Photo by Ove Tøpfer; from Stock Xchange
“Well, there just weren’t enough of them.” Are you kidding me? If you haven’t done so, read the last post. God prefers to work with the minority.
“Well, maybe they did that, and we just don’t have record of it.” That’s possible, although it seems strange that something that has become such a central part of Christians’ lives today could have been so unimportant then that it wasn’t recorded.
Or am I missing the examples? I read Acts 12 and try to imagine how it would have played out today. James is arrested and killed. Peter is arrested. And the church is just praying and “singing Kumbayah” while Peter is in prison. That’s ridiculous. Storm the prison. Kill the guards. Free the Christians who are held unjustly. Set an example so that Christians in the 21st century will know what God expects of them.
Instead, they depended on God. Wimps. Weaklings. These are the people that one prominent brotherhood speaker says he has no use for. Pick up a sword and fight, you cowards. If God could use Samson and Gideon to win battles against extraordinary odds, He can help you defeat the evil Herod.
Or do you mean to tell me that with thousands of Christians in Jerusalem, they couldn’t take over the Sanhedrin? Or form a rival Sanhedrin to make just decisions? If they’d done that, rather than focus on prayer and the Word, we’d have the examples we need to know how to conduct ourselves.
What am I missing here? Some of you know the writings of the early church better than I. Maybe the church in the second and third century began to use the tools of the world in a way I’m not aware of.
Or do we seriously think that our lives should be so focused on power issues like war and politics when those things are absent from the early church? Does pragmatism trump spirituality?
Maybe you can convince me.
The point I think you’re not addressing is that the Christians never even came close to forming a plurality in any 1st-century situation. When they got close in Jerusalem, they got thrown out – remember your Acts 8?
In America 2011, Christians form at least a plurality of the population. You’re right – God does show a marked tendency to work with the minority – but where does that leave the church in a world where they AREN’T the majority? Do they continue to imitate the pattern? Do they develop new ways to address their culture? Do they kick some people out so they can return to minority status? Do they splinter so that every little group can claim minority status?
I don’t have an answer, really – I just don’t think your points are addressing the situation on the ground. How does a religion founded as a minority function once it attains majority?
UGH!
“where they AREN’T the minority“
Can we assume that the 21st century church in all of its shades and hues is in the majority? Especially if its limbs and digits don’t recognize the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? Are we working for the purpose of the cross with each other or at cross-purposes to each other?
I seem to remember reading that in the third and fourth centuries the church gained its reputation for staying in the cities and tending those infected with plague when healthy pagans abandoned them. There’s some kind of power in a choice like that.
Interesting point, Nick. ‘Twould seem to me that we should expect God to have given the necessary instructions, similar to how the Law given in the wilderness didn’t fit the Israelites’ situation for years to come (in some instances, centuries). That’s where I find the lack of any such instructions to be a bit strange. The closest seems to be Jesus’ discussion of “lording it over” people vs. service.
Even minority groups can use social coercion. They can use force to bring about justice, use politics to achieve certain aims. If what we are seeing today were what God intended, I can’t help but feel He would have said so.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Does the unity of the Spirit exist?
If it does, then I think the majority exists.
If it doesn’t, then should we be calling for so-called limbs and digits to work together when they aren’t in actuality unified by the one Spirit?
But then we’re back to deciding who has the Spirit and who doesn’t – because we can’t call people to act in harmony with a unity that doesn’t actually exist.
It’s a challenging question. I definitely don’t side with the politics of the right, but I’m not foolish enough to idealize any group on the political spectrum. There is a definite grasping for power.
The core of the good news is that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord, not Caesar, not my sins, not Sarah Palin, not the Tea Party or President Obama. He is Lord now, not only of my life because I bowed the knee to him, but off all people everywhere, and all things. He is Lord even though people rebel, and it is because they rebel that there will be judgment.
Something occurred to me the other day in this regard, and I haven’t had time to follow up and think it through. I have long criticized attempts to “legislate morality.” It seems questionable to me, at best. Matters like homosexuality and so forth. But then, how do I justify fighting for social justice? Isn’t that also “legislating morality”?
But then we’re back to CENI, “Behold The Pattern” type thinking. If we’re allowed to develop unwritten ways to worship that still honor the way of Jesus, why wouldn’t we be able to develop unwritten ways to interact with our culture?
One of the major differences between the Old and New Covenants seems to be the fact that there’s a lot of things that we wish “He would have said so” that he didn’t, because the church has to remain flexible enough to invite all the people-groups of the world into the worship of the one True God.
I’m not disagreeing with your frustration, Tim – not at all. But I don’t think the BCV argument is going to be an effective way to address the problem.
Nick,
I’m not denying that the majority exists. I’m just saying that Christians seem to have tried to do things the world’s way with a Christian veneer. Politics are all about gaining and retaining power. Military power is used for “promoting our nation’s interests.” Capitalism is given freedom as long as it makes our people prosperous. In short, Christians have placed themselves in service to the continuing existence and prosperity of one country, rather than seeking Kingdom principles above all else. They’ve taken up the tools of this world, but instead of transforming them into something Christian as they’d hoped, they were themselves transformed into something worldly.
I’m becoming more and more convinced that the mistake is in trying to use the tools of this world to accomplish the business of the Kingdom. We end up enslaving ourselves to the tools themselves.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
The ways of worship should continue to be based on biblical principles, or it ceases to be worship. We no longer chant as Christians once did, but the intent of our songs is still to sing the praises of God. The form changes but the function doesn’t.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think it wrong to expect to find one “Use force to bring about justice” in the midst of the love your enemies, don’t seek revenges and turn the other cheeks. I don’t see that as CENIsm. Shouldn’t there be a “lord it over others with a loving attitude” alongside the calls to sacrifice and service? When we’ve chosen to do the opposite of what God says, I think we at least need something that points us down that road.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Here’s a practical question, rather than wading in hypotheticals (although since he’s moved to the university again, it is a bit moot):
Do you think NT Wright’s acceptance of the seat in the House of Lords that is given to the Bishop of Durham and his consequent work for justice in immigration and poverty and world debt comprises “doing the opposite of what God says,” or would it be a prophetic voice in the halls of power, or something different?
That’s precisely the warning – Paul uses the word “powers” instead of “tools” but you’re both talking about the same thing.
Jesus accepted the position and symbols surrounding a 1st-century Jewish rabbi, which was definitely a political figure. Meals with political figures are times when political action occurs. And when Jesus encountered Pilate, he did not reject politics. He operated by a different political system – a system predicated on self-sacrificial love and truth-telling. Exerting influence is not the same thing as “lording it over.” Jesus’ call to repent is not an apolitical call, precisely because he called people to repent of their loyalty to their own kingdom and pledge their allegiance to His.
The one we follow is, as Adam points out, *already* Lord of All. The willingness to compromise with the powers of violence and manipulation is a sign of fear – a lack of faith that our Lord is indeed Lord of All. But the call to be “salt and light” mandates a position of engagement rather than separation from our culture – and that will make for challenging partnerships. Should the church not work with government welfare or medical aid programs because they’re governmental? Should the church not work with corporations to foster justice and compassion for the poor? The parable of the shrewd steward seems to commend itself to risk-taking rather than separation from these things.
I’m not ready to say that all political activity is the opposite of what God says.
I guess I have a bigger concern about the arrangement that ties the Church to the U.K. government. And I can’t help but wonder what impact there might have been had Wright refused the post, citing his citizenship in the Kingdom of heaven. Obviously the “what ifs” can never be answered, but it’s interesting.
Tim,
i’m with you 100% on this.
Even if we can’t prove our position outright though, surely there’s enough biblical data to suggest that the interactions of the church and the government that is typical of US evangelicalism are completely misguided and mistaken–for all the reasons Nick mentions and more.
There are deeply embedded beliefs in a lot of those interactions that muddy the waters of this discussion. Beliefs like:
(1) God inspired/guided/intervened the founders of America to found a Christian nation.
(2) As a result we are obligated to ensure that our civil laws accurately codify God’s moral laws.
(3) God has chosen America to destroy non-believers.
Even if we’re wrong and it is okay for the church to engage in political maneuvering, surely the political maneuvering done on the basis of these kinds of beliefs is entirely mistaken.
–guy
Tim,
i don’t mean to engage in any sort of cheap proof-texting, but doesn’t John 18:36 suggest that such use of force or political power will *always* be inappropriate for Christians due to the nature of Christ’s kingdom being qualitatively different from worldly kingdoms?
–guy
i like the tone and aggression in this article tim, nice!
I’m not sure if this is what you are looking for, but the apostle Paul used his Roman citizenship and Roman law to protect himself (Acts 22:25-29).
Tim,
It is wonderful to see an evangelist with some influence in the brotherhood who still champions the New Testament idea of peace and the fact that our citizenship is in heaven.
From the time that I began preaching in 1957 until I left preaching for a time in 1974, I preached an uncompromising dedication the pacifism and non-involvement in earthly government that I believe Jesus and his disciples followed. Not everyone agreed with me, but I did not expect them too. Even then pressure from the world was too great. When I returned to preaching in 1999, I found that such preaching was no longer tolerated in most congregations. I was told that I was ruining the church in the eyes of the community. Never mind the fact that such preaching drew people who were like minded and placed our spiritual life ahead of the physical one. They were not socially, politically, and economically influential.
I still preach pacifism and the kingdom of heaven as opposed to the kingdoms of this world. I still advise young men and women to avoid any involvement with the use of physical force or politics, but I have to do so carefully and quietly.
I wonder how Peter or Paul would handle the situation.
Wes
Terry, Paul did use his Roman citizenship on two occasions (although whether he was defending himself or others has been debated). He also used his status as a Pharisee once, in a similar way (twice, if Acts 24 counts as well). I’m not sure that those things fit the bill, but they’re worth noting.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Wes, thanks for the comment. There has DEFINITELY been a shift in our brotherhood’s views on this subject. I wish I could say that it was because of Bible study, yet all of the reasoning I’ve seen points to pragmatic reasons (i.e., how will we stop Hitler if we don’t fight?).
Your experiences bring a lot of light to the conversation.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
The use of earthly citizenship in a limited way and the limited involvement of Christians with earthly authority is the subject of Romans 13. The Christian is to submit to the authority in the punishment of evil doers. That is their role. The only involvement by Christians is paying taxes. The authority is referred to by the pronouns “he” and “they”. The Christian is referred to by the pronoun “ye”.
I call on my U.S. citizenship for the protection of my family, but I do not attack others on my own, even though self defence is acceptable to that same authority.
I accept my social security check each month because I paid taxes to the U.S. for that purpose, but I do not become involved in the political wrangle over social security reform.
The earthly government is used by God to his purpose even though I am not involved in it. My purpose as a citizen of the heavenly kingdom is to seek the lost and lead them to salvation.
Wes
Interesting conversation going on here…
I’m convicted that Jesus called us to follow him which included adopting his ethic of love by means of self-sacrificial service that is shaped by the cross. I don’t know how that works out in every possible form but I’m quite convinced it does not involve using the world’s form of power (e.g., money, violence) as the means.
Grace and Peace,
Rex