![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Christianity, as a subject, is everywhere these days. Obviously, I'm more attuned to this theme, being of the Christian persuasion myself and attending seminary. Yesterday at the book store, conversation turned that direction a few times - partly because of the May 1 confluence of Eastern Pascha, pagan Beltaine, and May Day - Workers of the World Unite! and because the NYT's magazine had a great/infuriating article called PlayStations of the Cross, about Christian video games. This week's Harpers has many articles about Christianity, it's influence in politics and its mega churches (it waits for me on the couch). I am intrigued. My interest is piqued, both personally, academically and politically. But mostly, I am disturbed.
I am disturbed because those with the loudest voices are those that get heard and hold sway. I think that the kind of Christianity that is reported on and that has political pull in this current administration is a small percentage of Christians in the US (most definitely it is in the wider world). Despite the increase in megachurches, I beleive that the kind of people they are attracting are your kind, harmless neighbors. They don't actually want to take over the world. They probably have mixed opinions on the tough issues, like most of us.
Yes, I am being symphathetic to mainline, "conservative," evangelical Christians. But here's my beef: Just as there is not supposed to be any longer Greek or Jew, male or female, slave or master among Christians, there also should not be "liberal" or "conservative." These are political boundaries. While I whole heartedly believe that everyone should vote and vote for what they want their government to represent, Christians especially must remember that while we live under the government, we are not to be the government! This may be counter-intuitive for many. Since the Edict of Milan in 313 that freed Christians from persecution and institutionalized the religion, Christians have assumed that this was the pinnacle of God's obvious plan (short of the second coming). The apocalyptic milieu in which Jesus lived and preached, including the Book of Revelation, clearly envisioned that one day the Roman Empire and all oppression would be overthrown; some thought this would occur by the hand of God, some thought by all out war, and thus the righteous would reign in a time of peace. Jesus was a Jew and the Jews had been getting the shaft for quite a while (they have through out history): this is his context. And yet, Jesus also preached something so radically different from what people were expecting to hear. His call to non-violence, his talk of "the first will be last and the last will be first," his call to love even the Samaritan as oneself, the "rendering to Cesear what is Cesear's and to God what is God's" upturned the assumed order of things. The Constantinian model of government was beyond the early Christians wildest dreams, yet we know that an era of true peace and justice was never ushered in. We have to conclude that the apocalyptic hope of reign meaning rule was inaccurate.
I don't believe that the modern merging of Christianity and business or Christianity and government is "what Jesus would do." No, I think not. I don't believe Jesus wants us to be happy (in the shallow way we collectively talk about happy). I do not think Jesus wants us to be well-off. Jesus firmly asked that individuals give all they have to the poor, not out of a desire that we all be destitute, but in some socialist experiment in which we live as community and our lives are not to be dominated by possessing or the pursuit of possessing. We are not to rule over, we are to live with. Yes, I read the bible as a radical document (when I actually read it). I don't believe the New Testament was ever supposed to be read as the status quo.
As for Christian video games: What the fuck? In the article, the designers talk about youth being seduced by Satan in the guise of violent witches and pagan demons. Don't these Christians see that all they're doing is substituting "God" for the king and "satanic demons" for the witches? All of their spiritual warfare language and symbolism fall on blind eyes in the faces of kids who just want to blow shit up. Demons are demons, no matter how the box differentiates. Violence is violence, no matter which side "wins." Why do these Christians want to continue with business as usual? I don't think we should cede from the world, throwing our hands up in defeat, never again listening to the seductive beats of hip-hop or watching the delight that is good TV (ah, Buffy, ah, David Brent). I guess I just don't understand these Christians. Supposedly we both believe in Jesus, only my Jesus seems to look a lot.... well, a lot less white, a lot less American, a lot less status quo. When we attempt to label the Christian church along lines of "liberal" or "conservative" we are severing a group of people that in reality ought to be united, or at least in loving dialogue with one another. By aligning themselves with political parties and powers that be Christians are straying from the call of Christianity and are themselves being seduced by the Roman Empire.
I am disturbed because those with the loudest voices are those that get heard and hold sway. I think that the kind of Christianity that is reported on and that has political pull in this current administration is a small percentage of Christians in the US (most definitely it is in the wider world). Despite the increase in megachurches, I beleive that the kind of people they are attracting are your kind, harmless neighbors. They don't actually want to take over the world. They probably have mixed opinions on the tough issues, like most of us.
Yes, I am being symphathetic to mainline, "conservative," evangelical Christians. But here's my beef: Just as there is not supposed to be any longer Greek or Jew, male or female, slave or master among Christians, there also should not be "liberal" or "conservative." These are political boundaries. While I whole heartedly believe that everyone should vote and vote for what they want their government to represent, Christians especially must remember that while we live under the government, we are not to be the government! This may be counter-intuitive for many. Since the Edict of Milan in 313 that freed Christians from persecution and institutionalized the religion, Christians have assumed that this was the pinnacle of God's obvious plan (short of the second coming). The apocalyptic milieu in which Jesus lived and preached, including the Book of Revelation, clearly envisioned that one day the Roman Empire and all oppression would be overthrown; some thought this would occur by the hand of God, some thought by all out war, and thus the righteous would reign in a time of peace. Jesus was a Jew and the Jews had been getting the shaft for quite a while (they have through out history): this is his context. And yet, Jesus also preached something so radically different from what people were expecting to hear. His call to non-violence, his talk of "the first will be last and the last will be first," his call to love even the Samaritan as oneself, the "rendering to Cesear what is Cesear's and to God what is God's" upturned the assumed order of things. The Constantinian model of government was beyond the early Christians wildest dreams, yet we know that an era of true peace and justice was never ushered in. We have to conclude that the apocalyptic hope of reign meaning rule was inaccurate.
I don't believe that the modern merging of Christianity and business or Christianity and government is "what Jesus would do." No, I think not. I don't believe Jesus wants us to be happy (in the shallow way we collectively talk about happy). I do not think Jesus wants us to be well-off. Jesus firmly asked that individuals give all they have to the poor, not out of a desire that we all be destitute, but in some socialist experiment in which we live as community and our lives are not to be dominated by possessing or the pursuit of possessing. We are not to rule over, we are to live with. Yes, I read the bible as a radical document (when I actually read it). I don't believe the New Testament was ever supposed to be read as the status quo.
As for Christian video games: What the fuck? In the article, the designers talk about youth being seduced by Satan in the guise of violent witches and pagan demons. Don't these Christians see that all they're doing is substituting "God" for the king and "satanic demons" for the witches? All of their spiritual warfare language and symbolism fall on blind eyes in the faces of kids who just want to blow shit up. Demons are demons, no matter how the box differentiates. Violence is violence, no matter which side "wins." Why do these Christians want to continue with business as usual? I don't think we should cede from the world, throwing our hands up in defeat, never again listening to the seductive beats of hip-hop or watching the delight that is good TV (ah, Buffy, ah, David Brent). I guess I just don't understand these Christians. Supposedly we both believe in Jesus, only my Jesus seems to look a lot.... well, a lot less white, a lot less American, a lot less status quo. When we attempt to label the Christian church along lines of "liberal" or "conservative" we are severing a group of people that in reality ought to be united, or at least in loving dialogue with one another. By aligning themselves with political parties and powers that be Christians are straying from the call of Christianity and are themselves being seduced by the Roman Empire.