Christians and Government

Today in my History of Theology class a discussion concerning the separation of church and state came up, in the context of an introduction to dominion theology. It was an incredibly interesting discussion, and the subject has been on my mind for most of the day. I found myself disagreeing with my prof and about half the class. Overall I would guess our class was 50/50 on the issue, half thinking that Christians in the government can effect morality via the governing authority, the other half rejecting that notion.

To me, the notion of affecting a nation’s morality via the ruling authorities is a proposterous idea. This “top-down” mentality doesn’t work with morality any better than it does with economics! (The trickle-down theory just doesn’t work practically!) The movements that have had lasting effects on our country’s politics and morality have been bottom-up, grass-roots movements. Look at the temperance movement, the women’s suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement…In each case, it was the little people making the change.

When I pointed out in class that the Jesus and his disciples, and the early church for that matter, were grass-roots, I had a classmate try to tell me that the incarnation was a “top-down” approach. Maybe what he meant by this was that Christ came down to the nothingness of humanity from his place as God, but I don’t think that is what this classmate meant. Christ did make himself nothing, and his example is the PERFECT example of effective change from the bottom up!

Jesus of Nazareth had every opportunity to set himself up as the emperor of the world. The Jews of his day, including many of his followers, were expecting the messiah to come and start an earthly kingdom, a “top-down” kingdom that would change the world. They were looking for political liberation and self-determination. But that is not what Jesus had in mind. Instead he turned the tables, and flipped things upside down. How did he start a movement? With an eclectic group of uneducated peasants from a captive nation! And what was his method for changing the world? Dying. Christ and his gospel are the antithesis of a “top-down” approach.

It was a great day when Constantine made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire. I imagine many Christians were joyful and thankful that they could serve God openly at last. The centuries of persecution were finally over. That peace was a great thing. But, didn’t the church thrive under such persecution? Look at the book of Acts… What about today? Isn’t the church thriving in China and other places hostile to the gospel? Is the church thriving in our present day Constantinian empire (the USA)?

I am not sure that I have fully resolved this next idea in my head, but it seems to make sense to me. The ability for Christians to live and worship freely is a great thing, and not something to be taken for granted. It has not always been this way, and will not, most likely, continue to be this way. But, at the same time, persecution is good for the church. It forces the church to rely on God, it weeds out the nominal, and it is a powerful witness to the world. Maybe tranquility for the church is nice for this world, but maybe it is not beneficial for our spiritual condition. Do not trials develop perseverance, character, and hope?

Apostate churches are not born out of persecution, but are born out of the church growing comfortable. I think there is plenty of evidence for this with the Israelites in the old testament. The entire narrative of the Old Testament seems to be the Israelites sinning and doing evil in the eyes of the Lord, being taken captive (much like persecution), and then repenting and serving God again before the cycle begins again.

So what does this mean practically? I’m not sure… Should we pray for persecution? Maybe… at the very least we need to be careful not to take our comfort and prosperity (read laziness and obesity) for granted. Days of comfort often end abruptly.

Anabaptists, Pentecostals, and Homophobia

I never finished The Politics of Jesus, though it is definitely on my list of books to read. I am an expert at returning books late to the library and unfortunately The Politics of Jesus was well overdue so I needed to return it. In its place, I checked out A contemporary Anabaptist Theology as well as Artists, Citizens, Philosophers: seeking the peace of the city, an Anabaptist Theology of Culture. I’m further along in this second book and I am finding it quite fascinating. I’ll post more comments on it hopefully as I get further along.

In addition to familiarizing myself with the Anabaptists, I watched the riveting and controversial documentary Jesus Camp this week. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it is a documentary about an extremely charismatic pentecostal children’s camp in North Dakota. Critics of the camp argue that they are manipulative and forcefully indoctrinate their children with right wing conservative propaganda. Although I think most critics are a touch harsh, I must admit that their were parts of the film that made me feel uncomfortable, namely when a group of children prayed over a cardboard cutout of George W. Granted, however, I am not the biggest Bush fan anyway. Regardless of my opinion about this particular pentecostal church, I find myself having to remind myself that this particular church does not represent a majority of Pentecostals, and it certainly doesn’t represent all evangelicals.

In an ironic bit of Jesus Camp Ted Haggard is captured preaching against homosexuality and mentioning that “sin will find you out.” Obviously this film was shot and released before the current scandal hit the media…I was listening to Tony Campolo’s thoughts on the whole issue when I heard him mention Haggard’s meth addiction. I didn’t remember hearing about it before, and as Tony pointed out how ridiculous it is that evangelicals (as a majority) are not outraged about his use of meth, I found myself agreeing. Why are we so homophobic? Why are we not as equally outraged by Ted Haggard’s addiction to an elicit substance as we are his homosexual actions? As I talked to one of my professors about this, it was brought to my attention that our difference in opinion on this subject is most likely due to our beliefs on sin. As a result of this conversation, I now have a lot more questions about sin. Is there an hierarchy of sins? Are some sins worse than others? Why have evangelicals (in general) picked homosexuality and abortion as their “worst” sins while neglecting the atrocities of war and injustice to the poor (this last one which is mentioned biblically far more than these others)?

The Politics of Jesus pt.1

I’ve been reading through The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, and I must say, it has been quite thought provoking. For anyone interested in a good, serious diologue with pacifism, this is probably the best biblical approach to it that I have read (granted my reading on the subject is certainly not exhaustive).
If there was ever a man who could have waged a just war, it was Jesus of Nazareth. If there was ever a man who had just cause for war, it too was Jesus of Nazareth. If there was ever a man who had the authority to wage a just war, again, it was Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, if there was ever a man who had the power and military following to win a just war, it was Jesus of Nazareth.
Yet, as easy as it would have been for Christ to usher in his kingdom through armed conflict, he chose to die instead. Why is it then that we as Christians today fail to see our own death as a serious possibility for ushering in God’s kingdom? Why do we argue for ‘just war’ when our savior so seemingly set the precedent for our socio-political action in his death? Yoder puts it like this, “Jesus’ rebuke to the unseeing pair on the road to Emmaus was not that they had been looking for a kingdom and should not have been. Their fault is that, just like Peter at Caesarea Philippi, they were failing to see that the suffering of the Messiah is the inauguration of the kingdom.”