Theology in the Raw - S2: Putting Politics Back into Christmas

Episode Date: December 24, 2022

Hello, Theology in a Row listeners. Preston here, just wanting to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and to let you know that we are actually going to be taking a week off of podcasting. So we're not going to have any podcasts between Christmas and New Year. We will pick it up again with a special bonus podcast on January 1st, where we look back on 2022, look forward to 2023. But we will be taking a couple of days off next week from podcasting, and then we'll resume our regular schedule on January 2nd. Before I let you go, though, I wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas by reading to you a recent blog

that I posted on the Theology in the Raw website. If you want to read the blog, you can go there. But I wanted to read it to you. It's sort of maybe a different spin on how to think of Christmas. I call it putting politics back into Christmas. You've probably heard the phrase, the gospel is not partisan, but it is political. Typically, when we say keep politics out of church, what we mean is we should keep secular partisan allegiances out of the pulpit. Though it is funny how often they slowly and subtly sometimes creeped our way back in. What we don't mean or shouldn't mean is that confessing Jesus as Lord has no implications for how we view things like immigration, warfare, the death

penalty, marriage, sexuality, wealth, poverty, and so on and so forth. The good news that Jesus is Lord is riddled with political implications, or one might say, explications. Christians didn't invent the terms gospel or peace, savior, hope, or even son of God. These terms were familiar in the Greco-Roman world long before Christianity existed, and they were invested with political meaning. In one famous calendar inscription discovered in various places throughout Asia Minor, the birth of Augustus is praised with language that sounds rather religious. It reads like this. with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things. And since he, Caesar, by his appearance

excelled even our anticipations, surpassing all previous benefactors and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done. And since the birthday of the God Augustus was the beginning of good tidings or euangelion for the world that came by reason of him. The early Christians use the same language to declare their allegiance to Jesus as the Greco-Roman world used to declare their allegiance to Caesar. It's no wonder that when Paul preached the gospel in Thessalonica, that a mob incited a riot against Paul and his companions saying, these men who have turned the world upside down are all acting contrary to Caesar's decrees saying that there is another king, namely Jesus. Acts 17, 6 through 7.

The Thessalonians interpreted Paul's gospel through a political lens. If Jesus is king, then Caesar must not be. And it's not because they misunderstood Paul. They very much understood that when a herald announces a new king, a Besalaios, while the present one is still alive, a revolution could be brewing. Preaching spiritual sermons about praying to God or reading the Bible don't cause cities to riot. But preaching the gospel of the empire of Jesus threatens the legitimacy and power of all other empires on earth. Telling others that Jesus is king is a politically dangerous thing to do, or at least it used to be. The biblical writers interpret the birth of Christ in a particularly politically subversive way. Luke goes out of his

way to preface his birth narrative with a reminder of the Roman lords who thought they were ruling the world, Luke 2 verses 1 to 2. Why mention the censuses? Censuses are for the purpose of taxation, and taxation was the primary way in which the empire reminded the subjects of who was in power. By calling baby Jesus, quote, the Messiah or King and the Lord, Luke 2.11, this reinforced the same message Paul preached to the Thessalonians. If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar must not be. My favorite rendition of the Christmas story is actually Revelation 12.13. Here, Mary or Israel gives birth to Jesus and immediately a great fiery red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, tried to devour the child, Revelation 12, 3 to 4.

John probably has in view Rome's puppet king, Herod the Great, and his attempt to slaughter Jesus when he heard that another king had been born in Bethlehem. Once again, the birth of Christ is framed as a political event. One where an earthly ruler was threatened by the birth of one hailed as king. On a lesser scale, it reminds me of when presidents scramble around to find dirt on their opponents so they can destroy them on the eve of re-election. Herod too exerts power at all costs to make sure he stays in office. Jesus was threatening to take power from the sitting president of Israel. And more, Jesus was born to, quote, rule all nations with a rod of

iron, Revelation 12.5. But John doesn't say that the red dragon was Herod, at least not explicitly. A few verses later, he clearly says that the dragon is Satan in 12.9. Jesus wasn't just threatening Herod's earthly political rule. He was threatening the throne of Satan. Revelation 13 goes on to reveal that earthly political leaders and empires and satanic forces are all playing for the same team. The beast that comes from the sea also has 10 hordes and seven heads in 13.1, same as Satan in 12.3-4, and is clearly identified as a Roman empire in Revelation 17.18, especially Revelation 17.9. But not just the Roman empire, but all the empires from Old Testament times into the new. If you look at Revelation 13.2, together with the description of the empires in Daniel 7, verses 4 to 6,

you'll see the connection. John is sort of collapsing all empires together. Different empires, same team, is kind of the point. It is the dragon, Satan, who, quote, gives the beast, or gave the beast, namely Rome, its power, his throne, and great authority, unquote, Revelation 12.2. And it is the same devil that, quote, gave authority to the beast, Revelation 13.4. The birth of Christ was a cataclysmic event that waged war against Satan, who empowered Rome to rule the world and by implication, all the Babylon's on earth. King Jesus born in a manger was a profoundly spiritual event that brought salvation to the world. It was also a politically subversive event that threatened to co-op Roman political power by inaugurating God's empire, his Basilea on earth. I vote for keeping partisan, earthly,

secular politics out of the pulpit. And after reading Revelation 12 to 13, it's just silly, if not demonic, to do otherwise. But I'm all for allowing the political explications of the gospel speak loud and clear this Christmas season. There is no king but Christ. Merry Christmas to you all and happy new year. this show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.