Where are we suppose to follow Jesus, if it is not into jerusalem to confront the impreial leaders of the day? Should we stop outside the gates of our political capital and keep this revolution private or should we follow him into the city and stand with him? Shouldn’t we carry our cross along side him all the way? Shouldn’t we die to our self serving politics and be born again into the live giving community of God?

As a liberal (in the way Jesus was liberal), I don’t put “faith in the state’s power”. I put faith in the idea that the vision of Jesus can be a reality. The “State” is not good or evil. It is a tool that reflects of our own values. Right now it reflects our bent to consuming. We can chose to let the state carry out God’s justice or we can continue to allow it to benefit only us at the expense of others. It is our choice. It starts with the ability to imagine another way. That is what Jesus was best at doing. He imagined another way and asked us to follow.

You appear to be utilizing either the non-political, or the nineteenth-century political, definitions of liberal and conservative. Liberals in present-day America are more about preserving the status quo of the abortion-rights welfare state, while conservatives are pushing for change. But I think the whole debate over “change” vs. “tradition” is a red herring. Neither is a good unto itself; it all depends on what one wants to change or preserve.

For instance, liberals tend to favor sweeping court decisions that overturn centuries of precedent — except when it comes to Roe v. Wade, when suddenly stare decisis becomes a sacrosanct principle. (Of course conservatives are sometimes guilty of similar inconsistencies.)

I’m curious about your use of the word “empire.” I don’t recall Jesus ever using that word. I’m also concerned when you write about “Jesus’ political views.” I think you fall into the same trap as do conservative Christians (pace Michael Spencer) when you attempt to attach the authority of Jesus to your political agenda.

The problem with using the state to obtain what has come to be called “social justice” (an almost Orwellian neologism) is that the state is a blunt instrument. I don’t think Jesus ever intended us to force others to do His will at the point of a gun, which is what you do when you use state power (a police officer’s gun, after all, stands behind every law and regulation).

Then there is the pragmatic matter of what works. I doubt that I have to repeat the whole argument here, but in sum, decades of massive social program spending have created, not paradise on Earth (something I’m not so sure God intended us to do), but higher out-of-wedlock birth rates, fragmented families, more abortions, and entire communities dependent on government handouts. Studies show that church-based charity is more effective than government-run programs, and produces greater rates of self-sufficiency. For whatever that’s worth.

I guess I’m agreeing with the original poster that politics is not the answer to all of our prayers. One reason so many Christians are drawn to conservativism is because it generally shares that view. Liberals, on the other hand, put more of their faith in the state’s power to solve everyone’s problems.

Unrelated, I grew up in NJ, but I’ve been in eastern kentucky for a couple years now - for a while, I actually lived a block away from the Tates Creek Presby mentioned in your bio.

I realize the terms are bigger than that, but I feel like they have been spun so much by the opposite sides that now they have no real coherent meaning.

My beef with liberalism as an ideology is that it requires everyone to meet each other as strangers by insisting on the primacy of the individual, since I am (ostensibly) a “person” rather than a student or a Christian or a Seattlite or the son of my father. The effect is that the entire public sphere becomes the governmental or legal sphere, and anything not easily regulated (religious beliefs, sex, etc.) is relegated to the private sphere. The difference between the right and left halves of American politics is primarily in how the boundary between the private and legal spheres ought to be drawn; there doesn’t seem to be much appreciation for a public, non-legal sphere.

That being said, what happens in politics frequently doesn’t follow the lines of ideological liberalism, and is therefore more tolerable. I suspect that Mike and I would probably agree on a number of political positions, but I have a hard time swallowing the identification with the Kingdom of God with liberalism or any other political program.

Separation of church and state is wonderful, but it does not mean that Christians should stay out of the public debate. Right now, churches are not motivating and governments are not implementing justice. I think the problem and the solution is in the hands of the clergy to educate and motivate.

Having left the PCUSA three years ago, I believe their scarcity abroad has more to do with their diminishing numbers. Many PCUSA churches are struggling to pay their pastors, let alone give financial support to any kind of mission, or any other work devoted to justice.

Your point about justice may have been true ten years ago, but the signs I see in the PCA are encouraging. Alot of PCA churches are setting high standards for working toward justice: http://www.pca-mna.org/urban/chalmerscenter.php

“I did not meet any mainline Americans, or any other Christians who don’t identify as evangelicals doing mission work”

I come from evangelical circles, but one of the reasons for your observation may be because mainliners are sometimes more focused on justice rather than charity (there are many exceptions). Missions often focues on charity and that is still needed, but justice is something that has lager impact. Charity is feeding needy kids. Justice would be changing the legal and education systems so the next generation is not needy. Charity is giving a hungry man a fish. Justice is teaching him how to catch fish AND allowing him to fish next to you in the same fertile part of the river.

When it comes to how faith translates into political commitment, this is and should always be a difficult, tense negotiation for those of called to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. It is not a matter of eschewing conservatism in favor of liberalism or vice-versa. Liberalism cannot be reduced to attempting to use government in order to coerce morality, such an understanding is indeed a caricature. I tend to agree with Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP, whose recent book ‘What Is the Point of Being a Christian’ is a must read, when he rejects secular categories, like liberal/conservative, for Christians. As my former ordinary now-Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco used to joke, to ask if I am a liberal or a conservative is like selling me a car and asking if I want either a gas pedal or a brake pedal.

But I spent two months in Ukraine this summer on an adoption journey, and left with a renewed appreciation for my evangelical brethren, whom I have been moving away from for years.

In the very heart of Slavic Orthodoxy, it’s mostly American conservative Christians who are getting their hands dirty reaching out to the poorest of the poor.

My denomination (PCA) has a strong mission committment in Ukraine, as do Baptists and a wide array of mega-chuch types. I did not meet any mainline Americans, or any other Christians who don’t identify as evangelicals doing mission work.

As D.L. Moody once quipped, “I like the way I’m doing it, better than the way you aren’t!”