Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals

Reviews (See all 467) Write a reviewfor this

It's a hit!

Wow, how do I review this book. First of all this book pulls from some of the same Theology as Rob Bell's Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifes... (show more)

Wow, how do I review this book. First of all this book pulls from some of the same Theology as Rob Bell's Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile. Also just like that book many people will love this book as a breathe of fresh air into mainstream Christian theology, while others will literally be terrified of this book.

I find it ironic that the Christian movement of which I am a part of, the Churches of Christ, actually had very similar theological views to government that Shane and Chris share. David Lipscomb compiled a work where he described government as a necessary evil like Satan (Take note that Lipscomb saw brothers and sisters in Christ take up arms and kill each other during the Civil War, and this had a profound effect on his view of government.) SO many of the views of American Government I very much at home with, although I think Shane and Chris provide and work with a much better view of Christians and politics than Lispcomb or Harding.

Shane, Chris, and Rob are trying to help mainstream America realize that the Myth of a Christian America is hurting Christianity. The American Dream is not God's Dream. Our Churches have built themselves on structures that we all need to question (Views of Success, "family values", materialism). Now does that mean that there is nothing Christian about America, or nothing good has come from America...no. However what it does mean is that the union of Political and Religious power has never been a good thing. Yet we have so many Christians in America who want to do so.

What I find ironic is that most American Christian would think that the union of political and religious power in the reign of Constantine was a bad thing for Kingdom of God. Yet, there is this disconnect with the same principle being used in American politics. Why would we want to have a government or president that has a huge focus on Christianity and politics when every (and I am mean every) example in history of someone doing such a thing has turned out bad (Constantine, Popes, Henry VIII, Hitler, etc.)

I think everyone should read this and struggle with the ideas mentioned here. Ultimately what Shane and Chris are arguing is not a new uniformity of Christianity but a renewing of our minds to think outside the American box. To dream and imagine a different world not on America's terms, but on God's terms.

There is a revolution taking place, the Kingdom is near.

God may it come in strength, in the foolishness of the cross! (show less)

 

 

by Facebook User

No, it's a flop!

I borrowed this book from a friend of mine and because of the subject matter I spent a great deal of time working my way through it in an attempt t... (show more)

I borrowed this book from a friend of mine and because of the subject matter I spent a great deal of time working my way through it in an attempt to evaluate it as honestly as I could. Some of the author’s ideas and positions (a more community based Christian Church and non-violence) have merit and are worth further exploration. If you like these ideas, I recommend you read an essay by Theodore Koontz titled “Christian Nonviolence: An Interpretation.” I really do think these are points that are worthy of consideration.
That said the logic, scholarship, facts, reasoning, and rhetoric in Jesus for President is awful. If this book were written as a persuasive essay, any good professor would fail the authors. It commits numerous logical fallacies including circular reasoning (pg 67-69), the straw man fallacy (pg 106), and the use of emotionally charged language (throughout). The authors disagree with themselves on tangible facts by giving different statistics on casualties in the Iraq war on pages 281 and 331 and differing numbers on US military spending on pages 184 and 256. They make several claims that are simply wrong (AK-47s are not US made weapons, even Wikipedia gets that right) and often make historical and Biblical claims that historians and Biblical scholars will heavily dispute.
These errors do not mean the authors’ main points are invalid. But it does seem they did not do the basic research needed for a high school essay, much less a published book. For this reason alone, I will not recommend this book to anyone. Read the essay I mentioned above as it supports many of the same positions and commits none of the fallacies these authors do. I really do wish these authors had got their facts right and made valid arguments as I think these are very important issues that need to be explored and poorly arguing for them helps no one and gets us nowhere. If they employed more reason in their arguments and less emotionally based claims perhaps people would be more likely to see their points. (show less)

 

 

by Facebook User

More Reviews

• 
  

  I don't think Shane Claiborne knows whom he is actually disagreeing with. The book is all over the place, it's full of "knowing" asides and snide remarks, and the layout is distracting. He (following Yoder) makes the cross into an object lesson that teaches Christians (and governments, apparently) to be non-violent, but that actually doesn't *do* anything for us. He can't decide if Jesus' kingdom is or is not of this world (e.g., should Americans act like Jesus--making this a &qu... (show more)

  I don't think Shane Claiborne knows whom he is actually disagreeing with. The book is all over the place, it's full of "knowing" asides and snide remarks, and the layout is distracting. He (following Yoder) makes the cross into an object lesson that teaches Christians (and governments, apparently) to be non-violent, but that actually doesn't *do* anything for us. He can't decide if Jesus' kingdom is or is not of this world (e.g., should Americans act like Jesus--making this a "Christian Nation," or should they not, because God wouldn't have anything to do with such dreadful things as secular governments?); he seems to think that governments, as such, are opposed to the will of God, but, at the same time, he wants corporate greed and war-mongering to end in the name of Jesus; he doesn't like theocracies, but he cites numerous examples of how the Old Testament theocracy functioned; and he plays fast and loose with acontextual historical facts (e.g., citing the Church Fathers on being a soldier without mentioning that all soldiers at the time essentially had to worship Caesar. He might argue that it is the same today, but that would mean he would have to *argue* and not just assert.).

  The answer of this book to the conflict between God's Reign and the kingdoms of this world seems to be: move out into the desert, don't earn any money, and love each other. If Claiborne wants to move into the wilderness because he thinks he can be closer to God there, he's welcome to it. But he's apparently unaware of the vast majority of Christian tradition that somehow imagined it was possible to live in a city under a government and still be a Christian. He also does not address the numerous wealthy followers of Jesus, including Joseph of Arimathea and, probably, Nicodemus. The blindspots seem to be so willful, it's hard even to take it seriously.

  Verdict: this book is terrible (or did that come through?). (show less)

   

   

  by Timothy Winterstein on Nov 25, 2009 at 06:50PM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• 
  

  I've been trying to decide exactly how I felt about this book. The authors had a knack for saying things that sound completely right and completely wrong at the same time. The authors seemed to enjoy the role of rebel and I think they enjoy pushing peoples' buttons. I'll begin though with the format. I was a bit put-off at first by the format as it appeared chaotic and distracting. I was able to overcome this, but it did feel like reading a 300-page CD booklet.

  I felt the beginning of ... (show more)

  I've been trying to decide exactly how I felt about this book. The authors had a knack for saying things that sound completely right and completely wrong at the same time. The authors seemed to enjoy the role of rebel and I think they enjoy pushing peoples' buttons. I'll begin though with the format. I was a bit put-off at first by the format as it appeared chaotic and distracting. I was able to overcome this, but it did feel like reading a 300-page CD booklet.

  I felt the beginning of the book (a walk through scripture from a different perspective) was better than the end (a postmodern-y storytelling session) as they outlined their theology. One thing I did not enjoy was the way they took "drive-by" shots at people and ideas. They were often more controversial and confrontational than they needed to be to make their points. On some occasions they made inflammatory statements about things which were not even central to their argument (like calling football an "imperial" game). Another thing I felt hurt this book were the factual inaccuracies. Most of these did not change the authors' point (such as stating the U.S. has the largest nuclear weapons stockpile, which it does not, but the main point that it has a large stockpile is still valid), but it still put me off a bit.

  The authors did not have anything positive to say about capitalism. I got the impression that they envision something different than I do when they speak of capitalism. I for one cannot see why capitalism and giving to the poor are mutually exclusive.

  The authors did not seem to have much appreciation for those they disagreed with. Early in the book they say that we as a church need overcome divisive issues and do a better job disagreeing with one another yet later in the book they implicity recommend for Christians in the military to be excommunicated.

  I'll close by saying that I found many of their key points valid. America, the economy, etc. cannot be our hope and they are not what we are here for. Our kingdom citizenship should supercede other allegiances. This was a challenging book and at least got me thinking. I just felt the authors would have been better served had they stuck to their central arguments. (show less)

   

   

  by Andy Cotant on Sep 13, 2009 at 09:27PM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• See all reviews
  Write a review