures, merely public ones – neither desired a political office, nor did they desire control. Now, I agree that Pilate did not believe that Jesus desired to supplant Caesar as his Lord. But that hardly proves that Jesus did not, in fact, desire to underthrow (how’s that for coining a term?) the Caesar’s kingdom?
Does Jesus Christ not, in point of fact, desire control? Are we not told that, at a point in time in the future, Jesus Christ will effectively rule all creation? Is King of kings and Lord of lords no longer a meaningful political statement?
Now, if you want to limit the discussion to governmental politics, that would make sense. But I don’t think you can just arbitrarily limit the term “politics” (sans modifier) that way. There are office politics, church politics, family politics — all of which fall under M-W #3 – which is why “as in a government” is a parenthetical statement (seemingly) meant to be descriptive rather than limiting.
Scott,
That joke was so bad that my spam filter kicked in! :-) Fortunately I rescued your post so that everyone else could groan along.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Nick,
Your point is well taken about MLK and Gandhi. I guess, as much as anything, I’m trying to arrive at a popular definition of “politics.” What do people generally mean by the term? I’m aware that there are specific uses of the term, like “brotherhood politics,” but I’m trying to arrive at what is generally understood by the term. [Which, in effect, is what dictionaries were meant to do originally, right? They were meant to be descriptive, not legislative.]
[There was an N.T. Wright article online discussing the seditious language of Philippians 3. The journal that the article was published in has pulled it from the Internet; I’m hoping to find a copy somewhere. It was called “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire” and was found at http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm ]
My point about Pilate is that Moore cannot point to the crucifixion as evidence of Jesus’ political nature, for he was not crucified for being a threat to Caesar nor for being a seditionist. He was crucified to appease the Jews, and their true complaint against Jesus was not about his claim to kingship. Had Jesus truly been as political as Moore claims, Pilate would have had no qualms about executing him.
I guess I consider that, for now, the Kingdom of God exists outside the realm of human governments, or maybe I should say inside of all of them. In one sense Jesus did seek an “underthrow” (I like it); in another sense, the question of who sits on a temporary human throne has little import within the kingdom. That’s why the church could teach honor and reverence for the King.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Rather, I would say, if Pilate understood Jesus to be as political as Moore and Wright (there’s the link you’re looking for, straight from NTWrightPage) claim, Pilate would have had no qualms about executing him. I would assert that Pilate was pretty short-sighted (he wasn’t a brilliant political operative like Herod); he failed to foresee the political ramifications of the challenge of YHWH’s Anointed One to anyone who calls himself Lord and Savior and son of the gods. He could not see how much more dangerous Jesus was to the Imperial way of operating than Barabbas. Pilate, like most Romans, seems utterly baffled by creational monotheism. He understood Jesus merely to be a mover-and-shaker within Jewish religious politics (esp. after Herod sent him back), not understanding that the uniqueness and universality of the One True God means that He is the King of all kings, many (if not most) of whom live in pretty much open rebellion against Him at present.
I agree that Mark’s paragraph about the crucifixion overstates the point considerably. It does remain, however, that even though Pilate did not agree with the charge of treason, he would not change the sign that defined the crime for which Jesus was crucified.
Totally agreed – it is not one particular throne-holder that matters, but the entire system that declares itself autonomous. It wasn’t Tiberius or Nero that the gospel seeks to underthrow, but any and all human and spiritual powers that erect their own Towers of Babel to make a name for themselves over and against the One True God.
And speaking of Gandhi, there’s an alternate history series that I’d like to read that re-imagines the fate of India if Germany conquers Britain in the early 1940s. Suffice it to say, the author believes that in a pre-24 hour media cycle era, Gandhian non-violence would have been horrifically ineffective against the Waffen SS.
I read a biography of Gandhi which claimed that he secretly hoped that Germany would invade India, believing that he could mobilize thousands of Indians to march to death, causing the Germans to grow weary of killing and lay down their arms. Don’t know if the author had any solid basis for that claim, but it’s interesting.
Nick, thanks for pointing that link out. Wright used to have the dead link on his page. I quoted some of that material in the book I’m working on, then couldn’t find it again.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
P.S.—”Book I’m working on” is used in the broadest sense of the term. Haven’t written on it in months.
Politics is a means toward peaceful resolution of conflicts. For nations, when political solutions fail, war, disorder and injustice are the results. So it’s clear the world’s people can’t live without politics any more than they can live without food or air or the written word. That the participants in politics speak from ignorance or don’t play fair shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. People are fallible, or we wouldn’t need Christ. Like so many other things in life, politics is not inherently evil, but the potential for sin is indeed high. The calling for Christians in politics is the same as in life: To be agents of the Lord on earth, and by doing so, giving the people around them a glimpse of the glory of God and his great plans for mankind.
Andy,
What’s the difference between politics and diplomacy? Or is there one?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
“War is a continuation of politics by other means.” -Von Clausewitz
I can see that. Replace “politics” with “entertainment” — the potential for sin is high, and there are some forms that are absolutely forbidden for Christians in entertainment. If you can attain political office without pledging to uphold anything but the kingdom of God, then you are free to seek that office. I think there are many local political positions where a Christian can serve in good conscience, so long as they do not affiliate themselves with any of the existing power structures.
Nick (and Andy),
I have been trying to sort out the differences between politics and government at different levels. I’m still wrestling with that, but I can’t help but see some difference. Could it be as regards which present themselves as “supreme”? For me, admittedly, the ability to make war is a big part of it. Any brilliant insights would be appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I think I would begin by saying that maybe politics is how you gain control/supremacy, while government is how you exercise control/supremacy?
Thus, the differences themselves will be different, depending on the field of endeavor — how different governments (two or more national governments, or state vs. federal, etc.) try and gain control over spheres of influence would be a political situation.
I am beginning to sense that your greatest concern is partisanship – and that rears its ugly head across all political landscapes.
Nick,
I definitely think the church has no place in joining any political team. We can’t ally ourselves with others and maintain our purity. “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” The church has nothing to gain and everything to lose by taking on “bedfellows.”
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer