The politics of Jesus

A
book review by Amaury Cruz                                               Read Spanish Version

Many
Americans, both Christian and non-Christian, are struck by the
contradiction between the sayings and behavior of the so-called
Christian right and what we know of Christ’s teachings and actions.
These so-called Christians appear most un-Christian in their
intolerance, judgmental mean spiritedness, and disregard for the
concerns of the poor and disenfranchised. They associate with the
rich and powerful, seek worldly riches and power for themselves, and
sometimes, while preaching abstinence or marital fidelity, live
secret sex lives that make them notorious hypocrites.

We
know this, but few writers have probably articulated such a
comprehensive review and critique of this contradiction as the black
liberation theologian Obery Hendricks in his book The Politics of
Jesus — Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature of Jesus’
Teachings and How they Have Been Corrupted, published by Doubleday
Books.

Hendricks
is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at the New York Theological
Seminary and an Ordained Elder in the African Methodist Episcopal
Church, and has served as professor at Drew University, visiting
scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary, and President of Payne
Theological Seminary. Therefore he brings impeccable credentials and
vast knowledge of biblical interpretation, the life of Christ, and
the historical record of political and social conditions during that
period. He conducts a meticulous biblical exegesis with dizzying
scholarship, and yet spins a plain-English story that is compelling
and engrossing.

He
explains, for example, that the image of the “bland Jesus of Sunday
school,” the gentle, serene, non-threatening Jesus Christ” we
have internalized, is erroneous. This image is the result of
“political docetism,” a reference to the belief of the orthodox
faction of the early church that denied the flesh-and-blood
materiality of Jesus.

Political
docetism denies the significance of the political setting in Jesus’
life and his response to it. It holds that, if Jesus was concerned
with change at all, it was only in the sense of changing the behavior
of individuals, not the social order or body politic. Thus, believers
have been fed misunderstandings of, for example, the “Lamb of God”
description bestowed by John the Baptist according to the Gospel of
John. This description, Hendricks explains, does not indicate a
willingness to be slaughtered. According to John’s “uncompromising
preaching about the coming wrath of God, it seems more likely that he
expected the Lamb of God to be a radical figure, perhaps one more in
line with the triumphant Lamb in the Book of Revelation.”

Jesus,
in fact, was “the ultimate activist in that he dedicated his entire
being to struggling to bring the world in line with the vision of
love, liberation, and justice given to him by God.” He was not only
a leader, but “a strategic leader” who led according to
well-considered strategies and tactics. Hendricks explains how he
lead and the strategies he followed.

According
to Hendricks, Christ’s main mission was to set the Israeli people
on a path to liberation in the here and now, which included
confronting the Jewish establishment for its complicity with the
Roman Empire, through political strategies molded to the times, just
as other revolutionaries have done throughout history.

Jesus’
strategies, however, were not those of the venal and lying
politicians we suffer today. As distilled by Hendricks, these are:
(1) treat the people’s needs as holy; (2) give voice to the
voiceless; (3) expose the workings of oppression; and (4) call the
demon by name. They originate in malkuh
shamayin,
which “fueled resistance movements in the decades before and after
Jesus’ ministry.” This “pivotal Israeli notion” is the belief
in the sole sovereignty of God, a recognition of God’s sole right
to rule and lord over men’s affairs, particularly Israel’s. As
such, it was incompatible with the ruling and lording over by the
Roman occupiers. It is a notion that was as fundamental a tenet as
any in the Ten Commandments, based on no less than the first: Thou
shall have no other gods before me. Many things fall into place in
the face of this commandment.

Hendricks
reveals other unexpected dimensions to the stories of Christ’s
teachings, like the notion of turning the left cheek if struck on the
right. A strike on the right cheek meant a back-slap because using
the left hand was proscribed in biblical times. As such, it was meant
not to hurt, but as an insult. Slaves were commonly backslapped by
their owners; Israelis were backslapped by the Romans. Far from a
demonstration of submissiveness, turning the other cheek was the
recommended non-violent response in light of the inferior and
powerless status of the Israeli people. Instead of lowering their
heads and accepting the humiliation of the back-slap in the face,
turning the other cheek was an affirmation of one’s spirit with a
voluntary act that challenged the authority of the oppressor.

He
also clarifies key biblical notions such as mishpat
and sadiqah.
The first is usually translated as “justice” and refers to the
establishment of fair, equitable, and harmonious relationships in
society. “The major implication of its meaning is that any member
of the community has the same rights as any other, that everyone has
the same inalienable right to abundance and wholeness and freedom
from oppression.” Sadiqah
is usually translated as “righteousness.” Contrary to current
emphasis on narrow notions of morality, “[i]ts focus is on behavior
that fulfills the responsibilities of relationship, whether with God
or with other persons.” What is significant is that both mishpat
and sadiqah
are
based on social relationships, not on individual, personal piety or
conformity with ritual and liturgy. Indeed, according to Hendricks,
there is no word in the Hebrew scriptures for “individual.” There
is only the plural term for “people” or community.

In
Part Three of his book, Hendricks has two chapters titled In Word or
Deed? The Politics of Jesus and the Politics of Politicians, divided
into The Case of Ronald Reagan and The Case of George W. Bush. He
also has a chapter titled Reagan, Bush, the Politics of Jesus, and
the Politics of the Church. He ends with The Politics of Jesus,
Conservative or Liberal? and A Manifesto: Practicing the Politics of
Jesus. In this Part Three, Hendricks masterfully applies the
understanding he serves previously in his book about malkuh
shamayin
and Jesus’ true revolutionary nature. The conclusions are a
devastating indictment of politicians who have been on the side of
the strong and powerful and against the weak and oppressed, “despite
the gospel.” Guided by the imperative of calling the demon by
name, Hendricks rips into the policies of Reagan and Bush with
well-informed gusto and reason. Hendricks demonstrates that these
presidents lie at the polar opposite of Christian ministry, defined
by Jesus in one “unequivocal proclamation”: “The son of man
came to serve, not to be served.” (Matthew 20:28). So, there is no
question that their “abuses of the people’s trust bespeak a sense
of entitlement and elitism that Jesus would never have sanctioned.”

Hendricks,
however, covers a lot more than can be condensed in a short review.
He explains how many of the dearest and most important doctrines of
today’s Christian Church are the direct result of Constantine’s
intrigue and machinations. He writes a brief history of modern
conservatism in America and its nefarious world view. He provides
keen insight into current events. And he speaks without reservations
in a way that few dare to speak nowadays. This book is a must-read
for all progressives and a way to understand where ministers such as
Obama’s pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, come from: they are
the heirs of the liberation theology movement from Latin America.

Amaury
Cruz is an attorney, political activist and writer residing in Miami
Beach