Your intro says “Badass Christian loves Christ and believes the basic tenants of the Christian faith, but refuses to hold doctrine, theology or the beliefs of an individual church or denomination as an idol”

At a certain extent aren’t all the basic tenants of the Christian faith in some way politically informed and thus represent doctrine or beliefs of a particular age or a particular denomination?

Furthermore, what do you make of Bonheoffer’s quote on your quote page. Knowing his historical actions would you not say that in the end he felt that a Christian’s convictions should be projected onto the political? I mean the man joined a conspiracy to assassinate a head of state, which seems very political action, no?

Explain what you mean by "politically informed." I'm not sure I see how forgiveness and the redemption of mankind from sin are political actions.

As for Bonheoffer, what a man says and what a man does are often different. What a man believes can be further removed, and then you have to look at the intent of the statement. I am not Bonheoffer and neither are you, but I do like the quote.

The redemption of humanity from sin and forgiveness has actually proven to be quite political throughout history. The former, insofar as the crucifixion is concerned, was political from the start. That is state execution is always a political endeavor and crucifixion, as it was reserved for slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state, was especailly political.

The idea of forgiveness or soteriology more generally is also easily forfeited to politics. For instance, the conflict in the early church concerning the circumcision of non-Jewish converts to the then Jewish sect directly dealt with the politico-religious structure of the time, which in no way was innocent of politics. I can’t think of any concept in Christianity that was not, from a very early stage, political. Even the language used for Jesus, the Savior, was anti-imperial language as the Cesar of Rome was often called Savior, thus projecting the presupposed power and divinity of the ruler of the Roman Empire on to a low-caste Jew and religious leader. Furthermore, Jesus’ criticism of the Sadducees, who were, as Marc Borg describes, “native collaborators who worked with the Roman Empire to make sure that the taxes, the tribute to Rome was paid.” was, for all intent and purposes, a political critique.

I suppose what I am saying is that in the first century politics and religion were amalgamated to such depths it would have been impossible to be a religious revolutionary without also being a political revolutionary. And even though the two have been separated throughout the centuries, politics is still run, more or less, from ethical ideologies and as long as those ideologies spring, in part, from faith in some religious narrative, religion and politics will forever be combined.

I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing they are so joined, except for when religious passion stifles real debate, as is the case with what we might call fundamentalists (in all religious camps).

As for your response to the Bonheoffer quote; actions speak louder than words.

- R