No Complacency

But we need to stop here to be sure that no one is taking this as an endorsement of the present world order or, which is also wrong, an endorsement of all the acts of our government. It is true that Jesus had no room for utopias—except, of course, for the one that he himself was going to bring. But neither did he have room for complacency. On the contrary, he constantly called men to the most radical involvement with himself and in spiritual terms to the most revolutionary outlook possible.

In the spring in which Jesus Christ was crucified, the Roman authorities in Jerusalem had arrested a Zealot for his revolutionary activities. His name was Barabbas. The Bible tells us that the charge was for insurrection and murder, which means that Barabbas had been among the bands who were seeking to drive the Romans from Palestine by means of guerrilla tactics and political assassinations. He would have argued that life under Rome was oppressive. He was fighting the racism, the injustices, the militarism of the oppressors. Perhaps he was even a heroic, noble figure as men measure heroes. But he was arrested, and they locked him up.

Then there was Jesus, another man also charged with being a revolutionary. The Bible never suggests that they met. But if they had met, I imagine that Jesus would have agreed with much of what Barabbas was saying. He would have said, “Barabbas, your diagnosis of the system is right. The Romans boast of their justice; they are all for law and order. Herod was elected on that platform. But the administration of the law is corrupt, and they will prove it in a few hours by executing me. Moreover, you are also right about the Pharisees. They too are far more interested in preserving their own necks than they are about justice. Caiaphas himself said, ‘You know nothing at all. . . . It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.’ You are right. There is oppression. There is racism.

“Nevertheless, you are making one big mistake. Your diagnosis is correct, but your treatment is faulty. You are being revolutionary in your attitude to the Roman and Jewish authorities. But you are not being at all revolutionary with yourself. In fact, you are being complacent. What makes you think that the system you will set up will be any less corrupt than the system you are involved in overthrowing? What makes you think that you are any more moral than the Romans or that you would act with any less self-interest than Caiaphas? I am here to tell you that you are all corrupt. The Jew is as corrupt as the Roman. The poor man is as corrupt as the rich man. The black man is as corrupt as the white man. The slave is as corrupt as his master. Consequently, you can only change things by changing people.

“Barabbas, I have come to change people. And when I change people, these people are going to revolutionize society. They will not overthrow society, but wherever they can they will attempt to set the systems of this world right.”

This, of course, is where the cleansing of the temple comes in. John tells us, “When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, ‘Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!’ His disciples remembered that it is written: ‘Zeal for your house will consume me’” (John 2:13-17). Jesus did not seek to eliminate temple worship. He sought to reform it. In other words, within the sphere of his influence he worked to transform what was into what it always should have been.

Such people are dangerous. They will either be loved or hated. In Christ’s day most of the world turned from this all-demanding, revolutionary type of commitment. Pilate addressed them and asked, “Whom should I release to you? Jesus or Barabbas?” They answered, “Barabbas.” Why should they have asked for Barabbas—Barabbas, the man who was going to burn their houses down and destroy the system? Tom Skinner, who tells this story in his book Words of Revolution, says: “It’s very simple. If you let Barabbas go, and he starts another disturbance or another riot, you can always call out the National Guard, the Federal troops or the Marines to put his thing down. All you have to do is push a few tanks into his neighborhood and you can squash whatever he’s up to. You can find out where he’s keeping his guns and raid his apartment. You can always stop Barabbas. But the question is: how do you stop Jesus? How do you stop a Man who has no guns, no tanks, no ammunition, but still is shaking the whole Roman empire? How do you stop a Man, who—without firing a shot—is getting revolutionary results? They figured there’s only one answer—get rid of Him. . . .

“Barabbas would never really ask to run your life. Barabbas would exploit you, but he wouldn’t ask to run your life. Jesus would ask to run your life. Jesus would ask for the right to rule over you! And that’s the problem. Men would rather be enslaved to tyranny than let Jesus rule their lives. They would rather be exploited than let Christ determine their lives. So they said, ‘Give us Barabbas.’”

The Call

It is the same today. Is Jesus Christ a revolutionary? No, he is not. He was executed wrongly on that count. And yet, like all revolutionary leaders, he demands the utmost of involvement, love, and self-sacrifice from his followers. Jesus did not offer a life of ease. Like Churchill, he offered men blood, tears, toil, and sweat. He told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt 16:24). He demanded their all! There were few to follow him.

Will you dare to follow him? It is worth reflecting on who it was who first responded to his teaching. There were establishment figures as well as Zealots—that did not seem to matter—but there were few of the soft, well-heeled figures of southern Palestine. There were not many priests, not many rulers. The ones who followed him were the vigorous, rough-speaking fishermen types from Galilee. For they had the courage, and they were not afraid to be despised for being different. Have you that courage? Jesus will not ask you either to defend the status quo or to overthrow it. But he will give a new perspective. He will make you a new man or woman, capable of radical obedience within the bounds of true Christianity.

(from Boice Expositional Commentaries, Copyright © by James Montgomery Boice, Baker Books.)

_________________

No Utopias

The first point we need to see then is that whatever the cleansing of the temple may or may not have been about, it was definitely not an attempt to set up an earthly kingdom viewed as a utopia. That was the goal of the revolutionaries, but it was not Christ’s goal. In fact, if it was, it was most unsuccessful. A revolt did not come from it; and, what is more, the effects were even of short duration, for the other Gospels tell us that Jesus found it necessary to repeat the same cleansing again three years later near the end of his ministry (Matt 21:12,13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45,46). Actually, if we are to take his saying about the destruction of the temple with all seriousness (Mark 13:2), it would be most accurate to say that Jesus did not attribute eternal worth to any existing institutions, even the temple and the temple worship. For in his view all belonged to the old order that would one day come under judgment and pass away.

This truth has several important conclusions that flow from it, and we should not miss them. First, it is obviously wrong for us to deify anything human. This applies to democratic institutions as well as to those of socialism or communism. Consequently, we must not make the mistake some Americans make of identifying the American way of life or the American form of government with Christianity. The American way of life may have its good aspects (as well as its bad), some of them derived from Christianity, but America is not in itself God’s kingdom.

Second, the followers of Christ are also not to take it into their hands to pronounce judgment upon their rulers. Judgment will be executed, but God alone is capable of such justice. Consequently, in speaking of the turmoil that would take place at the end times, Jesus warned his disciples to flee from Jerusalem rather than to join in insurrections (Matt 24:15-26). For us this means that Christians are not to take part in movements that are attempting to destroy the system.

The third conclusion is that, in the time prior to the final judgment, the state even in the hands of corrupt rulers will have a proper role. Jesus illustrated this most clearly in the story of the tribute money. One of the political parties of the day, the Herodians, had come to Jesus with a question meant to trap him into a fatal admission. They asked, “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” (Matt 22:17). In other words, should a loyal Jew pay taxes? If Jesus said yes, he would be despised by a large section of the people, particularly the Zealots, for whom this was a point of patriotic zeal and religious honor. He would cease to be a leader. On the other hand, if he said no, then he could be denounced to the Roman authorities as an insurrectionist. What did he do? Jesus took a coin, and after pointing out that Caesar’s image was on one side, he replied, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (v. 21).

There were some, no doubt, who took this reply as a compromise. There were some who accused him because of it, for it was brought up against him at his trial before Pilate: “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2). Nevertheless, this was not Christ’s teaching, Jesus acknowledged the absolute authority of God. He taught that all human institutions would one day be brought under judgment and pass away. Nevertheless, there was still a proper role for the state and a proper duty toward it. One of these duties was to pay taxes.

We may apply this point by saying that withholding taxes on the grounds that much of the tax money goes for the military is not a justifiably Christian form of social protest.

(from Boice Expositional Commentaries, Copyright © by James Montgomery Boice, Baker Books.)

Next…

No Complacency

_________________

Pros and Cons

One of the most valuable of the recent books on this subject is a highly condensed monograph by Oscar Cullmann, recently of the universities of Basel and Paris, entitled Jesus and the Revolutionaries. In it he points out the complexity of the issues.

On the one hand, notes Cullmann, there are certainly elements in Christ’s sayings that allow some radicals to see him as their ally. In Christ’s day in Israel there were men known as Zealots (from the Greek word zelos, meaning “zeal”). The Zealots were fanatical in their concern for Jewish law and in their expectation of the imminent dawning of the kingdom of God. Many carried swords or daggers that were frequently used in political killings. Hence they were also called Sicarii, which is a Latin term meaning “cut-throats” or “assassins.” In time the Zealots produced a politico-religious revolt that led to the Jewish war against the Romans beginning in  A.D. 66. As a result of this war Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman general Titus in  A.D. 70. After the fall of Jerusalem one Zealot group continued the resistance until  A.D. 74 in the mountain stronghold of Masada, which is a shrine today.

Against this background there are certain elements that have led some scholars to see Christ in this coloring. Jesus, as well as the Zealots, proclaimed that the kingdom of God was at hand. Jesus was critical of Herod, whom he called “that fox” (Luke 13:32). He was executed officially for his alleged Zealot activities (Matt 27:37). He had among his disciples at least one, Simon the Zealot, who had been a member of a Zealot group before he became Christ’s follower. Some of the disciples carried swords (Luke 22:38; John 18:10). And, most striking of all, in the passage that is the basis of our study, we are told that he cleansed the temple in Jerusalem in the midst of the very volatile days of the Passover. Many in his day, as well as in ours, would have considered this the act of an agitator.

On the other hand, as Cullmann also points out, there are elements that reveal Jesus to be the opponent of every act of political resistance and all acts of violence. To begin with, there are the sayings on behalf of nonviolence (Matt 5:39; 26:52). There are the exhortations to love our enemies (Matt 5:44). Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they [not the Zealots] will be called sons of God” (Matt 5:9). On several occasions Jesus repudiated any political elements in his divine mission, principally when he was tempted by the devil (Matt 4:8-10) and when he was tried before Pilate (John 18:36). Moreover, if some still cite the presence of a Zealot among his disciples, it must be pointed out that this is an argument that cuts both ways. For Jesus also had Matthew, a tax collector, and it is hard to find a greater representative of the establishment than that.

When we put all these texts (not just some) into the picture, we find a Jesus who goes beyond either of these two categories. And we are led to ask: What are his distinctive teachings? And, if it is true in one sense that he does call us to a revolutionary commitment, to what kind of a revolution does he call us?

(from Boice Expositional Commentaries, Copyright © by James Montgomery Boice, Baker Books.)

Next…

No Utopias

_________________

John 2:12-17 After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days. When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”   His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

A person does not need to be an expert in current events to know that we live in an age of impending revolution. The call to revolution has been raised by communism. Radical groups forecast revolution for America. In the student world—whether it be in Los Angeles, New York, Moscow, Paris, Tokyo, Havana, or Djakarta, wherever students gather—there are millions who debate the nature of the revolutionary days in which we live and there are thousands who urge revolution. “We are going to change the world” is the claim of many persons—and, indeed, they may just do it!

But the secular world does not have a monopoly on sounding the call to revolution. It has also echoed from the sanctuaries of the churches. In many of the major denominations, radical clerics have sought to align the prestige of their denominations behind particular sociological and political objectives, some of which, according to their advocates, are to be obtained by destroying the present systems of social order and government. This segment of Christendom often points to actions and teachings of Jesus that are thought to support their objectives.

Was Jesus Christ a revolutionary? That question is of crucial importance for Christians who wish guidance for their actions in our time. Was he a revolutionary? The answer to that question, as I hope to show, is “No, he was not.” He was not a revolutionary in the way most people understand that word. On the other hand, he was not a defender of the establishment either, and it is correct to say that he actually called men and women to a revolution (although a peaceful one) that was far more radical and long-term than anything that people then would in themselves have dreamed possible.

(from Boice Expositional Commentaries, Copyright © by James Montgomery Boice, Baker Books)

Next…

Pros and Cons

_________________

November 22, 2011

A recurring theme in criticism of the students pepper-sprayed at UC Davis last week is that in forming a ring around police and their fellow activists they were violating the principles of nonviolent resistance. “A fundamental tenet of civil disobedience is to accept arrest when protesting injustice,” Berkeley Daily Cal columnist Casey Given wrote yesterday, and so the UC activists of today have no right to “compare … their struggle to … the Free Speech and Civil Rights Movements of the 1960s.”

Casey Given is right that civil rights activists mostly submitted to arrest willingly (though one of the movement’s greatest unsung heroes did not). But to invoke the Berkeley Free Speech Movement as an example of this supposed rule of nonviolence is a deeply strange choice.

The Free Speech Movement at Berkeley was christened on September 30, 1964, at a sit-in following the citation of eight students for violating the university’s leafleting policies. The very next day, on the morning of October 1, the university administration escalated the conflict by arresting former student Jack Weinberg for tabling in support of the civil rights movement in SproulPlaza.

When police told Weinberg he was under arrest, he refused to move, and the officers were forced to call for backup. As they waited, the crowd grew. Eventually a squad car arrived. As police carried Weinberg into the car, the students standing nearby spontaneously sat down, blocking it from leaving Sproul. Police ordered them to move. They refused. Soon Mario Savio climbed onto the roof of the car and declared a noon rally at that location.

Savio was granted a meeting with university administrators not long after, at which he declared that the students surrounding the police car would disperse if and only if the administration released Weinberg, dropped charges against him and the eight students cited the previous day, and opened serious negotiations on campus regulations. Several hundred students spent that night surrounding the car, many of them in sleeping bags. (The demonstrators continued to use the car’s roof as a podium, denting it severely. They also deflated its tires.)

It was not until the following evening, after the administrators had accepted most of their demands, that the students allowed the police car to exit the plaza.

This is the history of nonviolent student protest at Berkeley. It is the history of peaceful student organizing, yes, but it’s also a history of students disrupting police business, refusing to submit to arrest, damaging police property, even holding police hostage.

That is the history of the students of the University of California. That is the inheritance of the student activists of today.

http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/22/nonviolence-resisting-arrest-and-the-student-movements-of-the-sixties-and-today/