In Reply to: Jesus the Anarchist posted by moonshiner on June 17, 2006 at 14:32:37:
From my own studies on this issue, I'd add that the ancient Israelites were the first to lay down the groundwork for God as dictator, or more accurately, middle-eastern potentate.
I have trouble with the word "Lord," exactly because of its feudal connotation. I much prefer "Friend," "Teacher," or "Beloved" when trying to address a personal God in the person of Jesus Christ.
"He spent his life refusing to claim power over anyone. He said that God is understood in terms of love not power. We add nothing to the majesty of "the human one" by adding a throne or a crown. If he did not want to rule over others in life, why should he want it in death? That is why Jesus is called "lamb of God"; he spoke not as the king of the universe, but from its heart."
This statement is the Christology that underlies liberation theology. It is a very radical notion of Jesus as the human form of Divinity, and it has implications for how followers of this Christ of faith who calls us to kenosis (self-emptying of desire for power, dominion & control). If this is my Teacher, then He shapes my view of the worldly power and the way I behave toward those who have a hold on worldly power and dominion.
This is where the notion of "preferential option for the poor" comes in. People who live in poverty have virtually no worldly power and dominion. What little they have, they risk loosing to those with greater power and dominion or "acts of God." Rather than simply "remember the poor" (because it's a way to dominion), I believe Christ calls his followers to serve the poor. Service implies a one-down, not a one-up position of power. I believe that a one-down position of power of service to the poor, the disadvantaged, the marginalized, etc., means helping people find hope and the inner and external resources of empowerment.
As far as politics are concerned, I do not believe that a follower of Christ Liberator should aligns him/herself with people and groups who are in power in a way that furthers or reinforces their worldly dominion. I believe the prophetic role calls friends of the Teacher to stand outside the circle of the powerful and call upon those who hold power (the elites) to repentence. Therefore, it makes no difference to me whether the group of elites in power are conserative or liberal or moderate.
Don't the poor also need to repent? What we typically think of as repentence is turning away from sins of the flesh, such as prostitution, gambling, intemperance, or thievery and murder. In the human capacity to do these things, both the poor and rich are equals. Interesting, however, that the poor more frequently pay justice for these sins (which are crimes) by filling up our prisons. That strongly suggests there is some basic inequality when it comes to the wages of sin. Perhaps more than repenting certain behaviors, we are called to change on a more radical level. I would argue that this more radical level of repentence is our orientation toward worldly power and dominion.
Moonshiner, I find it interesting that you would post an article like this, given the fact that you take an agnostic position. Would viewing Jesus as Anarchist/Liberator necessarily imply some form of belief in a higher power?