Photo by Ove Tøpfer; from Stock Xchange
Excellent discussion yesterday. I’m always hoping for a little push back. That helps me sharpen my thinking and test my ideas.
I want to try and further explore yesterday’s topics, based on some of the discussion:
- There are real limitations to saying, “I don’t see _____ in the New Testament.” I do recognize that. But I expect what we do today to at least fall in line with what is in the Bible, to not run counter to the examples there (Francis Chan has an interesting video that talks about this). And if we feel the need to circumvent some biblical teaching, I’d like at least a hint that early Christians saw it the same way. There is a prohibition of eating certain things in Acts 15, yet we have several passages that seem to say that all foods are lawful for us. That’s the sort of thing I’m looking for.
- Our situation is different today, with Christians representing such a large percentage of the population of many nations. Does that change how we view God’s teachings? I’m asking as much as anything. I’m wrestling through that one. Here are some thoughts:
- As Christians, we are called to give primary loyalty to the Kingdom of God. Even as a Roman citizen, I don’t get a picture of Paul looking to promote the interests of Rome. If Christians come to “power” within a certain country, their actions should be guided not just by what is best for that country, but by what is best for the world in general. That would be a political nightmare here in the United States.
- As Christians, we are to live by Christian principles at all times. Imagine what that would look like in governing a country. When negotiating with other countries, we would look to serve them, trying to meet their needs. We would return all land that we have taken from other countries, be it through war, be it through intimidation. Wars would be limited, if not eliminated. There is no way a Christian nation would be in a constant state of war for 70 years.
- To some degree, our governments are set up to rival much of what God does. Like the men of Babel, humans today look to band together and make a name for themselves, looking to find in one another what they should be seeking from God. I’m still trying to work out in my head how Christians can effectively be a part of that. I haven’t figured it out.
- Even where our situation differs, our dependence on God can’t change. We can’t put our trust in horses and chariots. We need to find the courage to imitate the Christians in Acts 12, despite the scorn and ridicule of brothers who choose not to do so. We need to be willing to let nations rise and fall when necessary, to trust God even when He raises up an Assyria or a Babylon to do His will. We need to be willing to honor Caesar even when Caesar is evil. Honor, but not worship.
OK, them’s my thoughts. I’m sure today the good ideas will be in the comments, as they were yesterday.
I’m not sure where the “70 years of constant war” statistic came from. The conflict in Vietnam ended in 1973. The first Gulf War began in 1991.
And since 1945, Europe has experienced the longest unbroken stretch of nation vs. nation peace in its history. Consider the centuries prior to WWII in Europe – there’s a constantly-at-war situation for you. What changed in Europe from the centuries before? What changed from 30 years before? What was different, that after WWI allowed the continent to explode into war again after just 3 decades, but after WWII kept peace and rebuilt the economic infrastructure?
I’m not saying it is the work of a Christian nation – I’m just saying its not raping and pillaging work, as the US’ relationship to the rest of the world is popularly depicted lately.
But there is the question of how does Romans 13 work when the ruler is a Christian? Does he stop “bearing the sword” or does he stop “living by the sword?” Is there a difference? Would a nation with a Christian leader and a large Christian population disband the military and police forces, thereby “forcing” Christian principles upon the non-Christian section of the population?
I think we need to re-visit your “sojourners and aliens” thinking from prior posts – Joseph and Daniel were free to advise and help shape policy, but they were still sojourners, not rulers.
Good thoughts. No complaints here.
There have been many books written on the way the New Testament upholds the cross not just as the means of reconciliation to God but also the means by which those reconciled to God our to live there lives. Though we may not have a perfect answer for what a Christian response should be in every scenario, if our response is not shaped by the cross we are called to carry and follow Jesus with (cf. Mk 8.34) then our response is unfaithful to Jesus.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
My question in recent months has been…are we duplicate all of the details in relationship to how the first century Christians lived and even worshipped? This would appear to be pretty difficult to do, given all of the cultural changes, etc. that have taken place over two millenia. Or, are we to be seeking to duplicate the love, the spirit and the commitment of those believers? This would seem to be more in line with what the Lord, the apostles and early believers would want from us. This thought has been on my heart and on my mind, because, it seems that in our attempts to do the former, we have struggled, or even failed in many respects, with regard to the latter.
Blessings,
Don
Nick,
How about 70 years of frequent warfare? Would that sound better? Most countries’ armies rarely go into battle. American forces frequently go into battle. Here’s a glimpse of that from that recognized authority, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
Interesting point about Europe. Some would point to the increased secularization of Europe, which is a sad commentary on what happens when the Church and State join hands. Still, the point is well taken that some good did come out of WWII.
At this point in my thinking, I’m not for disbanding law enforcement bodies, be they military or police. I would see them used in a different way, however.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
As far as Christians in politics (which I think was the focus of yesterday’s post??), I agree that we need to consider what a Christian would, or will, do in politics and in political office. Would a Christian who is truly trying to live his/her life by grace going to then legislate morality on the whole country/state/county/city they serve? I would agree that God’s ways and His will would be the best way for our country to work and run, but that would only happen if EVERYone were pursuing God in the same way. Do we really want to force people into God’s will by mandate or do they need to come to God by faith? This, for me, is the crux of the struggle of the Christian in politics. Making faith a legal matter seems to always be a losing proposition in the end.
Don,
I would answer the later…the love, commitment, spirit, etc… of the early church. I would answer that way because despite our restoration heritage teaching us to follow the pattern of the early church (something I believe now is wrong) which meant trying to reduplicate their form through command, example, and inference, I believe we are instead called to follow Jesus and live out the life Jesus lived (a difficult challenge). That entails reading both the OT and NT not as a “blueprint” but in light of the life Jesus lived. When we do that, we live out the same love, commitment, and faith the early Christians were taught to live out even when it looks different in form (but not in function).
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Gotta love Chan. And if we take what he said to heart, what would be weird are people trying to relegate the responsibilities of the church to the governments of the world. “So Paul and Silas told the church to write their Senators to increase welfare funding. Meanwhile, the members of the church went home in their fancy carriages, flipped on TV to watch some gladiators, and feasted on organic wine and cheese.”
Are we mixing two kingdoms here? We can look at what goes on and condemn it but at the same time what is our role in actually changing it? I still wrestle with this. Neither John the Baptist, Jesus, nor the apostles ever advocated changing of the government or its policies. They each had HUGE platforms to do so and on multiple times; yet they did not say a word about government regulations. One only has to realize the Messianic Secret to understand that at least in part, Jesus purposefully resisted any political/governmental association with Himself. That is not what He came for.
Ed Stetzer tweeted something the other day that was good: “When you mix religion with politics you get politics.”
Tim: When you said that it would be a political nightmare in the United States if a ruler acted on behalf of the world at the expense of the United States. I think that is true for all nations. There isn’t one nation on this planet that does not fundamentally act out of self interest.
I believe that governments like that of Romans 13 are actually a gift of grace from God. What would societies filled with sinful people become without some sense of controlling authority for those without God in the world? The bearing of the sword to punish evil doers is an act of grace toward those who do good. Do we even want to comprehend the world if God released His Hand of common grace from the world? The amount of evil He holds back is ad infinitum in comparison to the evil we see actually permitted to happen for His purposes. Humanity is evil at its core, as God said after the flood “for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21). “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9). Nothing will change if hearts are not changed.
God does with nations what He wills. Sometimes he uses peace, sometimes He uses war. Our responsibility as the church is to preach the Gospel, bring sinners to repentance, and live lives that show our completed declaration of justification from God. How this plays out in government is still something I wrestle with. But the truth is is that today there are billions of people at this very moment who are at enmity with God, who are on the wide road to torment (Jesus’ words), and some of these people are in our congregations. God is not their friend, nor are they His children, for only through Christ can one call Him Father (Rom 8:15-17) and only through faith is one made a child of God (John 1:12). This is the reality of the world and this seemed to be the acting mind set of the early church as well.
Grace be with each of us –
Jr
Tim,
i’m starting to think that people who convert while in these kinds of political roles are not necessarily obligated to leave the role altogether, but they are obligated to immediately behave according to Christian ethics. If that eventually gets them fired, then so be it. But it’s possible to remain in the position i think–at least some positions. There are police officers who retire without having ever fired a single bullet.
While it’s true that there may be interesting differences between the early church’s situation and ours, more than one of the gospel writers made it a point to record Jesus’ teaching that power in His kingdom simply does not work like power in earthly kingdoms (“The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them…”). What textual reason is there to think that distinctive feature of Christ’s kingdom will ever change? What reason is there to think that teaching was intended to be circumstantially situated? i don’t think there is one.
–guy
Well said, Rex…I agree with you. There can, indeed, be a vast difference between form and function. Blessings!
Tim,
Most countries armies’ rarely go into battle precisely because they pick up the phone and call the US. I’m not saying it’s right – I’m just saying that’s what happens. The US makes treaties with other countries, and those countries call upon the US to fulfill those treaty obligations. Washington warned very early about the dangers of “foreign entanglements” but like the Roman Republic upon whose principles the Founders modeled their new nation, “securing the horizon” by means of alliance structure and stabilization became the chief foreign policy of the US in the mid1900s.
Empires of Trust by Thomas Madden is a good read that describes this phenomenon without judgment.
And the increased secularization is a Western European phenomenon – it was, in part, the resistance to secularization that wound up ending the Cold War. But Napoleon was hardly a religious firebrand.
Jr.,
If I understand the point of Stetzer’s tweet, I would agree. But I also know that in the culture of the first century, both Jewish and Greco-Roman, politics and religion were not the separate categories that they are in Western culture. So we cannot underestimate how religiously and politically subversive Jesus and the gospel were. And thus I am still convinced that the gospel preached and lived faithfully in its entirety would be just as subversive today in regards to religion, politics, social-culture, and so forth. Thus, as far as I understand, the question is in what way does the gospel seek to claim the Lordship of Jesus upon religion, politics, etc… through the “might is right” ideology that the world seems apt and willing to employ at will or through the cross?
Grace and Peace,
Rex
My post at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nowchristiansonly/ covers my studies on earthly nations versus the Kingdom of Heaven. It covers about three pages with more to come, so I will not repeat it here. You are welcome to read it and join the discussion there if you like.
Not only do I recalled war all of my 64 years, my question is, when have the nations of this world ever been at peace?
Wes
Tim: Where do I begin. First of all I want to address the fact that Israel was a Theocracy during the time of Christ. Yes they had a king ,but he was a puppet of the Roman Empire. Actually if you look at the Roman government it was very much like ours. Representation of the people thru the senate and a republic establishing laws for the people. A Ceasar who was chosen by the gods, had final authority, how grotesque. I think I read somewhere that 19 of 22 Ceasars were assasinated.
If you look at what vision Peter saw with the sheet it estabished that God no longer looked at the law as the same while Christ walked the earth during his earthly ministry.
Of course this country has a separation of church and state and I thank God for that.
We also have freedom of religion which again I am thankful for. Trying to establish a Christian government is a throwback to Europe during the middle ages and the age of one church, the Catholic, with thier inquisitions and controlling of the kings of Europe. It was a system of surpression in all of its glory. Do we really think that going back to anything history has to offer can be better than what we have now?