I just finished reading the book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond. Jared was in Papua New Guinea and a native man asked him this question: "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" This book attempts to answer that question specifically and broadly. By that I mean the question could be asked a hundred different ways. Why is Bolovia the poorest country in South America? Why is Sub-Sarahan Africa so poor? Why didn't China colonize the Americas? Why didn't Native Americans colonize Europe?
Through the book Diamond attempts to prove that the answers to those questions most often lie within the geography of a country rather than the people themselves. There is much more to be said about all that, but as I finished the book last night some things came to my mind about the role of the church in society.
This book reveals that the history of humankind is a story of people attaining advantages and then using those advantages to take over other people. The history of humankind has been a fight for survival. Often times religion has played the role of justifying one group's survival over another.
We see this in the history of Christianity: Constantine, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of Anabaptists by Lutherans, the exploration of the New World, and even today with the Moral Majority, the War on Terror, Evangelical lobbyists in Washington, our Christian President, the list goes on.
I have always struggled with the idea of the soveriegnty of God. Mainly because I find that many Christians use the idea to justify people spending an eternity in hell, or one groups "blessed" state of existence compared to the "cursed" state of others.
And then last night it hit me, to believe in the soveriegnty of God is to assume the role of not being in charge of the world. The rest of the world is fighting tooth and nail for survival. The role of the Christian is to entrust one's survival into the hands of God.
What are the outcomes of this posture:
1. A Christian cannot use the sword to enable their survival.
2. A Christian cannot assume roles of political power to enable their survival.
3. A Christian assumes the role of stranger or alien in any land that they inhabit.
-Thus abandoning any idea of a Christian nation
4. A Christian believes that Jesus is the Messiah, and it is his role to bring about a new heaven and a new earth.
5. A Christian is a suffering servant.
6. The Church is a minority group.
7. The Church is a fellowship of people who freely assume this role.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Great thoughts, J. I agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for helping me see from a new angle.
k
Great thoughts, J. I agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for helping me see from a new angle.
k
Jordan,
Great book, I enjoyed the perspective it brought also. I think you made some great observations regarding the "kingdom"....funny how it rearranges how we approach eveything around us. I hope you're doing well.
Nate Youngblood
Nate...good to hear from you. What are you up to these days?
j-rick!
good observations, my friend.
are you going pacifist?
a question i would ask in return.
what is the role of the church in the recreation of the world?
How does that role play out?
Is it possible for someone to be within the political structure and be tied more to Christ than to the nation she serves?
Are we to leave the bringing of peace to non-Christian politicians? (now I think that God works through non-Xians way more than we give Him credit for)
Josh,
Thanks for your comments. I have been in CO all week with the youth group. It was a great trip.
I think more and more I am going pacifist.
I am going to think about your questions for a little and I will get back to you.
But an initial reaction is: What are "Christian" means to peace? And you are right many "non-Christians" are I think practicing "Christian" means to peace.
I was reading in Greg Boyd's The Myth of a Christian Nation today. He had some thoughts that might prove helpful for this conversation. He draws a distinction between the "kingdom of this world" and the "Kingdom of God". He writes, "To be sure, a version of the kingdom of the world that effectively carries out law, order, and justice is indeed closer to God's will for the kingdom of the world....But no version of the kingdom of the world is closer to the kingdom of God than others because it does its job relatively well. For God's kingdom looks like Jesus, and no amount of sword-wielding, however just it may be, can ever get a person, government, nation, or world closer to that. The kingdom of God is not an ideal version of the kingdom of the world; it's not something that any version of the kingdom of the world can aspire toward or be measured against. The kingdom of God is a completely distinct, alternative way of doing life."
I like that idea that the kingdom of God looks like Jesus. That is the role of the church, to be Jesus. Jesus dismissed political power, and only used his power to serve others. Does that mean that to be a part of the church, one must dismiss any type of political power? Is it possible to have political power and look like Jesus? I am not sure?
Post a Comment