Tag Archives: kingdom of heaven

Christian Nation: Where To Find One

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.

An ancient quote on Christians and military service

chaplainIn past discussions about Christians participating in the affairs of earthly kingdoms, I’ve pondered at times the situation of Roman soldiers, like Cornelius in Acts 10, who became Christians. I’ve long known that the church was strongly pacifistic during the first four centuries of its existence, but I also knew that military men in the New Testament became Christians. The Bible doesn’t give us much of a hint as to what they were instructed to do.

Not long ago, I ran across a quote from the third century, about 220 A.D., from a Christian named Hippolytus. In a discussion on dealing with converts, he stated the following: “A military constable must be forbidden to kill, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow these instructions, he must be rejected by the community. A procounsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected. Anyone taking or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God.“*

Hippolytus was not inspired, at least as far as I know, so I certainly don’t take his views as Scripture. But it is interesting to have this insight into how early Christians dealt with the topic of military service.

What do you think of Mr. Hippolytus’ words?

*Hippolytus, “Church Order in the Apostolic Tradition,” in The Early Christians in Their Own Words, ed. Eberhard Arnold (Farmington, PA: Plough, 1997)

Kingdom chronology

castle

Growing up in the church of Christ, many of us heard that the kingdom of God was established on the Day of Pentecost. There is a very real sense in which this is true, and I do believe that Pentecost was the fulfillment of this saying of Jesus: “And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”” (Mark 9:1)

Yet, at the same time, it’s not that simple. For Jesus spoke of the kingdom as existing during his lifetime:

  • “But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.” (Luke 11:20)
  • “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of yo” (Matthew 21:31-32)
  • “Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”” (Luke 17:20-21)

And, just to complicate things, the New Testament writers, writing after Pentecost, could also speak of the kingdom in a future sense:

  • “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.” (Matthew 25:34)
  • “The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom.” (2Timothy 4:18)
  • “and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2Peter 1:11)

The kingdom of God came with power on the Day of Pentecost, but any attempts to limit its existence to what happened on that day are in error. It comes down to the fallacy of finite humans trying to define the infinite, time-bound man trying to place a timeless God on a man-made timeline. God’s kingdom existed long before Pentecost. And will exist forever. We entered that kingdom when we became Christians… and we long for the day when we will enter the kingdom.

Bully pulpit

theodorerooseveltcrowdIt’s one of those e-mails that just won’t die. They pop up again and again, right alongside the fake virus warnings (no, AOL didn’t say “This is the worst virus ever.”), the promises of money for forwarding a message (don’t hold your breath), and the offers of untold riches from a dear Christian brother in Nigeria (keep that bank account info to yourself). This one shares some of Teddy Roosevelt’s thoughts on immigration. If you haven’t seen it, you can read the e-mail and background information here on Snopes.com.

What’s troubling is that Christians pass this on as something that should be shared with others. They see nothing wrong with a message that proclaims that our sole loyalty should be to a certain earthly government.

Maybe this little exercise will help a bit. Just imagine that the apostle Paul sends this (Roosevelt’s piece, contextualized) to the Philippian church, asking them to share it will all of the other Macedonian churches. Paul writes: In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes a Roman and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet a Roman, and nothing but a Roman…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is a Roman, but something else also isn’t a Roman at all. We have room for but one flag, the Roman flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the Greek language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Roman people.

Just doesn’t sound like Paul to me. Just doesn’t sound very Christian to me. Not even if you go back and put American in where I inserted Roman. Or if you insert Jew and Jewish. When I think of what Paul would say, I think more along the lines of the following—

Philippians 3:19-21: “Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. That sounds more like Paul. That sounds more Christian. (I can see it now: “Their mind is on heavenly things. But our citizenship is in _____.)

Maybe we’d be better off sending around Paul’s words, rather than Teddy’s.

 

 

 

 

[N.T. Wright has some interesting thoughts on Philippians 3 on this website]

[Edit at 10:45 a.m.—Changed the color of Paul’s imaginary e-mail so that it wouldn’t be the same color as other links]

Going with the flow of culture

b-29_bombing1In my last post, I made the following assertion:

Because of this, we accept the need to do unChristian things to “preserve our way of life” and “protect our freedoms.” Christians will often justify such by saying that it’s for the good of the church that we promote democracy, that we fight to preserve this country.

Let me offer an example of what I’m talking about.

In 1931, during the Spanish Civil War, the town of Guernica was bombed by German and Italian aircraft. The bombing, for the first time in history, targeted an entire town, attacking civilian and military targets indiscriminately. The world cried out in outrage. As historians say, a line had been crossed. Up until then, aerial attacks had limited themselves to military targets.

In September 1939, World War II began as the Germans bombed Wielun, Poland, then proceeded to bomb cities throughout Poland. Franklin Roosevelt, leader of the then-neutral United States, called on the countries involved in the conflict to promise to limit bombing to military targets. France and England agreed “upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents.” Germany agreed to the restriction, but promptly broke the agreement. When Germany bombed English cities, Great Britain began to respond in kind.

George Bell, Bishop of Canterbury and member of the House of Lords, was strongly anti-Nazi, but was also a vocal opponent of what was called “area bombing.” According to Wikipedia (hey, this is a blog, not a scholarly report), as early as 1939 Bell said:

the church should not be allowed to become simply a spiritual help to the state, but instead should be an advocate of peaceful international relations and make a stand against expulsion, enslavement and the destruction of morality. It should not be allowed to abandon these principles, ever ready to criticise retaliatory attacks or the bombing of civil populations.

In 1941, Bell wrote letters to London newspapers, urging the government to change their tactics. Then in 1944, in a speech to the House of Lords, Bell eloquently reasoned:

If that becomes prevalent, it means this, that the ruthlessness in which it exults, and for which it clamours, must bring us into competition with our enemy at his worst. It must mean that, somehow or other, we become indifferent to those values of humane civilization for which, as a people, we have believed we are contending in this war. That sort of competition is one, we should all agree, in which success would be far more dishonourable than defeat. It is a competition in which we can win only by the sacrifice of what has been best and noblest in the traditions of our race.

He also asked, “How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civilization?”

Bell’s stand reflected the views of most of the Western world in 1931. By 1941, most had accepted such bombings as a necessary evil. During the years since, bombing of civilians has been accepted as one of the “fortunes of war.” Morality gave way to pragmatism. The end justified the means; protecting our worldly kingdom took precedence over the values of the Kingdom of heaven. It’s one thing when citizens of the world reason in that way; their priority is the preservation of their kingdom. But what about the citizens of heaven? Dare we say “the end justifies the means,” especially when that end is not a spiritual one? Can we say “But they did it first?” Does that justify “whatever it takes”? Or will we, like George Bell, take a stand and speak out? Even Christians like he that believe in “Just War” have a responsibility to speak out against “expulsion, enslavement and the destruction of morality.” We can’t follow our culture’s changing norms. We have to cling ferociously to the values of our Kingdom. We are ambassadors. We’re here to represent the interests of our Kingdom. We can’t afford to be warped by the world.