Revolution anyone?

To do a revolution successfully there needs to be a large percentage of dispossessed people.

In Australia, where everyone either has a mortgage around their necks, or aspires to be in that situation (indeed!!!) it just would not happen.

Think about it...

Injured Soldier said:

The NT doesn't justify revolution at all (Romans 13 KristianJ mentioned), but at the same time it can cast doubt on Christian politicians and voting too. That is the most misused verse in the Bible, I've even heard American Christians use it to justify their patriotism and support of government. How ironic.

Click to expand...

IMO from the very first verse of the earliest Gospel, the NT is making revolutionary claims. Mark 1:1 says "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ". In that one opening verse, Mark has made two very bold statements.

1) Gospel = Good News = a term associated with Roman propaganda at the time. Mark takes the "good news" of the imperial benevolence of the Roman Empire, and hijacks the term to proclaim Jesus as Lord in contradistinction to the Empire and Caesar. Such a statement to his anticapted 1st Century audience was incredibly revolutionary.

2) Christ = the promised Jewish messiah, who in the eyes of many was to be a triumphant warrior king. Again this statement was a highly revolutionary one, with connotations of a challenge to the status quo of the day.

These "revolutionary" claims are continued throughout Mark and the rest of NT. The only reason we dont normally pick up on them is because we are isolated by time and culture from the issues that they were facing and the message that their contemporary readers would have been hearing.

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgement on them themselves."

Click to expand...

Again, its important to understand Romans 13 in the context of all that God has revealed to us in the bible. Clearly there are times when christians are called to obey earthly authority, but there are also very clear mandates for christians to stand up demand a just society that reflects God's concerns for humankind. Ever since Peter and the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin, and the prophets to kings and queens before them, christians have being say to the poweres that be that "We must obey God rather than men!". Paul did it (and was executed) , the early church did it (and were persecuted), Methodists in the first trade unions did it (the quote in my sig. is from one such person who was sent to Australia as a convict for it), Jesuits in South America did it (several were martyred), Martin Luther King Jr did it (and was imprisioned, defamed and shot ).

The Seb said:

Do you agree with the current system of goverment or do you think its time for a revolution...

Click to expand...

I'm up for a revolution - take me to your leader.

The Bible talks about Prophets - these guys were sicko revolutionaries. Reckon we could learn a lot from them. And I don't just mean about setting sopping wet bulls on fire. I mean really taking a stand for justice and equality in the country and the world!

Bring it on!

inquisitor_11 said:

IMO from the very first verse of the earliest Gospel, the NT is making revolutionary claims. Mark 1:1 says "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ". In that one opening verse, Mark has made two very bold statements.

1) Gospel = Good News = a term associated with Roman propaganda at the time. Mark takes the "good news" of the imperial benevolence of the Roman Empire, and hijacks the term to proclaim Jesus as Lord in contradistinction to the Empire and Caesar. Such a statement to his anticapted 1st Century audience was incredibly revolutionary.

2) Christ = the promised Jewish messiah, who in the eyes of many was to be a triumphant warrior king. Again this statement was a highly revolutionary one, with connotations of a challenge to the status quo of the day.

These "revolutionary" claims are continued throughout Mark and the rest of NT. The only reason we dont normally pick up on them is because we are isolated by time and culture from the issues that they were facing and the message that their contemporary readers would have been hearing.

Click to expand...

I agree with your basic knowledge of what good news and Messiah meant to the Romans and Jews respectively, but I disagree that Jesus came to bring political revolution. Jesus used those terms for the same reason he told parables to his disciples: so those who had their own agenda would misunderstand him (which they did), and as earthly examples of his heavenly glory. So yes, they are revolutionary claims, and I would have told anyone so if they had asked, but that doesn't automatically translate into Jesus coming for political revolution.

Again, its important to understand Romans 13 in the context of all that God has revealed to us in the bible. Clearly there are times when christians are called to obey earthly authority, but there are also very clear mandates for christians to stand up demand a just society that reflects God's concerns for humankind. Ever since Peter and the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin, and the prophets to kings and queens before them, christians have being say to the poweres that be that "We must obey God rather than men!". Paul did it (and was executed) , the early church did it (and were persecuted), Methodists in the first trade unions did it (the quote in my sig. is from one such person who was sent to Australia as a convict for it), Jesuits in South America did it (several were martyred), Martin Luther King Jr did it (and was imprisioned, defamed and shot ).

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about obeying at all costs. But again, refusing to obey ungodly laws, conducting civil resistance and following God does not make a revolution, even a peaceful one. By all means, disobey the government where it goes against God, but not as men and women who do so to seize the reins of power. If it is dragged to prison or your death to follow God and persue justice in defiance of the state, go for it, I will do it with you all the way. If anyone wants to revolt against the government, even with the high aim of putting in place Christian laws, I'll be no part of it willingly as it is a futile exercise. All those men you listed, none were revolutionaries in the political sense.

The byzantine empire was the first great christian government.
It's a proof.

Click to expand...

Constantinople wasn't built until over 250 years after Paul wrote Romans 13, I asked for an example that Paul was talking about. Surely he didn't think when he wrote it "Ha, my fell Christians will misinterpret this passage for 250 years until Constantinople is built, and still many years after that before it formally breaks off to form the Byzantine Empire, which they will call the Eastern Roman Empire until the 17th century". Read over what I said again, I asked for naming a Christian government Paul was talking about when he wrote Romans, not particular cases in history since then.

but I disagree that Jesus came to bring political revolution. Jesus used those terms for the same reason he told parables to his disciples: so those who had their own agenda would misunderstand him (which they did), and as earthly examples of his heavenly glory. So yes, they are revolutionary claims, and I would have told anyone so if they had asked, but that doesn't automatically translate into Jesus coming for political revolution.

Click to expand...

Yeah and I agree- what Jesus was on about was much bigger than the sort of political revolution that various Jewish factions were often actively fighting for. Jesus came to bring the Kingdom of God near. Not a visible theocracy, but it definately has implications for the social and political structures of our world. Even more so when you look at the anti-kingship traditions in the Old Testament, where ther is serious conflict over who is going to rule the people of God- will it be a human King, and everything that goes with it, or will it be God?

I think that part of Jesus' ministry was to bring us back in touch with that.

All those men you listed, none were revolutionaries in the political sense.

Click to expand...

A violent (esp. marxist) overthrow of government and a "revolutionary" approach are two different things. And yes those people were- it was the work of the early church that brought about the modern secular state where people are free to practice religion, the Methodists and Puritians were involved in strikes and very political action in the pursuit of just conditions for workers in the time of Dickens. Martin Luther King lead a movement that was to outside observers "revolutionary", but was definately faith based. The Jesuits I referred to in South America avoided taking sides in a conflict, but were very involved in actions that brought them into conflict with their government- why? because they choose to go beyond merely helping the poor, to asking the question "why are these people poor?". For this churches were burned, clergy excommunicated and in the end, a group of priests were executed.

"By their fruits you shall know them"

Our message is one about the Good News of Jesus the Christ, if that good news calls us to address the personal and structural evils in our society, then we have an obligation to act. What such action looks like depends alot on the time and place and what God is calling us to do in that situation.

I gotta say that I reckon Johnny Howard and the govenment are doing a great job!!

If ya don't like the country and the way its run, then simply vote out the gov. or leave. Your choice.

If ya don't like the country and the way its run, then simply vote out the gov. or leave. Your choice.

Click to expand...

How could I possibly vote out the government? I am neither the GG nor a media-magnate.

What if I contirbute a lot of time and effort to making Australia a better country- picking up the pieces of broken lives, helping with the growing number of mentally ill that no longer have services provided by the govt., or with the growing body of homeless people, or the underemployed families that are disintegrating, for whom the govt. continually cuts services? What if I was in contact with my local members, engageing with the political process, talking to my friends and family about these issues?

Should I leave simply because a simple majority, of many people who dont engage with the political process at either a practical or intellectual, and dare I say, are heavily influenced by fears of losing a "way of life" characterised by "more for me and stuff everyone else"?