I am the last person that ought to be lecturing people on being political by posting on facebook. I do it all the time. But I don’t do it to win anyone over. I do it so that I may express myself. That’s what social media does. At their best, Twitter and Facebook serve as platforms for self-expression, and secondly, networking with people of like interest. I, for one, am not one of those people who sit on the fence, in fact, I have a strong anti-pathy for such bloggers and people. I don’t mind my facebook friends getting political, cuz none of them are too serious, and posts can be humourous at times, even when that was not the intention.
What political facebook posts do not serve to do is number one, convert people to Christianity, like this blogger seems to think. The Gospel is NOT to be identified a political platform as Dominionists continue to bellyache over and over. The Gospel is about a Kingdom and a King who invaded this world so that there can be a group a people who live faithfully to that King for the sake of a different Kingdom. This involves a different set of practices and belief systems than Christian Reconstructionists (those who believe in setting up a church-driven domination system). In Matthew 28, Jesus in not addressing nation-states, with the idea that our Amerikkka should “disciple” [read: use hegemonic control through economics and military force]. Jesus is instead addressing how his followers will be located unto the ends of the Earth, sharing the Good News about the Resurrection of the King.
Secondly, sharing funny memes about the Presidential candidates is not to the equivalent to not being respectful of their “authority.” If that’s the case, we should all condemn the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist for criticizing the powers that be. Then again, this only increases my suspicion that Dominionists only call for submission when their man is in office, and revolution when he is not.
Lastly, to lift up social media as the primary means by which to talk to people about Jesus is a very poor substitute for face to face conversations about life, religion, and friendship. Facebook posts are not to convert people, but to only affirm your own believes and get affirmation from others. Otherwise, you wouldn’t block or delete comments you don’t like. Jesus’ “mandate” to go to all nations means we get our butts off the couch and visit places like the homeless shelter down the street, or that prison we like to avoid, for face to face encounters for justice in the name of Love.
Pingback: For Dominionists, Even Political Facebook Posts Is Evangelism! | Unsettled Christianity
I’ve had some pretty long and decent conversations on Facebook, though. It’s a lot like Reddit, where if you find yourself hating it, it might be because you’re subscribed to stupid subreddits.
I mostly use Facebook for intellectual things like exchanging information, links, and arguments. If you “friend” smart, thoughtful people (even if you don’t know them) and unsubscribe to idiots, then it can be a good thing.
Jeremy, curious to know what your thoughts are on Israel, Zionism (secular or otherwise), etc…as a Presbyterian and Christian?
Stepping back a minute, I would reject any view that the Jewish people or the state of Israel are somehow part of a particular plan of God, whether a dual-covenant or some end-times prophecy thing. So I would reject any theological reason for supporting Israel (or any state). As far as I know, the American Christian position on the Jews should be pretty similar to our position on the Roma.
That aside, there are political reasons that we might support Israel (only democracy in the Middle East, fate of the Jews as a global minority group, etc.) or not support it (ethnic cleansing, it undercuts both our witness and diplomacy with Muslim states, unconditional support is bad for Israel’s inner politics).
I lean heavily towards the latter, but what I’m most concerned about is the theological tone of Israel’s supporters.
Jeremy,
Interesting thoughts. Have you considered some of these arguments from Willie Jennings?:
http://politicaljesus.com/2011/07/15/willie-jennings-we-need-a-new-theology-of-israel/
Yes and I’m sympathetic, but again I don’t know what you think you mean by “supercessionism” or what Stuart means by “Replacement Theology.” I’ve got no dog in the fight with the WCC, but y’all act like supercessionism is not just standard Christian covenant theology. Unless I’m missing something, that’s a pretty big error.
If the issue is that the WCC is championing the liberal state and its alternative soteriology as somehow saving us from religion, then as a big fan of Bill Cavanaugh’s work, I’d say that’s really dangerous.
Hey Jeremy,
My understanding of supersessionism is along the lines of Jennings; in sum?:
Jennings argues that supersessionism is not “anti-Jewish theology” or “covenant theology” but something that starts with our identity being found outside of place in the name of Gentile nation-statism and race. Place/location is what is missing from the equation in Western formulas of identity, and by place, Jennings (and I, and J Kameron Carter included) we are talking about the ground from which we are brought forth, the Earth. This is simply not about “context context context” but about particularity and sacred sites (places that are valued). Supersessionism is brought forth from ideas that the church and/or nation-state (in America, it is both) has replaced YHWH & Israel. Jennings points to he Middle Ages for the start of the colonial moment/supersessionism. I’d have to disagree with him there. I am still working out my definition of where supersessionism starts, but this is where I stand.
Is Jennings writing against traditional covenant theology?
Rod, all that sounds fine if it’s meant to challenge the nation-state replacing Israel. I would agree. The church is the continuation, and if you believe that you’re a supercessionist. Come up with a new term for the bad statist one.
The church has been engrafted, Paul’s words.
I’m still working this out.
For Paul, the Gentiles (us) have been engrafted into Israel, and the resulting mixed community of believing Jews and Gentile converts is the Church. Over time it became hard to keep up that paradigm of “engrafted into Israel” since the Church became more and more composed of Gentiles, so it took on the language of “replacement,” but it’s still true. No one can be saved apart from the name of Jesus Christ, even if you believe eschatologically that one day the vast majority of Jews (or all the nations, hopefully!) will be saved through conversion, that doesn’t have anything to do with how we regard the status of Jews that reject Jesus as the Messiah. We may hope that they will be saved (there is always hope) but we have no reason to think they are. Otherwise, you really do have a dual covenant.
So, really, because of changes over time, we should do away with the notion of engraftment? I think that’s something that Jennings is pushing back against, esp since it remains quiet on Gentile arrogance.
No it’s just that change over time made it so that the church was primarily made up of Gentiles. How could it have been otherwise if those Jews who rejected the Messiah were regarded by Paul as “true Israel”? This all happened really quickly, too, and it’s not sinister at all. Even in the apostolic churches you found some communities that were mostly Gentile. The demographic reality of a majority-Gentile ecclesiology made the “engraftment” paradigm yield way to the “replacement” paradigm. (Unless I’m mistaken, no one in my church is a Jewish convert.)
For what it’s worth, I do see myself as a Gentile engrafted into the covenant by baptism, but I do not consider those who reject Jesus as the Messiah as part of Israel.
@ jeremy
“For what it’s worth, I do see myself as a Gentile engrafted into the covenant by baptism”
Good, cuz im bringing the engrafted language back, baby!
Pingback: Political Theology Posts Around the Web (Now With More Snark) « TheoNerd
I deactivated my facebook a month ago because there was too much political stuff showing up in my newsfeed that I couldn’t help but respond to and winded up getting involved in long debates too often. Of course, this was exacerbated by the fact that I posted political stuff on FB all the time as well.
I’ve found discussing politics on FB to be pretty pointless and it feels better that I don’t spend time arguing about it now.