Book Review, Jesus For President, Part III

Part III of this text, "Jesus for President," was difficult to process. Though I read it over a week ago, it has taken me quite awhile to figure out how I can write about it. This section's message has convicting words while presenting challenges that penetrate your very core and shake one's foundation. This is not to be read by the weak of heart, the fundamentalist, or someone unwilling to put aside what they want for what God might ask them to do. Only those willing to humble themselves and see where the Church (and maybe even themselves) could possibly be misguided should read these pages or even my review; for I wonder if I even truly grasped the radical message within these pages.

The authors begin by talking about baptism as a sign of the new exodus. One emerges from the water as a "new humanity" (144). And then they begin to talk about how the empire could not ever be baptized for the empire can never emerge as a new humanity. The empire is a beautiful, breathtaking institution. They call Rome "dazzling" and "magical" (158).

We see the purpose of John's Revelation was "to reveal the truth" about this beautiful empire (148). John challenges people to think beyond the empire and stop thinking "there is no other way except the filthy rotten system we have today" for when we think the empire is necessary, it is hard to admit what parts are dysfunctional (153). According to these authors, the book of Revelation forces us past such a notion.

The authors teach us how Christianity becomes tangled up with the empire through Constantine. It became illegal NOT to be a Christian and soon violence was done in Christ's name "with crosses painted on their shields" (163). The Church was no longer the persecuted, as with John the Revelator, showing (in code) how the empire was dysfunctional.

The Church became tangled in the empire and it was at "great cost" for it caused an "identity crises" (165). The same Church who once spoke about what was filthy and rotten about the beautiful empire was now becoming the empire, or the very "beast" from which Jesus' life was set apart. For as we remember reading in Part II, Jesus' temptation shows us Jesus resisted "power, relevance" and being a "spectacle." These are characteristics of the dazzling empire. And the authors claim the best way, by far, "to defeat the Kingdom of God is to empower the Church to rule the world with a sword for then it becomes the beast it wishes to destroy" (177).

Through this entire discussion, the authors push the reader to move beyond the glimmer and sparkle of our own empire to see what is destructive about it. And there is a footnote showing they are not just showcasing America for "among Russia, China, Rwanda, Belgium, and countless others, it would be quite a competition" to see who has shed the most blood (182). They want us to think about all empires, but since they live in America, the Church in America seems to be the audience to whom they aim. The thing the Church in America must confront, according to these authors, is the hard truth that the Church cannot grasp power in the same way the empire (or the world) does.

The authors begin a discussion about idols and it captured my attention, since I preached on idols a few weeks ago. They say, "It was once said, if you want to know your idols, consider what you are willing to kill for" and ask, "What are our Idols?" (185). This begins to push the reader to consider for what the Church is willing to kill or even harder to think about, for what the Church people are willing to sacrifice our own children (209).

They begin to show us how the world's ideals have been adopted by the Church. They claim "the empire of violence and nationalism has crept into the church" and the "economic and ecological destruction of God's creation has come along with it" (193). We have all too often "read the Bible through the eyes of America" instead of reading America through the Bible (194). We see the empire's flag hung within our sanctuary and it often smothers "the glory of the cross" (195). According to these authors, if we have a flag it needs to be that of a "slaughtered lamb" (197).

The author's preach: The Church must refuse to draw a line in the sand and instead the Church must teach "everybody is made in God's image" no matter where they live or what they have done (197). The authors say, "Violence kills the image of God in us" for "violence goes against everything we are created for-- to love and be loved" (204).

At this point, I could not help but begin to think about violence and what violence says theologically. If I act violently with the intent to kill, I am really saying, "You are beyond redemption" or "I am going to kill God's image right out of you based on what you have done." For if I kill at all, I have claimed the power and authority to decide who's actions are redeemable by God. I claim the power and authority to take away their very God-given breath and squelch the opportunity for God's redeemable work in their life. And the according to these authors, the Church cannot claim such power or authority for such a thing is deceptive.

I was forced to think about the term "redemptive violence" and questioned if there even is such a thing. For if an act of violence claims a person is beyond redemption, how could one ever act violently in order to bring about redemption? It seems like utter nonsense. And they actually pray the words, "Dear God, liberate us from the logic of redemptive violence" (214).

The authors want to force those in the Church who happen to be Americans out of thinking like the empire and instead push them to think like God. Most know me as a non-violent person, but even for me, many of these words shocked me to my core. I cannot imagine how someone who approves of any violence would read this text. It would be traumatic, to say the least.

So they tackle the hard question next. The authors say they are often asked, "shouldn't we intervene" to stop trauma like that of "Hitler, Saddam, or the genocide in Dafur" (202)? Their first response is, "who is we?" (the church or the empire) and then they admit it is very tempting to think there is no greater love then to take the "life of someone to protect another person" but if anyone in history ever had such an argument, it would be Peter. Peter picks up the sword "to protect Jesus" but Jesus had another, creative, imaginative way of living.

The authors continue by showing how almost all people involved in slaughter throughout history is done "by people who sincerely believed they were promoting the good" (203). Even Hitler and the KKK lynchings were done out of a "sense of right" (203). But the authors push the Church to understand that no one is beyond redemption. They say, "it is even more scandalous to think of killing someone who kills, for they, more then anyone in the world, need to hear that they are created for something better then that" (205).

Then they point out a huge difference in the greatest love of all. There is a huge difference between being willing to DIE FOR someone and being willing to KILL FOR someone. The true embodiment of Christ's love, the thing we should be tempted to think the greatest love of all is to lay down our life for another, not to take life for another.

These words are on page 175 and shook my very core so much it takes my breath away to even type them here. He says, "If this bloody, counterfeit liberation is American, I am proud to be un-American" along with other such statements, and then "but if grace, humility, and nonviolence are American, I am proud to be an American. If sharing to create a safe, sustainable world is American, I am proud to be an American. If loving our enemies is American, I am proud to be an American. Regardless, I would die for the people of New York, but I will not kill for them... my kingdom is not of this world." And again, "I will pledge an allegiance deeper than nationalism, to my God and to my family... my kingdom is not of this world, I will use my life to shout, 'Another world is possible'" (175). And as I read these words, I could see how one who makes such a statement, as the one here on page 175, could easily be in line to be crucified with Christ.