Tag Archives: Politics

Chapter 7: For and Against the Mandate of Creation

4 Replies

Largely for my own personal benefit, I’m going through James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World chapter by chapter over the next few weeks. Here’s the abstract of chapter 7 “For and Against the Mandate of Creation” from Hunter’s website:

Populism is organic to American Christianity, yet on the other hand, populism is, in some ways, at odds with what we know about the most historically significant dynamics of world-changing. In other words, there is an unavoidable tension between pursuing excellence and the social consequences of its achievement; between leadership and elitism that all too often comes from it. The antidotes to “seizing power” in a new way is a better understanding of “faithful presence.”

http://jamesdavisonhunter.com/to-change-the-world/chapter-abstracts/

Yes, Hunter does like to use big words, something I’m not a fan of. I still argue that the true scholar is the one who can express deep thoughts in simple terms. Still, Hunter has some things to say, if you dig through the excess syllables.

In this chapter, which closes the first of the three essays that make up this book, Hunter returns to the concept of the creation mandate, which he discussed in chapter one. He maintains that a proper understanding of the creation mandate leads us to see that Christianity isn’t about changing the world at all. He says that

contemporary Christian understandings of power and politics are a large part of what has made contemporary Christianity in America appalling, irrelevant, and ineffective—part and parcel of the worst elements of our late modern culture today… (p.95)

(Yeah, I stood up and applauded at that one.) Christians are to reject the entire idea of “seizing power,” focusing on what Hunter calls “a faithful presence” (topic to be explained more fully in the third essay). Social theory, which explains how the world is changed, goes in the opposite direction of good theology.
What the church needs to seek, rather than power, is “faithful presence in all areas of life.” Again, that will be explained more fully in the third essay.

So that’s the gist of Essay #1. Hunter describes how the world is changed, then explains that Christians can’t be about changing the world without changing their mission first. Faithfulness to the cause of Christ means rejecting the idea of “winning the culture war,” “taking our nation back,” or any of the other slogans so popular over the last few decades.

What do you think? Take some time to read the summary of all seven chapters, then tell me if you agree with Hunter’s conclusions.

Day of Prayer

16 Replies

This has been quite the week for special days. Tuesday was Star Wars day. May the Fourth. Like “May the Fourth be with you.” Did I make that up? Why no, no I didn’t.

Wednesday was Cinco de Mayo, that traditional U.S. holiday. “U.S. holiday?” you ask. Yep. It’s a regional holiday in Mexico, not particularly celebrated outside of Puebla. In the 1860s, people in California started celebrating this day, and it eventually became a sign of Mexican pride here in the U.S.

Today is the National Day of Prayer. It’s also National Crepe Suzette day and National Nurses Day. Hard to know which one to celebrate, right?

Sorry, I know that it’s cool to complain about this day not getting enough observance. I just don’t see the plus to it. I believe in prayer. I believe firmly in the power of prayer. Just look at the discussion last week in the comments.

But I don’t believe in prayer by decree. I don’t believe in somehow trying to get people who wouldn’t otherwise pray to join us in prayer.

Christians should pray without ceasing… not needing a special day.
Christians should pray for leaders of all nations, not wait for leaders to pray for them.
Christians should pray without making a show of it.
Christians should pray in secret.

None of this is accomplished by a National Day of Prayer.

Today should be a day of prayer.
So should tomorrow.

{photo by Jesper Noer}

The idolatry of religious freedom, revisited

8 Replies

A while back, I wrote about the idolatry of religious freedom. The subtle seduction of this standard is hard to overstate, especially for those of us who grew up in the United States. It only seems logical that this freedom would be one of the most important freedoms that Christians should seek to protect.

Logical, maybe, but hardly biblical. I’m not saying that we should seek to lose this freedom that we enjoy, but like all of our rights, it must never stand in the way of the good of the Kingdom. (See Paul’s discussion about this in 1 Corinthians 9)

I spent last week in Cuba, part of the time in Matanzas, part of the time in Havana. I heard the “party line” straight from the mouth of Communist officials and was reminded of the limits placed on the church there. I also saw a healthy, vibrant church that is growing by leaps and bounds.

I was struck yesterday by the contrast between what goes on in Cuba and what goes on in the United States. I see Christians here in the States spending endless time debating politics, while Christians in Cuba are about the business of spreading the gospel.

The church here is stagnated. The church in Cuba, in a Communist country with limits on their religious freedom, is growing and growing.

Which scenario do you think is more pleasing to God? While we spend our time protecting our economy, our democracy and our religious freedom, we leave the business of God’s Kingdom untended. Of course, it’s not the Kingdom that is worse off for that. It’s us, our children and this country.

The letter to Pergamum: Where Satan has his throne

8 Replies

lettersWhen Jesus addresses the church in Pergamum, he says that he knows where they live, where “Satan has his throne.” In our book, I discuss possible interpretations of this phrase:

This statement has led to much speculation over the years as to what could be considered to be “Satan’s throne.” Some would point to the temple of Asclepios. Certainly the serpent god of the Romans could be connected with the ancient serpent which tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden. Yet the temple of Asclepios was a center of healing and medicine, hardly an evil place in and of itself. There’s nothing to make us think that the things that went on there would have been of any threat to the Christians. Another possibility that is often mentioned is the huge altar to Zeus which could be seen looming above the city. Zeus was considered king of the Roman gods, and the altar contained images of the whole pantheon of gods and goddesses. Its imagery would have been offensive to Christians as would have been the activities which went on there. Still, there’s little to make us connect this pagan building with the context of Revelation; the persecution that was to come upon the Christians did not emanate from this great building. What seems the most likely, given the historical situation in which the first-century Christians in Asia found themselves, is that Paul is referring to Pergamum as provincial capital. The Roman government had established its center in Pergamum and all official persecution of Christians in Asia would originate there. There were a whole series of temples in Pergamum which were dedicated to the different Roman emperors. Emperor worship with its ensuing persecution of Christians; surely that could be considered to be the seat of satanic power in the region. The emperor must not be worshiped, for his power is not of divine origin, but demonic.

(Letters From The Lamb, pp. 81-82)

In his Experimental Theology blog, Richard Beck had an interesting post on the relationship between the demonic powers and earthly governments. (as well as a follow up post on the angels of the nations). This concept is plainly seen in the letter to the church in Pergamum.

Rome’s throne is Satan’s throne. Christians were not in a struggle against mere men; the earthly power that presented itself as an authority was a challenge to God’s authority. It was a representative of Satan on earth.

When fear leads us away from God

13 Replies

scared

“But when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites was moving against you, you said to me, ‘No, we want a king to rule over us’—even though the LORD your God was your king.” (1 Samuel 12:12)

I hadn’t noticed the role that fear played in this sinful episode, when the Israelites rejected the kingship of God and opted for a human king. The Ammonites were coming. They had come before, dominating Israel during the period of the judges (Judges 10-11). They were coming again, and the people were scared. Were they really supposed to just depend on God’s protection? It was time to act!

So they went to Samuel and demanded a king. A king to lead them in battle. It was logical. It was necessary. It was the only thing to do.

That’s what fear told them. And it was the beginning of the end for the nation of Israel. They had the chance to have God as their king, to have God fight their battles. But they chose to depend on human strength and human wisdom.

Would we have done any better? With an enemy knocking at our door, would we have dared rely on God alone? Would we have trusted God’s promises or sought the comfort of strong human leadership and military might? I’m not sure that I would have done any better than they.