tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post2005546777354989064..comments2024-03-29T22:00:02.999+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: The politics of Jesus (16 June 2014)Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5777177159450533412014-06-17T10:15:13.717+12:002014-06-17T10:15:13.717+12:00cont...
[I can't remember if I included this ...cont...<br /><br /><i>[I can't remember if I included this first paragraph in the last comment. Sorry if it's repeated]</i><br />It's also worth noting that Paul's audience were probably more on the suffering fringes than the privileged centre like we are. The early churches attracted broad cross-sections of society, and society was mostly slaves and the poor. Romans was probably written in the reign of Nero, and although Nero may not have been actively persecuting Christians yet, Paul does directly contradict Nero's boast that he bore an "idle sword" (Rom 13:4).<br /><br />In any case: as you say, "Who is to judge when we live in ordinary times and when we live in extraordinary times?" South American Catholic socialists and North American evangelical capitalists no doubt have the exact reverse opinion of whose state is a "good one" and whose is a bad one.<br /><br />Unfortunately for either party (and for your interpretation in this blog), nothing in Romans 13 indicates that it is only to be applied to "good" governments (whether or not good governments are "ordinary"). That is just a convenient way of dealing with the fact that a face-value interpretation of Romans 13 is in direct contradiction to how the same empire is portrayed in Revelation 13 (and most of the New Testament). But the text does not allow for such a convenient explaining-away.<br /><br />Any honest interpretation of Romans 13 has to deal with the fact that not only does it appear to contradict many other things said in Scripture (including the strong counter-imperial streak throughout Paul's writings), it doesn't offer a convenient demarcation of which situations to apply which passages - ie be loyal when they're good, prophetically challenge when they're bad. I for one am glad of that, because if it did, it would simply allow the North American capitalist to assume Romans 13 applied to the US and Revelation 13 applied to South American socialist states, and the South American socialist to assume the opposite.<br /><br />I think a better interpretation is to say that there is something much more subversive and pragmatic going on in Romans 13, which suggests the benign and conservative attitude that seems to appear there is certainly not the "ordinary" Christian stance to empires (see my links above).Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-68426101341346178452014-06-17T10:13:00.126+12:002014-06-17T10:13:00.126+12:00I take serious issue with your interpretation of R...I take serious issue with your interpretation of Romans 13: "There are ordinary times when ordinary wisdom, instruction and principles apply. The obvious contrast to Revelation is Romans 13 where Paul takes a benign view of state power and instructs Christians to go along with it, submit to its authority and generally live sensible yet compassionate lives within civic society."<br /><br />I've written <a href="http://calebmorgan.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/paul-and-politics-2-essays/" rel="nofollow">essays on Romans 13:1-7 and on Paul's counter-imperial stance</a>. I wrote them about five years ago and would probably express myself a bit differently now, but you can read them if you would like further elaboration on what I discuss here.<br /><br />I think you're right to point out that Revelation "is an unveiling of the dark malign reality of the apparently benign state," and to draw comparisons with the contemporary capitalist empire (you could also add the American empire - though that of course has a lot of crossover with the capitalist empire). The Pauline corpus also carries this apocalyptic theme strongly, though usually with allusions the modern reader tends to miss.<br /><br />I don't know if you can make such a clear distinction between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" times... for a start, it's very optimistic about what "ordinary" politics are like (how many states in the world now would you designate as "ordinary"? How many across history?). Also, seeing an empire as benign (and, even more, "ordinary") usually requires you to be in a place of privilege within that empire and/or be highly influenced by the ideology of that empire. There were some, mostly in the centres of power, for whom the Roman Empire seemed benign (even if it lured them into lazy idolatry), while others, mostly outside the centres of power, suffered greatly for it. The exact same is true of the American and capitalist empire(s).<br /><br />It's also worth noting that Paul's audience were probably more on the suffering fringes than the privileged centre like we are. The early churches attracted broad cross-sections of society, and society was mostly slaves and the poor. Romans was probably written in the reign of Nero, and although Nero may not have been actively persecuting Christians yet, Paul does directly contradict Nero's boast that he bore an "idle sword" (Rom 13:4).<br /><br />tbc...Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.com