Jesus' Political Views and Action
Dhyanchand Carr

Introduction

The full theme of this lecture is "The Gospel in the Context of Majoritarianism and Authoritariansim - Learning from Jesus' Political Views and Action." At the very outset, this theme faces two problems. The first problem is that it is too simplistic to try and describe the diverse and complex political scenario in Asia within the two categories of Majoritarianism and Authoritarianism.

The second problem is that for most Christians Jesus was totally apolitical and other-worldly. Did he not say, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36)? And was not Jesus concerned with the salvation of the individual (Luke 19:10)? How come you claim to talk about the political views and political action of Jesus?

 Problem 1 - The Political Scenario

That the description of the political scenario is far too simplistic is admitted. But analyzing the political scenario is not the main task of this lecture. We need to be aware that contemporary politics follows a particular pattern and we must be able to find out how Jesus might have responded and would want us to respond. Our task is to draw attention to the political responsibilities of Asian Christians and churches in Asia in the light of the life and teachings of our Lord. For this purpose we have to be satisfied with an overall generalization.

Majoritarianism, on which in fact present day patterns of authoritarianism depend, describes the overall scenario in Asia. Jesus called his disciples to take up the cross and follow him. This in fact meant 'be prepared to be crucified by the imperial power of Rome'. So at the very outset I would like to assert that following Jesus has undeniable political implications. This is because following Jesus is not just a personal and individual matter. It has to do with founding and participating in a counter culture movement.

I shall try to show how present day political bosses sustain themselves in turning people into blind mass groups. Either religious loyalties or ethnic linguistic loyalties are invoked in the attempt to divert people from true democracy. For example, the tendency that is gaining momentum in India is Hindutva. I understand that in Thailand the slogan �Thai love Thai' is the name of the party that rules.

All Asian governments claim to be either democracies or republics. Even some military rulers and those who adhere to totalitarian regimes (i.e. single party democracies) want to appear to rule by the consent of the people. As far as participation of the people is concerned, little room is provided even to the majority who support the government. How does this obtaining and maintaining of people's consent without their participation operate?

Those who rise to power try to keep the majority happy at the expense of the minorities. This ascent to power and remaining in power take various forms. First, let us take an example from those who think they are the mentors of democracy, i.e., the US. The taxpayer has to be kept happy. In the US road works carry the sign, "Your taxes are at work". At the same time even the non-taxpayer (i.e. one who pays only indirect taxes) has to be kept happy through populist measures. Different interest groups as varied as the Jewish financial lobby or the "Gun Lobby" are appeased in different ways to secure their votes. They will not vote on policies that are just and good for all. Rather, they vote for that party which will prove to be beneficial to their group's vested interests.

In Asian nations where particular religions are in the majority, the majority religionists are given special favours while the minorities are usually discriminated against quite blatantly. A classic example that is a matter of concern to us Christians is the plight suffered by Christian minorities in many Asian countries. To please the majority, which provides the mainstay to the government, the freedom of the minorities is severely curbed. I must hasten to mention, however, that wherever there is a Christian majority the minorities in that country does not necessarily get a fair treatment either. If we cite Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia as countries where the Muslim majority is pampered, in the Philippines, the Muslim minority feels discriminated against. It is this trend in politics which is for convenience sake called majoritarianism. The majority which supports the government or the 'charismatic' or dictatorial leader in power may not be monolithic, i.e. of one religion or ethnicity. But if it comprises vested interest groups we can still call that majoritarianism.

"Please the Majority" policy is not peculiar to Asia. In developed nations of the West political leaders try to sway the majority to their side by openly declaring that only their policy would lead the nation to greater prosperity (by plundering the poorer countries). For example, when the Tiger economies of East Asia had a big crash, then US President Bill Clinton was advocating an IMF loan of seventeen billion US dollars to Indonesia. When the US Congress opposed, Clinton said he was asking for this loan to save American exports and American jobs. Unless there is advantage to their nation the US Congress will not support any aid programme.

In short, the widely talked about principle, 'A Government should adopt policies to bring maximum benefit to a maximum number of people by maximizing people's participation and have policies simultaneously to protect and care for the vulnerable sections of the people', does not seem to be the principle of any government. Rather, the principle that is in operation is to 'offer maximum benefit to those who have the power to sustain those in power at the expense of the relatively powerless'.

Gone are the days when we could hope that a majority of the citizens could be relied upon to vote for that person, that party and that ideology which promote justice and are sensitive to the needs of the weak and the vulnerable. Rather, it is that party, ideology or leader who will serve the vested interests of the nation in respect of other nations, the majority community - i.e. religious or ethnic in relation to other minority communities - that dictates the voting pattern. Therefore, the hope that people will transcend narrow nationalistic, ethnic, religious loyalties and vote to elect leaders purely on an assessment of the strength of character and commitment to serve has become a pipe dream.

One leading human rights and peace activist, a retired judge of the Supreme Court in India, a devout Hindu by the name of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, bemoans the existing situation in India as follows:

Altruism and all humanitarian values have been nailed to the cross. The present day political and religious establishments are Pilate and Caiaphas, respectively. The third day of resurrection, however, is ever receding further and further (my paraphrase and emphasis).

Majoritarianism abets the development of and sustains authoritarianism. The process by which this happens is that political leaders who ascend to power through manipulating the majority easily manage to take all power into their hands so that democracy gets reduced to a one man/woman show. They gain control over both government and party. This happens through the double phenomenon of pampering supporters and crushing dissenters. Eventually the dissenters disappear and all become supporters. Watching what happens and realizing their powerlessness, the oppressed and marginalized groups often tend not to oppose this undemocratic tendency and even become the supporters. What would Jesus have us do? Do we have clues?

Problem 2 � The Politics of Jesus

I shall not seek to explain away the second problem, namely, that of daring to speak about the politics of Jesus. The major part of this lecture will be devoted to that. At the outset, it can be stated that we need to be aware that the authors of the New Testament had to resort to covert methods of indicating the politics of Jesus because they were still under the repressive and ruthless regime of imperial Rome.

2.1.  Jesus' Proclamation of God's Righteous Reign

Jesus' own ministry and proclamation of the drawing near of God's righteous rule could not be limited to individual salvation to redeem people from sin and damnation. Rather, it had far reaching implications for the much longed-for just rule of God. The political context was the imperial tyranny of Rome. The social context was that the Jewish community within Palestine was stratified. The High Priest and his coterie enjoyed power and status. They were rich through the exploits from the Temple. The rest of the priests and Levites who carried out the daily sacrifices and liturgical duties were quite poor. For there were far too many priests and Levites and they served in the Temple through a rota system. The High Priestly family of Annas and Caiaphas did not care to distribute the vast gains they made from moneychangers and traders of animals for sacrifices.

The Pharisees, by and large the more popular religious group, were mostly middle class and lower middle class with exceptions like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and those who were members of the Sanhedrin like the rich ruler (i.e. member of the Sanhedrin) who came to Jesus asking, "What must I do to be saved?" (Luke18:18f).

Then there were the tax gatherers who were also rich but greatly despised by almost all the people. Because they were despised and ostracized, Jesus was keen to restore them to the community (Luke 19:9).

Apart from these there were the vast majority of people who were variously described as the crowds or the people. This group comprised Galilean masses, large number of women, the blind, the lame and those suffering from various deformities and illnesses. They were described as sheep without a shepherd (i.e. people without a king � Matthew 9:36). The word shepherd had not acquired the meaning of a pastor of a congregation when Jesus used it. It was unmistakably a metaphor for king as it is used in Ezekiel 34 and Micah 5:2f. Within this group of people without proper leadership there were those called the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, i.e. the most oppressed and marginalized as well as those who were lame, blind, leprosy stricken. All were yearning for wholeness, vindication and restoration of justice. However, the way they expected deliverance to come was by a simple transfer of power from Rome to the expected Messiah in the line of David, and through that would emerge a supreme Jewish imperial state with all other nations subjugated.

The Zealots had assumed that such a transfer of power had to be achieved through insurrection and armed militancy. Though all did not become zealots many entertained a secret hope that as God had helped David to capture power the Zealots might succeed.

The ruling elite of the Jewish community, i.e. the High Priests and rich members of the Sanhedrin, with significant exception of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, seem to have become collaborationists with Rome ("We have no king except Caesar", John 19:15). They also knew how to manipulate the mass sentiment of desire for change of regime by instigating them to ask for freedom for Jesus Barabbas,[1] the insurrectionist, and for Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified for the crime of sedition and conspiracy against Rome. They themselves professed to remain loyal to Caesar.

It was in this context that Jesus appeared, announcing the drawing near of God's rule of justice and calling for repentance, i.e. "a turning around" to see what indeed was God's rule of justice and how it was being established. In the lips of Jesus, the call to repentance was not a call to repent from sins primarily. It was a call for a change of perspective, to turn around, to recognize and identify God's rule breaking in even when the rulers of the world and rulers of religion were still intact. Not forever, however. They could be rendered powerless only by binding up the ruling spiritual powers of evil - the Strong Man, the Ruler of the World, the Prince of the Power of Air� (Mark 3:27, John 12:31 and Ephesians 2:2, 6:12, 13).

It is not possible to interpret Jesus' message as having no political agenda or content. The overthrow of Rome was indeed a must because Rome was lording it over people and pretentiously claimed to be beneficial to the ruled (Mark10: 42-45). Quite opposite to this God's righteous rule will, in fact, be marked by service and sacrifice. The only people who could be partners together with God in the exercise of that rule were the dispirited people of Matthew 5:3 and those who were persecuted because of their advocacy and struggle for justice (Matthew 5:10). The change of regime which Jesus anticipated was not from the imperialism of Rome to another imperialistic rule in the name of David. Rather, the change of regime was from all the dominant ones in the political and socio-cultural spheres to the collective of the poor in spirit[2] and those in solidarity with them. When this change is brought about justice will also be done even to those Gentiles who belong to the category of the deprived and dispossessed (e.g. the Jebusites driven out of Zion in II Samuel 5:6-8) and symbolically represented by the blind and the lame (Matthew 21:14-16) who will also be vindicated.

When did Jesus expect this just reign of God to be consummated? Most certainly Jesus did not envisage a totally supra-historical consummation. For him the reign had already begun to dawn (Matthew 12:28; Luke 17:21). His exorcisms were signs that the mega ruling power of darkness was getting bound up and rendered ineffectual. The power of evil had infiltrated and was successfully manipulating the governments of the world. It influenced the legitimising traditions of religion to be developed and sustained. The powers which stratified and kept society divided with the help of religion, custom and political rulers were also under its sway. The power of this Evil One was taking a beating in the ministry of Jesus. If only people would repent and join hands it would be completely vanquished. But people foolishly still continued in their old loyalty to the power of evil, mistaking the contemporary rulers to be God-ordained.[3] It is for this perception that people need to have their eyes opened and made to repent. So the call to repent had a spiritual base as well as a political agenda and programme.

2.2.         Jesus, Caesar, Herod and Pilate

One of the greatest misinterpretations that have taken deep roots to the great advantage of the Evil One and his agents in politics and religion is regarding Jesus' view on Roman government and taxation. Did Jesus imply, "let the rulers of the world do whatever they want; I am not bothered for my concern is to establish a spiritual and otherworldly kingdom" when he said "My Kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36f)?

The phrase 'this world' in John (8:23; 9:39; 3:17; 12:25, 31; 14:30; 16:11) is used almost consistently in all its occurrences in a pejorative sense to refer to all the evil of the world which exercised its influence with a wide consensus as ruled by the ruler of this world. The phrase "the world" is used in most places to refer to people with the potentiality of becoming God's people or quite simply in a neutral sense. In certain occurrences it also conveys a pejorative sense (1:10; 7:7; 14:17; 15:18; 16:33).

That 'this world' is used in a special sense by John is obvious from the clear contrast indicated in 3:17 and 9:39. Jesus did not come into the world to judge or condemn but he came into this world for judgement. The other point which clinches this is in all three references to the ruler/prince: the prince of this world. So when Jesus says that my kingdom is not of this world it does not mean it is totally otherworldly. It simply means that it is not in accordance with the ways in which kings and rulers of this world (i.e. under the prince of this world) rule by fighting wars and by exercising authoritarian monarchical rule. Rather, God's just rule will be a participatory one. The "dispirited" people together with all those who participate in establishing peace with justice will 'rule' as a collective. Even more radically, the very word 'rule' has to acquire a new paradoxical meaning, service and sacrifice. See John 13:5 where it is said that Jesus knowing all authority is vested in him, rises from his position as chief guest at the meal and starts washing the feet of his disciples. Therefore the 'rule' by the 'collective of the dispirited' that is envisaged will be exercised through service and sacrifice, not by lording it over anyone.

The leaders of the Jews who are under the prince of this world say they would only have Caesar as king. "We have no other king except Caesar" (John 19:15). This preference for an authoritarian tyranny to principles of justice and service is not strange. Only under such an authority pattern could they continue to enjoy power and status within their realm of authority. After all, everyone is fond of wielding some authority (i.e. all men are wont to have the right to rule over women rather than being ruled by their bosses).

Jesus most categorically differed from this inclination to rule and dominate. He criticized the way Roman rule was exercised. The rulers of the Gentiles (clearly including Caesar) lord it over people, he had commented. But at the same time they also want to be recognized and praised for their benevolence! (Mark 10:42-45).

Did not Jesus accept the division between the secular and spiritual realms? Did he not ask people to be law-abiding citizens by asking them to pay their taxes without quibble? Most unfortunately, the history of New Testament hermeneutics, insofar as it has been controlled by western scholars, has very simplistically interpreted "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" as an affirmative reply to the question, "Is it lawful to give taxes?" (Matthew 22:15-22). We should not forget that the discussion about giving taxes to Caesar took place within the temple precincts. This means no one was supposed to bring into the temple a Roman coin bearing the image of Caesar. The one who showed the denarius, therefore, stood implicated in violation of the second commandment. Even more blasphemous than the bust of the emperor on the coin was the inscription referring to the Roman Emperor as son of God and lord. None of the synoptic evangelists mention what would have automatically followed Jesus' question, "Whose image? Whose inscription?" The man would have become suddenly frightened of his having violated the most feared second commandment and would have dropped the coin.

This draws the response from Jesus which in fact meant the following: "Yes, throw back Caesar�s blasphemous coin to Caesar himself and dissociate yourself from its use altogether then you will be able to give yourself." It is addressed to those who have God's image and have been inscribed with the inscription, "The earth and the fullness thereof belong to God and to God alone". It is a reminder that "I am the Lord your God and you'll have no other gods before me." If you so dissociate yourself, then will you be able to give to God yourself wholly and unambiguously.

What has been described of course is an imaginative reconstruction. But there is evidence in the gospel tradition of Jesus' aversion to taxation and Roman money. Jesus showed serious misgivings about Roman taxation system. Matthew17:21-26 is remembered by those who are familiar with gospel episodes for the supposed miracle of Jesus knowing a fish with the required two drachma in its mouth. The story has often been taken as Jesus' endorsement of paying temple tax through money recovered from the fish's mouth. Rarely anyone, however, cares to remember the conversation tucked in the middle between Jesus and Peter about the taxation system of Gentile rulers. "From whom do the rulers of the Gentiles levy taxes, from citizens or foreigners?" Peter replies from "foreigners".

When Peter declares that as a rule citizens are taxed less by laying a heavier tax burden on the colonized people, Jesus says, "Then as children we are exempt." This is almost clearly implying that Caesar had no right to declare him a foreigner in his own country in which he was very much a child, a son of the soil, and therefore was not obliged to pay taxes. Only as a compromise did Jesus ask Peter to catch the fish and pay off the tax demanded. Matthew cleverly uses the temple tax story to bring out Jesus' own views on Roman taxation. The compromise is due to Jesus' not wanting to be misunderstood as a zealot (i.e. those who belonged to the militant insurrectionist group who also advocated a tax boycott). Jesus was in fact building a movement to counter the use of money in day to day transactions, i.e. trying to minimize the use of money with barter systems � e. g. "food for work" principle.

2.3.  Jesus' Sending Out of the Apostles  

We need to see Jesus' sending out of the disciples without any purse in the light of his aversion to the use of Roman money and of his plan to evolve an alternative system. This was another way to fight the power of money and the Roman rule which had stamped it with its audacious claims. He expected his disciples to be received by "sons of peace" wherever they went. This could only mean a prior preparation in which the would-be hosts had been instructed to identify the "penniless" visitors as his special emissaries. The gospel tradition, for the obvious reason of not wanting to implicate Jesus as a rebel, preferred to remain silent about the work of Jesus except for the reference to the trial mission. The greeting of "shalom" was a coded greeting for the householder, if he was already a "son of peace", to recognize the emissary of Jesus. Similarly for the apostles, the positive response or otherwise to the greeting was a clear sign enabling them to recognize anonymous disciples.

From the history of the early church under persecution we know how the early church developed secret ways of communicating and remaining in fellowship. In fact people under severe persecution everywhere resort to secret coded communication. The symbol of fish itself which is now a universal Christian symbol was one such coded communication symbol. The Greek word for fish was ICHTHUS, an acronym from Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour. For nearly two centuries during the time of the Roman persecution, from the time of Domitian to Diocletian, Christians wanting to identify themselves as Christian to a stranger would draw the symbol of the fish on the ground. If the action was reciprocated, they would hug each other and enjoy Christian fellowship.

Let us not forget that Jesus was crucified by Rome. One of the accusations was Jesus' alleged support for a tax boycott. Of course this could not be sustained because witnesses did not agree. If Jesus was quietly building up an alternative to money and, in particular to the Roman coinage, it could easily have been misunderstood and, hence, the confusion. Even though Jesus' political intention was a bloodless revolution through a powerful counter culture, misunderstanding could not be avoided. Jesus was not apolitical and did not concede the autonomy of the secular realm as having little to do with his hope for God's righteous rule. The parables of the leaven, salt and seed reinforce that Jesus' expectation for the righteous rule of God was that it should take roots within history first and move on to a supra-historical consummation.

That our Lord had little deference to rulers is further clinched from the way he told Pilate that he had no authority over him but that which had been given to him by God. By no means should we interpret our Lord's retort to Pilate's threat that he had authority to acquit or convict as Jesus conceding that Pilate had divine sanction. It could only mean that God's way of bringing destruction of evil powers was different from the way this world seeks to fight evil. God's way is by getting implicated and suffering together with people. Through evoking a response from the subjugated to take bold steps of denouncing evil and changing sides to the apparently losing side of the victim leads to evil destroying itself. The daring defiance of our Lord really scared Pilate. Being caught between the fear of convicting someone who was obviously different from all others he had tried, and the fear of being seen as one who was not loyal to Caesar, he chose to secure his position with Caesar than getting thrown out of power. 

As soon as Herod imprisoned John the Baptist, Jesus began his ministry in clear defiance. When he was told by some friendly Pharisees (Luke 13:31-33) that Herod was seeking to kill him, he told them to go and tell that fox that no one could hinder his ministry and that he was not afraid of being killed, for in fact, he was preparing himself for that to happen in Jerusalem.

When sent to Herod by Pilate, Jesus defied his questioning and refused to answer (Luke 23:9). Being disappointed and frustrated on the one hand and being afraid of the blackmail pressure of the Jewish leaders on the other hand, Herod behaved almost exactly like Pilate. He chose to please the Jewish leaders who were making loud claims of their loyalty to Caesar and sent Jesus back to Pilate. Luke says a great deal indeed by his comment that Pilate and Herod who had been rivals now became friends. For both had to prove their loyalty to Caesar by yielding to the pressure of Caesar's loyal citizens. It is unmistakably clear that the crucifixion of Jesus was decided upon by the choice between Caesar and Jesus. The gospel story's depiction of the choice as one between Jesus and Jesus Barabbas was in fact a cover for the leaders' choice for Caesar and the choice of Caesar by Pilate and Herod.

This was not a one-time choice inevitable to get Jesus to pay the price for sin. The choice between Caesar and Jesus is the ever-present choice between being on the side of dominant forces, which subjugate, exploit, plunder, or on the side of their victims. Almost always we choose Caesar and acquiesce in the crucifixion of Jesus. The sin of the world and of the institutions of religion consists in this ongoing betrayal.

2.4.  Jesus' Politics of the Cross

To refer to the cross, a symbol of salvation, as an instrument of politics would indeed seem very preposterous if not an outright blasphemy. I plead with those given to such sentiments of deep spiritual aversion to follow the argument carefully. Crucifixion was the mode of capital punishment given to non-citizen convicts by imperial Rome.

Jesus anticipated this punishment as the inevitable outcome of his proclamation of God's righteous rule and of his taking the side of the poor and the marginalized. His call to the disciples was also that they should be prepared for such an end from the very beginning. Scholars have tried to argue that Jesus could easily have anticipated being put to death by the Jews because of his irreverent intimacy with God and for his challenge to the Sabbath, but not by Rome. The reference to the cross could only have come by the knowledge that the Jews had no right to execute anyone and therefore would have had to rely on the Roman authorities acceding to their demand that Jesus be crucified. This is because most scholars refuse to attribute any political content to Jesus' message and programme. The gospels, no doubt, do tend to give the impression that Jesus was totally innocent of any crime against the Roman state and that the hand of Rome was forced by the Jewish conspiracy to eliminate him. We need to remember that they were living and operating under Roman rule. Opposition to the gospel had not yet become state-sponsored but much more from the agitated Jewish communities. This inevitably made them put a greater blame on the Jews than on Rome.

We easily tend to forget Caiaphas' advice to the Sanhedrin. If all followed Jesus then Rome would act to bring Jerusalem under their total control. They would also embark on a genocidal spree. Therefore, it is much better to have Jesus die and the nation saved (John 11:48-53). John of course saw in the comment a prophecy referring to the One dying for many.

The Jewish leaders were well aware that through the 'signs of Jesus' people were gathering around him. They did not seem to have thought of the gathering momentum of this people's movement simply in spiritualistic terms. If it had been a spiritual movement like that of the Essenes or that of the Qumran sect, Rome would have had no occasion to fear. It was only because they knew of the political implications of the Jesus movement opting for an alternative counter culture, which, if it became a mass movement, would subvert all authority, that the potential danger to crush it was indeed a real possibility.

So the call of Jesus was for a radical self-denial, a total dissociation from the power of Mammon and to follow him bearing the cross (i.e. ever being prepared to be crushed ruthlessly by Rome). This call to bear the cross and follow him had the political agenda of confronting people to make the choice between Caesar and God's righteous rule. The two could never co-exist through an understanding of different roles in two different spheres - one temporal and secular, the other eternal and spiritual.

This is not far fetched. This is not anti-gospel. This is certainly a perception present within the gospels. Let us take Mark's and John's interpretations of the cross of Christ.

In Mark 15:37-39, the Centurion comes to the conviction that Jesus was indeed "Son of God". "Son of God" was a title every Caesar assumed. Hence, we have no right to read that as a Christological confession conceding Jesus' divine origin.  In order to show that he had divine sanction, the Caesars assumed arbitrary total authority and even demanded that their statues be honoured as befitting deity.

 

 Jesus� cross bore the reason for his crucifixion � Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews � in contradistinction to the audacious claims and demeanour of the Caesars. He died crying, �My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me�, a cry of lament echoing Psalm 22. Somehow this cry and the manner of his death evoked the confession that he was indeed Son of God. We could almost say that the Centurion had come to the conclusion that it was not Caesar who really had the right to be king and enjoy divine honours. Rather, it was Jesus, the One whose lot was that of all people who cried in despair; the One who deserved to be king � a Son of God. So the cross, according to Mark, led to a conviction regarding the nature of God-approved kingship. Once again the choice between Caesar and Jesus is clearly alluded to. If we choose the one, we reject the other.

John portrays that the trial and rejection of Jesus was due to the preference for Caesar to that of Jesus' perceived claim to be King of the Jews. Even before describing the trial, in John 12:31-36, John depicts the same choice as that between the prince of this world and the Human One hanging on the cross. In the gospel the ruler/prince of this world holds all people under his sway through his clever manipulation of political, religious and cultural authorities.

Repentance and being drawn to Jesus consists in people making a conscious choice for the lifted up human one (i.e. the one hanging on the cross) and rejecting the prince of this world who succeeded in bringing about the lifting up, through the consensus of the people. But the mystery of the gospel is that people will realize what this world does to the Human One and the entire victim collective whom he represents and will change sides. When such a change takes place, then the world is judged - that is, it stands exposed for what it really is and the prince of this world who has lost his grip over the people gets thrown out.

Repentance for John therefore is not merely individualistic. It implies a change of sides of all who in various ways have been supporting the prince of this world and, realizing what that means for God and God's son, change sides. Even today, only when we learn to see what true repentance involves can we be really children of God.

Missiological Implications

We set out by trying to describe that the political scenario is authoritarianism (the modern day Caesar) abetted and sustained by majoritarianism (i.e. manipulated consent through pampering 'the majority' at the expense of the weaker and vulnerable sections). The Caesars held power through support of the religion of the majority and by pampering their leaders. Something in close parallel to this is the day to day phenomenon in practically all countries of Asia.

Those of us who have been drawn together by the love of God made known in Jesus Christ need to become catalytic agents in fermenting awareness of and dissent from processes which marginalize and oppress people - i.e., the community of the lifted up Human One. Even if we are not able to succeed in converting people to the Christian faith, if we succeed in people being able to dissociate themselves from Caesars of different realms and express solidarity with those who get victimized, then we are in fact truly involved in Christian mission.

This work is difficult. As the early church faced opposition from the gentile rulers and from the Jewish communities we will have difficulties to face from all directions. But true mission is mission through following Jesus taking up the cross.

I am most certainly not advocating any crusade. For among people of all faiths we have many whose choice is clearly for the suffering people and a clear rejection of the dominating authority. We need to be able to identify all such people and join hands with them.

Thus the lifted up Human One, the diachronic crucified Christ who is present in all those who suffer, will be drawing people away from the prince of this world - i.e. all authorities of domination (political, religious, social, cultural and economic) -and on to the side of the victims. Consequently, those of us who are beneficiaries of globalisation and the "free" market will realize to our horror how this enjoyment has hurt millions of women and children. Those of us, men, who think that women were made for us, will realize what such an orientation has meant for millions of women. Those of us who enjoy privilege as upper class will realize what it means to demean and degrade the less privileged.

Whether it is national economic structures, religio-cultural authorities, or different social groups, all are manipulated to the advantage of the ruling elite. The invisible power of the Evil One (in the Synoptic gospels), the prince of this world (in John's gospel), the prince of the power of air (in Paul's writings) controls the "Caesar" which is the symbol of contemporary monarchical power. This can sometimes be military dictators or the so-called Charismatic leaders who cannot tolerate the emergence of second-line leadership and who never delegate any decision-making to others. Whatever the type, these monarchical powers also control religious authorities and support cultural hegemonies such as patriarchy and racial hegemonies. Anti-terrorist paranoia has given an added fillip to this concentration of power. Therefore the choice between Caesar and the Human One - the victim collective - is an ever-present choice.

Christians committed to mission cannot be satisfied with challenging individuals to accept Christ as Saviour. The church so established can and will do little to participate in the growth of God's righteous rule. Therefore, let us resolve to be on the side of the lifted up Human One and bring about the mega exorcism of the Evil One. Let us always keep constant watch that we do not succumb to the manipulative powers of evil operating in politics. Rather, let us promote a counter culture - the culture of God's reign - and hasten the time of the New Heaven and New Earth in which justice dwells.