Tag Archives: Christian nation

Maybe the early Christians were right after all

14 Replies

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

The Public/Private Split Dodge

5 Replies

This is the fourth post in a series of posts looking at the Sermon on the Mount. I’ve referred to a blog by Michael L. Westmoreland-White which brings up these specific points; he in turn credits John Howard Yoder and Glen Stassen. Westmoreland-White describes “dodges” to the Sermon on the Mount, ways in which people seek to get around applying it today. (I might note that he is specifically discussing pacifism, so his comments at times focus on how the Sermon is applied at a national level)

We’ve looked at the dispensational dodge and the preterist dodge. Today we’ll talk about the public/private split dodge. This approach says that yes, the Sermon on the Mount has moral guidelines for Christian living for the individual, but it says nothing about how countries are to conduct themselves. Again, Westmoreland-White is approaching this topic in the midst of a discussion of Christian pacifism, so his interest is to look at whether or not countries should be held to the standard of the Sermon on the Mount. According to him, this teaching was held to by Martin Luther and has been popular among Lutherans ever since. I’m not familiar enough with Lutheran teaching to confirm or deny that affirmation.

I’ve discussed this concept before, in the context of the idea of the existence of a Christian nation. As I’ve said, if such a thing could exist, I think that it would have to live up to Jesus’ teachings, including turning the other cheek and loving enemies. (Interestingly enough, I noticed that the people behind the Brick Testament picked up on this very idea: note this series of graphics)

I’d also say that I believe that Christians must continue to follow the teachings of their Master, even if they choose to put themselves in service to an earthly nation. The Sermon on the Mount still shows us what is right and what is godly. Again, I’m not talking about how to escape damnation; I’m talking about how to live as sanctified people.

Nations in the Old Testament, even nations not in covenant with God, were judged on several factors from what we see in the prophets: their treatment of their fellow man, their pride, and their willingness to acknowledge God. To some degree I have to think that God continues to look on countries in that same way. Even if they aren’t in covenant with Him, they are held to certain standards. And frankly, I don’t know when any nation has lived up to those standards.

I’d like to hear your thoughts. Are nations given a “free pass” as far as Jesus’ teachings go? Or are they expected to love enemies, turn the other cheek, etc.?

A House Divided

4 Replies

In the last post, we explored a bit the concept of the Kingdom of God as an actual nation. I want to continue to discuss this idea. In a recent post, Patrick Mead discussed some of the implications of rebellion and Christians taking part in such. He wrote: “I cannot imagine a situation in which it would be right for me to call upon my congregation to take up arms and fire upon our own soldiers or policemen.”

As some who commented on the last post pointed out, this same reasoning needs to be applied to our Christian nation. Isn’t it even more inconceivable that members of the same family, the same body, the same holy nation should take up arms against one another? “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another…” unless you find it necessary to shoot one another. Really? Is that what we really believe?

If we understand the fact that we Christians form a single nation, the idea of us taking up arms against one another becomes unthinkable. A house divided against itself cannot stand. We cannot demonstrate love for one another while attempting to kill one another.

Our highest allegiance must be to our true citizenship, to the heavenly nation that we form a part of. The world will never see that as long as we place earthly nationalism above heavenly loyalty. Christians must refuse to place themselves in a situation where they could be called upon to attack fellow Christians.

Christian Nation: Where To Find One

15 Replies

3quarter_globeSo what would a Christian nation look like?

Simply put, it would be a nation that in all its dealings, in everything that it was, tried to be like Christ.

Some specifics:

  1. Such a nation would not retaliate when wronged.
  2. Such a nation would not seek increased prosperity, but increased faithfulness.
  3. Such a nation would have give emphasis to taking care of those who needed it most.
  4. Such a nation would put the interest of other nations ahead of their own.
  5. Such a nation would return all territories and possessions that had been taken from other nations.

I could go on, but I guess you get the point. As others have pointed out, such a nation does exist. It is described in 1 Peter 2:9.

I don’t think that geopolitical nations of this world can be Christian. Individuals are Christians; nations aren’t. The nations of this world will one day belong to our God; for now, they are under Satan’s control, subject to his deception. We long for the day the revolution is complete, when governments are overthrown by the kingdom of God, where men pledge allegiance only to the Christian nation. That day is coming. Until then, we reside as ambassadors of a Christian nation, living in a kingdom of this world.

Christian Nation: The teachings of Jesus

6 Replies

431px-Cristo_abrazado_a_la_cruz_El_GrecoWe’ve seen that those nations known as Christian nations don’t actually base their laws on the Ten Commandments. But what about the teachings of Jesus? Maybe that’s the trick; to be Christian nations, they need to follow the teachings of Jesus. Don’t they?

But which ones? Which teachings of Jesus? When the proponents of the Christian nation theory talk about the Sermon on the Mount, for example, they usually say, “Of course, Jesus never meant for those things to be applied to civil government.” I tend to agree… unless those nations claim to be Christian. Can you be Christian and not follow Christ’s teachings? Not according to Jesus.

Those same people will turn around and claim that their nation “upholds Christian ideals.” Again I ask which ones? Non-retaliation? Loving enemies? Giving to all who ask? Putting the needs of others ahead of our own? (I’m waiting to hear that from a Christian politician: “Naturally America must put the needs of the rest of the world ahead of our own.”) Giving up your life? No, I can’t see that “Christian nations” meet this test, either.

Or is there something I’m missing? In what way do so-called Christian nations uphold the teachings of Jesus? Or am I expecting too much? Is there a way to be Christian and not follow Christ’s teachings?