Being Anabaptist to some extent in my theological understanding makes the consideration of politics a bit more difficult for me (see Bob Robinson's thoughtful, good post related to this, along with my comment). Of course Anabaptists differ among themselves as to what Christians should do related to the state and politics. Some withdraw completely (the Amish and some Mennonites) and others actively engage in it (other Mennonites, Ron Sider among them).
Christians are salt and light in Jesus in this world, and this is to be evident to others. I don't see much in the New Testament which tells us that we're to Christianize government as in trying to see it changed. Yet our influence should be felt everywhere, including government, so that at least the new way of being human in community in Jesus will be evident to them.
Of course in this our lives should be full of good works. And we need to live out and speak the truth which often will contradict the values of society at large, in our case often bent on pursuing "the American dream" and protecting all "individual rights" such as "the right to choose."
Yes, Jesus is Lord; therefore Caesar and any other human government is not. But this was lived out and proclaimed in a way that seems above the world, and in that way to hopefully influence the world. A good case in point in my mind is Martin Luther King, Jr. He refused to live as the world does in protesting against the maltreatment of African-Americans. Instead he sought to follow the way of Jesus in nonviolent protest outside of the system. And that's the major reason we still remember him today.
Of course I think we also need the William Wilberforce's (also here)- to go along with the John Woolman's- working in government. I think a Christian can do that according to their calling, and should. Not an easy road. But think of Daniel and Esther. God will guide one, and we have to decide just how we'll do this in working with others and knowing what we should do. Not an easy calling, but then again what is easy in this life? To follow Jesus in his way will be challenging for us all in whatever way we serve here.
What do you think about this?
Showing posts with label Sermon on the Mount. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sermon on the Mount. Show all posts
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Monday, August 06, 2007
nationalism
Today after watching the Republican presidential candidates debate on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and when watching Tim Russert on Meet the Press interviewing four journalists and writers as to what makes a good president, I am reminded of our enthrallment with politics, and indeed the entire world's interest in the same. And it was somewhat interesting to me as well.
I'm afraid we Christians are quick to side with one faction or another, too often based on what we think are national interests. It is interesting that we will take a strong stand against abortion and vie for only "pro-life" candidates, yet we are strong supporters of American military intervention in the world in the name of our national interests.
I wonder if we as Christians are not meant to rise above such considerations in our thinking and actions. I believe we are. Nationalism in Dietrich Bonhoeffer was laden with problems for Christians who actually are one holy nation scattered throughout the earth (1 Peter). It seems like those on the Christian religious right have boiled down their concerns to three of four issues with the rest relatively unimportant to the national debate. While those on the religious left have done the same with their pet issues. I do think as one who has shared in more or less a part of religious right thinking in the past.
Nationalism is especially tempting to many American Christians since religious freedom was a part of the founding of this nation. And along with Modern Enlightenment thinking, a kind of Christian view undergirded the founding of this nation. But if Jesus's "Sermon on the Mount" is meant for us as Christians today, as salt and light in this world, then nationalism must become secondary in our thinking, I believe.
What must be primary is the kingdom of God come in Jesus, and what comes from that, indeed a new reality into this world which is not a part of this world. Our allegiance in Jesus must be to this new entity and dynamic in the world of which we're a part.
So it's good for us to keep up with the political news and important if we're to be good citizens not only of earth, but of heaven. But let's check our pulse and make sure that our concern and zeal is not unduly given to a nationalism that ends up undermining the kingdom of God and his righteousness.
Good Christians will debate on this issue, seeing it from different perspectives and angles. What might strike you here as wrong about my thoughts, or what might you add to them?
I'm afraid we Christians are quick to side with one faction or another, too often based on what we think are national interests. It is interesting that we will take a strong stand against abortion and vie for only "pro-life" candidates, yet we are strong supporters of American military intervention in the world in the name of our national interests.
I wonder if we as Christians are not meant to rise above such considerations in our thinking and actions. I believe we are. Nationalism in Dietrich Bonhoeffer was laden with problems for Christians who actually are one holy nation scattered throughout the earth (1 Peter). It seems like those on the Christian religious right have boiled down their concerns to three of four issues with the rest relatively unimportant to the national debate. While those on the religious left have done the same with their pet issues. I do think as one who has shared in more or less a part of religious right thinking in the past.
Nationalism is especially tempting to many American Christians since religious freedom was a part of the founding of this nation. And along with Modern Enlightenment thinking, a kind of Christian view undergirded the founding of this nation. But if Jesus's "Sermon on the Mount" is meant for us as Christians today, as salt and light in this world, then nationalism must become secondary in our thinking, I believe.
What must be primary is the kingdom of God come in Jesus, and what comes from that, indeed a new reality into this world which is not a part of this world. Our allegiance in Jesus must be to this new entity and dynamic in the world of which we're a part.
So it's good for us to keep up with the political news and important if we're to be good citizens not only of earth, but of heaven. But let's check our pulse and make sure that our concern and zeal is not unduly given to a nationalism that ends up undermining the kingdom of God and his righteousness.
Good Christians will debate on this issue, seeing it from different perspectives and angles. What might strike you here as wrong about my thoughts, or what might you add to them?
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Christians and war (part three)
I take it that when Jesus comes to fulfill the Old Covenant, and to bring in the New Covenant, he constitues a new Israel. And a new way of being Israel. It is theocratic, in that God in Christ is Lord over it. But not in the same way Israel of old was. Not as another nation state in the world. But rather, as a holy nation, scattered throughout all nations and the entire earth. Made up of entities called church. And together constituting one church.
Therefore I take Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), not only for his followers in their individual lives. But also for the entire community of God. How they are to live out what they are, as the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
We find those blessed, who are persecuted for righteousness, and because of their faith in Christ. Who endure it. We find those blessed who are peacemakers, being called God's children.
We're called to accept being struck. And to love our enemies, no less. To pray for those who persecute us. To be, in this grace and kindness, like our heavenly Father.
In Luke 6, the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus gives us more of this teaching.
Later, when confronted by Pilate about being a king, Jesus makes it clear that his kingdom is not from this world. And therefore his servants will not fight for his release. I take this to mean that while we are citizens on earth, we live as citizens of heaven. And refuse to fight because we're part of a new kingdom that is not a part of this present world system. But is invading it to bring in, no less than the revolution of the kingdom of God come, in Christ. And with that the beginning of the new creation. Which in the end, after judgement, is to make all things new.
We in Jesus must be countercultural in many ways. We're not to live as this world does. This may seem problematical. Is war and killing intrinsically evil? After all, there were certainly physical battles sanctioned by God in the Old Testament. But we see that even David, the man after God's own heart, was not allowed to build the temple, since he had fought in so much warfare. War may not be intrinsically wrong in itself, though no war fought here and now is without wrong being done on both sides.
But Jesus brings in, understand it all or not (and we don't) a new way to be Israel. That will not render to Caesar what does not belong to him. Since their identity is those whose Lord is Jesus. Not any Caesar. Because of that, I take it, they will not go into battles for nations. Because as the one holy nation, scattered throughout the world, their ethic is redemptive, in Christ. They are part of the mission to bring God's salvation and reconciliation, through the good news of his kingdom, in Christ, to all.
Next week we'll resume working on this. In the meantime, what problems do you have with my thought so far? Or what would you like to add?
Therefore I take Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), not only for his followers in their individual lives. But also for the entire community of God. How they are to live out what they are, as the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
We find those blessed, who are persecuted for righteousness, and because of their faith in Christ. Who endure it. We find those blessed who are peacemakers, being called God's children.
We're called to accept being struck. And to love our enemies, no less. To pray for those who persecute us. To be, in this grace and kindness, like our heavenly Father.
In Luke 6, the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus gives us more of this teaching.
Later, when confronted by Pilate about being a king, Jesus makes it clear that his kingdom is not from this world. And therefore his servants will not fight for his release. I take this to mean that while we are citizens on earth, we live as citizens of heaven. And refuse to fight because we're part of a new kingdom that is not a part of this present world system. But is invading it to bring in, no less than the revolution of the kingdom of God come, in Christ. And with that the beginning of the new creation. Which in the end, after judgement, is to make all things new.
We in Jesus must be countercultural in many ways. We're not to live as this world does. This may seem problematical. Is war and killing intrinsically evil? After all, there were certainly physical battles sanctioned by God in the Old Testament. But we see that even David, the man after God's own heart, was not allowed to build the temple, since he had fought in so much warfare. War may not be intrinsically wrong in itself, though no war fought here and now is without wrong being done on both sides.
But Jesus brings in, understand it all or not (and we don't) a new way to be Israel. That will not render to Caesar what does not belong to him. Since their identity is those whose Lord is Jesus. Not any Caesar. Because of that, I take it, they will not go into battles for nations. Because as the one holy nation, scattered throughout the world, their ethic is redemptive, in Christ. They are part of the mission to bring God's salvation and reconciliation, through the good news of his kingdom, in Christ, to all.
Next week we'll resume working on this. In the meantime, what problems do you have with my thought so far? Or what would you like to add?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Christians and war (part one)
I'm glad to be part of a denomination that allows freedom on issues other than those that are central and essential to our Christian faith, while also calling for accountability to Scripture in all things.
I was raised Mennonite. So as a young Christian, at the age of 17, I took it for granted that Christians should not go to war. But I was influenced by a godly relative who pastored a Christian sect, and eventually left the Mennonite church and its version of the Christian faith. Coming to embrace something of a Christian just war theory.
After reading N.T. Wright a few years back, my theology was revolutionized into a kingdom of God in Christ, new creation predominating paradigm. I had been prepared for this in some ways by George Elton Ladd, Vineyard and dissatisfaction with Christianity as I knew it (even thinking about considering Roman Catholicism). Scot McKnight has helped solidify my stance in this. And there is much more reading I want to do around this issue of theological paradigm in general, and application from it.
What has influenced me to go back to reading the Bible more the way I read it as a Mennonite, is the truth that as Christians we are members of a different kingdom, not from this world. And the Lord's "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7). I believe both have been largely lost in evangelical theology. Through the influence of dispensationalism (which by the way, in the name of "progressive dispensationalism", today is far better). Dispensationalists have said that "the Sermon on the Mount" is not for today or for the church. And that the gospel of the kingdom is for the Jews to proclaim. That we live in the gospel of God's grace. Never mind that Paul preached the kingdom of God.
This is the groundwork for a few more thoughts on this, in (a) post(s) to come. Today I just leave us with the encouragement and challenge to get into the Sermon on the Mount. An excellent place to start is where the sermon itself starts, the Beatitudes. Let me say upfront that I certainly don't question that there are people in the military seeking to follow Jesus, who can end up walking just as closely to him, as the most ardent Christian pacifist. Regardless of what we think about Christians and war, we can find much help in understanding the kingdom of God come in Jesus, through reading and meditating on this passage (Matthew 5-7; Luke 6:17-49 a rather parallel, "sermon on the plain"). This is at the heart of who we're called to be as the church. As the people of God in Christ living in this world.
I find the Beatitudes to be foundational as to what God's calling looks like among those who are following Jesus in this world. If these things are characteristic of those who are blessed, than we must look at our lives and churches, to see if this is characteristic of us.
How has "the Sermon on the Mount" impacted your life? What does it mean in your theology, thinking and life? Or what might you like to add here?
I was raised Mennonite. So as a young Christian, at the age of 17, I took it for granted that Christians should not go to war. But I was influenced by a godly relative who pastored a Christian sect, and eventually left the Mennonite church and its version of the Christian faith. Coming to embrace something of a Christian just war theory.
After reading N.T. Wright a few years back, my theology was revolutionized into a kingdom of God in Christ, new creation predominating paradigm. I had been prepared for this in some ways by George Elton Ladd, Vineyard and dissatisfaction with Christianity as I knew it (even thinking about considering Roman Catholicism). Scot McKnight has helped solidify my stance in this. And there is much more reading I want to do around this issue of theological paradigm in general, and application from it.
What has influenced me to go back to reading the Bible more the way I read it as a Mennonite, is the truth that as Christians we are members of a different kingdom, not from this world. And the Lord's "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7). I believe both have been largely lost in evangelical theology. Through the influence of dispensationalism (which by the way, in the name of "progressive dispensationalism", today is far better). Dispensationalists have said that "the Sermon on the Mount" is not for today or for the church. And that the gospel of the kingdom is for the Jews to proclaim. That we live in the gospel of God's grace. Never mind that Paul preached the kingdom of God.
This is the groundwork for a few more thoughts on this, in (a) post(s) to come. Today I just leave us with the encouragement and challenge to get into the Sermon on the Mount. An excellent place to start is where the sermon itself starts, the Beatitudes. Let me say upfront that I certainly don't question that there are people in the military seeking to follow Jesus, who can end up walking just as closely to him, as the most ardent Christian pacifist. Regardless of what we think about Christians and war, we can find much help in understanding the kingdom of God come in Jesus, through reading and meditating on this passage (Matthew 5-7; Luke 6:17-49 a rather parallel, "sermon on the plain"). This is at the heart of who we're called to be as the church. As the people of God in Christ living in this world.
I find the Beatitudes to be foundational as to what God's calling looks like among those who are following Jesus in this world. If these things are characteristic of those who are blessed, than we must look at our lives and churches, to see if this is characteristic of us.
How has "the Sermon on the Mount" impacted your life? What does it mean in your theology, thinking and life? Or what might you like to add here?
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Christians and the Sermon on the Mount
Lately I've been focusing a little, and reflecting on our Lord's, "the Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7). As I'm thinking through the text, having just read Dietrich Bonhoeffer's treatment of it in The Cost of Discipleship, I am wondering what difference it would make in the average American Christian's life, the average American evangelical Christian's life, and to the average American church and evangelical church, if all of the sudden this "Sermon on the Mount" no longer existed. My answer so far: I think, in general, very little if any at all.
When I first thought of reading Bonhoeffer (who I had read very little before) and of considering anew this passage in Matthew, I did so in seeking to understand what we as Christians are to be in relation to the world. And how this relates to how we view politics, or how we live in a political world (as Scot McKnight stated it, the last phrase). After reading Bonhoeffer's work on this passage, and now, spending some time meditating on it, I'm concluding that this passage has so much more to say to us than just how we Chrisitans relate to the political world. It really would speak to us about all of life. Who we are. And how we're to live out this identity in the world. It speaks of our heart and the actions which spring from it, both as individuals and as community. And I believe, it surely is foundational to understanding the rest of the content of the Gospels (especially Matthew and Luke, but including Mark and John) and of our Lord's teaching and life revealed in them.
What challenges me is to look at my own life, and the life of the Church as I know it, with the question: What difference would it make, if all the sudden Matthew 5-7 and any parallel accounts elsewhere as in Luke 6, were suddenly no longer in our Bibles, and never had been? Also I wonder how that may alter the rest of the New Testament? (This last question is more for the scholars). What do you think? Do you think this matters? (a trick question)
When I first thought of reading Bonhoeffer (who I had read very little before) and of considering anew this passage in Matthew, I did so in seeking to understand what we as Christians are to be in relation to the world. And how this relates to how we view politics, or how we live in a political world (as Scot McKnight stated it, the last phrase). After reading Bonhoeffer's work on this passage, and now, spending some time meditating on it, I'm concluding that this passage has so much more to say to us than just how we Chrisitans relate to the political world. It really would speak to us about all of life. Who we are. And how we're to live out this identity in the world. It speaks of our heart and the actions which spring from it, both as individuals and as community. And I believe, it surely is foundational to understanding the rest of the content of the Gospels (especially Matthew and Luke, but including Mark and John) and of our Lord's teaching and life revealed in them.
What challenges me is to look at my own life, and the life of the Church as I know it, with the question: What difference would it make, if all the sudden Matthew 5-7 and any parallel accounts elsewhere as in Luke 6, were suddenly no longer in our Bibles, and never had been? Also I wonder how that may alter the rest of the New Testament? (This last question is more for the scholars). What do you think? Do you think this matters? (a trick question)
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
blessed, salt and light
In Dietrich Bonhoeffer's, The Cost of Discipleship, he looks at our Lord's "the Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7). It seems a kind of manifesto by Jesus, of the kingdom of God come in him.
Reading Bonhoeffer, I see ourselves as evangelicals to have widely missed the mark. Is what we're all about congruent to and in harmony with this kingdom that Jesus describes? It does make it hard, when one of our theologies, dispensationalism, has in the past declared this sermon to be for another time and people, not for the church in this age. And when another one of our theologies, reformed, has certainly practiced (Calvin's Geneva) and thought on community. Yet not as those sufficiently hearing our Lord's words in this sermon.
We're blessed as those who are completely countercultural to the world. Is cross bearing no longer necessary (and perhaps dying on that cross) since our Lord has died, been resurrected and is now exalted at the right hand of God in power? Not if we are his Body on earth, sent by him, as he was sent by the Father. This blessedness seems a curse in the world's eyes, and they would cast us out. But God's promises are true, as to what this blessedness consists. Really all things, in our Father's home. On those who are no-things (or at least, curiosities), in the world's eyes.
We're salt and light to this world. We're to not lose that saltiness, nor hide our light under a bowl. Instead, people are to see our good deeds as given to us from Christ. It is to be no less than Christ, and our becoming like him in his death, that is to be the life we live by faith in this world. People must see Jesus and his cross in our lives: in our words and deeds.
Having said all that, as moved to do so from reading Bonhoeffer, I must say I fear we are in danger of not really taking our Lord's "manifesto" of God's kingdom seriously. It is a life individually and in community, lived out before the world (and each other) that is Jesus-oriented to the bone. Not oriented to any entity here on earth. Impacting the world in an unworldy way. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Reading Bonhoeffer, I see ourselves as evangelicals to have widely missed the mark. Is what we're all about congruent to and in harmony with this kingdom that Jesus describes? It does make it hard, when one of our theologies, dispensationalism, has in the past declared this sermon to be for another time and people, not for the church in this age. And when another one of our theologies, reformed, has certainly practiced (Calvin's Geneva) and thought on community. Yet not as those sufficiently hearing our Lord's words in this sermon.
We're blessed as those who are completely countercultural to the world. Is cross bearing no longer necessary (and perhaps dying on that cross) since our Lord has died, been resurrected and is now exalted at the right hand of God in power? Not if we are his Body on earth, sent by him, as he was sent by the Father. This blessedness seems a curse in the world's eyes, and they would cast us out. But God's promises are true, as to what this blessedness consists. Really all things, in our Father's home. On those who are no-things (or at least, curiosities), in the world's eyes.
We're salt and light to this world. We're to not lose that saltiness, nor hide our light under a bowl. Instead, people are to see our good deeds as given to us from Christ. It is to be no less than Christ, and our becoming like him in his death, that is to be the life we live by faith in this world. People must see Jesus and his cross in our lives: in our words and deeds.
Having said all that, as moved to do so from reading Bonhoeffer, I must say I fear we are in danger of not really taking our Lord's "manifesto" of God's kingdom seriously. It is a life individually and in community, lived out before the world (and each other) that is Jesus-oriented to the bone. Not oriented to any entity here on earth. Impacting the world in an unworldy way. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
The Community of Jesus and the Kingdom
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36; TNIV)
"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.The kingdom of heaven/God was at the heart of the good news that Jesus brought in person (as king), word and deed. This kingdom had come near in him and came to reside in the midst of his disciples. It was a kingdom not of this world and its kingdoms. It was from another place.
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:13-16; TNIV)
Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7; see also Luke 6:17-49; 11:1-13) is a summons to and declaration of this kingdom. Jesus' followers are said to be the salt of the earth, the light of the world (a city on a hill). This kingdom then, though not of this world, is to impact this world. It is not something confined to Jesus' followers during that time, but is for all who belong to the community of Jesus today. This is no less than the new Israel in Jesus the Messiah. Blessed to be a blessing to all nations.
If these things are true, then why do we as Christians seem to be so strongly identified with the kingdoms of this world? Jesus is Lord. Caesar is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
