whose political views I would describe as “God and Country zealotry.”
In the course of our conversation, which had taken its typical political
turn, he said, “We must defend Freedom, Democracy and Capitalism in
the name of Christ.”
That is quite a claim. But is it true?
Must Rousseau freedom, Jeffersonian democracy and Laissez-faire capitalism
be defended in the name of Christ? Let’s think about it for a moment.
Freedom. It’s the promise of every
empire. It's what Rome and all the rest promise. And it's always what
we go to war for. Freedom. Political Freedom. Economic Freedom. Individual
Freedom. “The land of the free and the home of the brave.” The vocabulary
of patriotic fervor. As if there were no Freedom until Jeffersonian
democracy arrived on the scene. So what was Jesus talking about? Jesus
and Paul seemed to have a thing or two to say about Liberty and Freedom,
but they never breathed a word about political democracy or economic
capitalism. Have we been seduced by the blandishments of empire? America
may be a kinder, gentler Babylon, maybe the kindest, gentlest Babylon
there's ever been (though native Americans and African slaves may beg
to differ, not to mention the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Be that as it may, America is still a Babylon. And as such it has nothing
to do with the kingdom of Christ…other than to be a rival.
Democracy. I agree with Winston Churchill.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for any other."
Where I disagree with Churchill is his assumption that democracy is
the way to bring goodness to the world. I disagree with Churchill because
I am unwilling to kill on behalf of the state. And in the end democracy
requires this. (In the end the beast is always red in tooth and claw.)
I realize most post-Constantine Christians are willing to kill on behalf
of the state—especially if they are citizens of a currently reigning
or aspiring empire. But this has been one of our biggest problems. The
early (pre-Constantine) Christians had a different view on the matter.
It's interesting how gaga many Christians can be about the early church,
but choke on the apostolic and patristic view of empire.
Capitalism. It works. It works because
it takes into account the primary motivation of fallen humans: pride
and greed. Marx mistakenly thought people would willingly serve the
state. They will not. They'll serve themselves and their families. What
was missing from Marx's equation was love. And absent the motive
of altruistic love Marxism becomes the cruelest form of totalitarianism.
And the missing element in the Marxist equation—self-sacrificing love—comes
only from the Holy Spirit. Capitalism works because it taps the energy
of fallen man and is preferable because it better diffuses power—and
power among fallen man is always best diffused. But capitalism is not
the kingdom of Jesus. Jesus did not teach socialist economics or capitalistic
economics. Jesus taught love economics. But he made no (zero!) effort
to enforce his love economics on the wider culture (Jewish or Roman).
And Jesus certainly did not endorse the implementation and protection
of political or economic systems through force (i.e. violence).
Jesus was content to form an alternative society of those who professed
faithful allegiance to the Son of Man. These would become the true
sons and daughters of the kingdom of heaven. The grand paradox is that
Jesus won his kingdom by submitting to a state sponsored execution;
by laying down his life and trusting God to raise him from the dead.
It should be noted that the crucifixion
of Jesus Christ is the final damning indictment upon the ethics of empire.
Rome claimed to stand for freedom, peace and justice—but in the name
of their empire they murdered the Son of God. The religious leaders
of Jerusalem were co-conspirators in the imperial crime of deicide because
they too were “practical men” who had pledged their allegiance to
the empire. Witness their allegiance: “We have no king but Caesar.”
In that moment they completely betrayed their WWMD? wristbands
(What Would Moses Do?).
Allegiance to empire is the result
of the idolatrous worship of pragmatism. “This is just the way the
real world works.” But I reject the “real world” and its bloody
pragmatism. I know my position is radical. So be it. I believe it to
be radically Christian. Dangerously radical. Why, it could get a man
crucified. Or if he happens to be a citizen of the empire, perhaps just
mercifully beheaded. We must realize that the Roman Empire didn't kill
Christians for religious reasons. Rome couldn't care less about personal
religious preference. The Roman world had plenty of religious liberty.
(It was during medieval Christendom that religious liberty was lost.)
The apostles and early Christian martyrs were executed, not for religious
reasons, but for political reasons. For confessing that Christ
was emperor and not Caesar. For preaching the gospel of the Pax Cristus
instead of the Pax Romana. Will we dare to preach the gospel
of the Pax Cristus instead of the Pax Americana?
I've got nothing against America. It's
a fine empire. I'm a citizen and a beneficiary of its prosperity. And
I certainly have enough patriotism to cheer for America in the Olympics.
But America is not the agency through which the liberating gospel of
Jesus Christ is brought to the nations. The liberation of the nations
through the proclamation of the gospel is the mission of the church!
God didn't "raise up America." Every empire engages in that
kind of propaganda. God raised Christ from the dead and poured out the
Holy Spirit upon body of Christ—the church. Nationality doesn’t
mean a thing. God’s nationalistic agenda ended with Christ. Now his
agenda is advanced through the global church. National identity is utterly
insignificant. Oh, I understand that to the nations of the world it's
everything. Indeed, they'll kill for it—go “shock and awe” on
their enemies with their hand on their heart pledging allegiance. But
that's just it, they're the nations of the world and not yet disciples
of Jesus Christ.
Jesus didn’t “shock and awe”
his enemies. He forgave them and allowed himself to be crucified (when
he could have summoned an army of angels). Why? You can't win a war
that way! You've got to kill the enemy s.o.b. (to paraphrase General
Patton). But as Christians we believe that Jesus did win a war
that way. We believe he won the whole world that way. We do believe
that, don't we? We do believe that Jesus won, don't we? We do believe
that Jesus is Lord, don’t we? We do believe that Jesus currently reigns
as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, President of Presidents, Prime Minister
of Prime Ministers, don't we?
And since (if) we believe that Jesus
is Lord, we're not all that concerned about what Caesar does or what
empire claims to rule the world these days. They’re all impostors.
Jesus is Lord.
It's a political statement.
I'm a radical. Or at least I’m trying
to be. A dangerous, kingdom of God radical. The empire should be wary
of me and my kind. Sure, we are productive, law abiding citizens—harmless
as doves. But our ideas are subversive. They are the seeds of the kingdom
that grows by night. Our ideas about Jesus and his alternative way are
the leaven in the imperial dough. They are the radical Jesus ideas that
subvert the false pretense of empire. Caesar doesn't save, Christ does.
Caesar isn't Lord, Christ is. The empire doesn't bring peace, justice
and freedom, the kingdom of our Lord does.
I am a radical.
I will not adapt the radical kingdom
gospel of Jesus Christ to the self-serving values of the empire and
conspire to turn Christianity into a civic religion of the state. That's
the whore riding the back of the beast. Which has been ever popular
these past seventeen centuries.
I am a radical.
Out of wisdom and a desire to be effective
(and perhaps from a sense of self-preservation) I tell it slant. Like
Jesus did. Parable, allegory, allusion and story work better than in
your face prose (as I am recklessly doing here). I tell it slant, but
I tell it. I tell it because of what I have seen. The empires of this
world are beastly. All of them. Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome,
France, Germany, Britain, Russia—America too. But the Lamb has conquered.
Worthy is the Lamb.
I am a radical.
I'm not taking the easy road and I'm
not playing it safe. My conservative friends think I'm liberal. My liberal
friends think I'm conservative. I am neither. I'm totally off the charts.
I've opted out of the illusion that politics of either stripe even has
the possibility of being faithful to Christ.
This is my confession. It comes from
what I have seen. The empires of this world are beasts, but the Lamb—the
little lamb as if slain—has conquered. It’s the absurd comedy of
God. It’s our gospel. It’s the hope of the world. You can see it
too, if you want to. But you have to really want to see. Because it
will cost you.
Vicit agnus noster, eum sequamur.
Our Lamb has conquered, let us follow
him.
OK, radical brother. I surrender. You have overwhelmed me with words – too many to be able to answer and too little time to deal with every subject you bring up.
Let me suffice to say I agree that America is, or to be more exact, is becoming, Babylon. I believe it will be the Beast empire of Revelations. I have no illusions of its goodness. I think it has left its foundational principles and ideals. But I do not condemn it’s foundation – the Constitution, nor its ideals. I believe they were the product of Reformation, Biblical thinking, and brought about real social justice (not the Marxian kind the trendies are now spouting and you seem to be getting influenced by). I believe, without taking it too far, that it was the product of the seed-the Word of God, the Kingdom of heaven, working like a leaven through the lumpiness of faulty humanity. Yes, there was the other side, typified by the well-known Jamestown vs. Plymouth dichotomy.
It seems you are making the same mistake that Bonhoeffer and Niemoller did in the early yars of the Nazi regime. Bonhoeffer was a pacifist with views that seem to approximate yours. Events, and the Holy Spirit I belive changed him radically. Niemoller also repented of his lack of political activism with his famous line, “When they came for the Jew, I did nothing because I wasn’t a Jew…” They are my mentors in the present rise of Babylon.
I will always appreciate and seriously consider your views and respect the holy banter.
P.S. I am the “God and country zealot” Brian mentions in his letter.
There is a good article at the Acton Institute blog about Bonhoeffer, his views on the state, the church, and activism.
Dear Bruce,
Welcome to Clarion and thank you for your response to Brian Zahnd’s fine piece. I am always amazed by the varied perspectives voiced here re: political and theological history. Without attempting to refute your point of view, esp. since you didn’t attempt to build your case, I’d like to briefly highlight some of the surprisingly different premises you might find as you cross-reference other articles in the journal.
Just a few noteworthy examples:
1. Whereas you identify the founding principles and ideals of America as biblical, based in the Reformation, and bearing the fruit of social justice, others here (Ron Dart, for example, in the Matrix of Modernity) have identified America (from the beginning) as the embodiment of liberal values such as personal self-spun freedom and ambition eclipsing the classic ideals of greater good and commonweal. The natural fruit of this ambition of the unrestrained passions included the displacement and eradication of several hundred million (!) aboriginal people and an enormous slave trade, and extending today to a thriving abortion industry and imperial foreign policy. I know that you would condemn all of these as fervently as I would, but while you see these as a departure from initial godly values, I would make the case that this is the inevitable fruit that grew from the seed that was planted. I.e. When personal liberty trumps every other value, the inalienable rights of the strongest prevail.
2. Further, this is not merely an American problem, nor even a secular enlightenment evil. The roots are found exactly where you might have pinned your best hopes: the Reformation itself. Although the Roman Catholic Church was in desperate need of reform, when men like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli took their leave, they also set in motion the wheels of individualism in which everyone became their own pope and one split followed another and then another. Shucking off authority and doing what is right in our own eyes, even among our churches, has led to a situation where there are, for example, over 200 varieties of Baptists alone!
Remember, split upon split of increasingly independent radicals brings you to the Puritans who fragment away to start their own church, their own society, and the beginnings of what will be a new nation where everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Their moralism and big buckles aside, they sow the liberal seed in this continent that cannot help but grow into a revolution, a civil war, and then an empire. My point is that nothing you fear today is inconsistent with what the Reformation set in motion.
3. Finally, our views on Bonhoeffer would clash remarkably (see my article on the Practicability of the Sermon on the Mount). Bonhoeffer’s error (?) was not merely pacifism but a form of nonviolent resistance rooted firmly in the Sermon on the Mount — proclaimed and followed consistently by Christian believers until the time of Constantine. Bonhoeffer was politically active in his call to the confessing churches, his work with the disabled (to save them from Hitler), and his proclamation of the kingdom way to overcome.
By Bonhoeffer’s own admission, his shift to attempt a violent solution came when his kingdom focus made space for a compelling sense of Germany’s national destiny (coming against Hitler in the same spirit and by the same means). But as Jesus said, “Satan cannot drive out Satan,” and “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”
To quote Barth, Hitler is not the ultimate exception to the Sermon on the Mount. He was the ultimate test case. Active nonviolence, far from a trendy Marxism, is the incarnation of Jesus Gospel of Peace, demonstrated to the nth degree when Christ lives his message on the Cross.
These are some examples of our radically different set of givens, but transcending that, I am very thankful that you weighed in here with Brian and created a discussion of it. As NT Wright once said, ‘With enemies like that, who needs friends?’
Great discussion. Quite helpful. Bruce, I would say that empires don’t “become” Babylon by becoming “bad.” They are Babylon because they’re empires (specifically, man-made empires). At least, that’s how I understood Brian’s post.
Dear Joe,
Yes, I think you are right. Nation states can become empires, which is to say, become Babylons. For America, this trajectory began very early with the Colonies’ doctrine of “manifest destiny” as a divinely ordained annexation of Texas and expansion into all lands to the Pacific (including, for some, Mexico and Canada)–violently, if necessary.
Beyond the continental mainland (including purchasing Alaska), sights were then set to acquire Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, the Marian Islands, the Republic of Hawaii, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone (usually through treaties with the previous occupying empire).
Next, the Truman Doctrine, in its pledge to economically and militarily assist nations in danger of subjugation by outside forces (spec. communism), in practice became an aggressive foreign policy that led to the proliferation of American military presence (whether through ‘advisor’-directed civil wars as in Central America or permanent bases as in Europe) globally.
This grew to include involvement in coups overthrowing foreign governments with communist ties. But also, in cases where American economic interests were threatened in foreign countries (e.g. nationalization of a resource where US companies had a stake), this was considered an act of aggression against the US itself. In such cases, for the sake of national security, such governments could be replaced easily enough, whether by backing dissenting nationals or by direct military intervention (e.g. Noriega, Iraq) under the banner of ‘defending democracy,’ which is to say, ‘defending capitalism,’ which is to say, ‘defending corporate capital in nations that threaten to destabilize economic territory.’
This is not to demonize America in any way. It is simply to say that the USA has grown from nationhood into an imperial reality. The stubborn fact is that no nation can become an empire without engaging in the Babylonian spirit which necessarily includes military and economic expansionist policies that will benefit some (the powerful and their playmates) and do great injustice to others (those Babylon opposes and those it uses).
‘Defending freedom’ usually means defending OUR freedom to act in our own best interests (and isn’t that the not-so-divine mandate of most governments or corporations?). But clearly, when the most powerful engage in this with a capacity to globalize, you have Babylon and you have injustice. Until this moment, I had always thought that simply accusing other people groups as ‘hating our freedom’ was ludicrous. But having looked at what ‘our freedom’ includes and entails, I think that charge may not be so far off. Imperial freedom to act without restraint inevitably creates fearful enemies and resentful serfs. What is an empire to do?
Great conversation here guys. I’ve been thumbing through “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” by Max Weber.
I had never made that linkage between reformed/calvinistic doctrine and “manifest destiny” until I pick this up.
He argues that religious convictions played a heavy role in the development of western capitalism. Self-identity as “elect” as evidenced by “good works” therefore the drive toward western capitalism. (more or less)
“It’s no coincidence that capitalism and Protestantism ascended simultaneously. Jean Calvin theologically discredited the feudal system in 1541, paving the way for an upwardly mobile merchant class to replace the landed aristocracy. The genius of Calvin, observed sociologist Max Weber in 1904, was the creation of a new concept of God. Prior to this crucial paradigm shift, surplus wealth–i.e., capital–was expected to be donated to the Church.
Essentially, Calvinism was a variation of the chosen-race myth. Its key element was a spiritual “elect” whose elevated position is preordained. The only way one can know if he or she is among the Elect is by his or her level of worldly success– in other words, if you’re rich, it’s because God loves you.”
-Michael Fitzgerald
I think Weber is definitely onto something here.
But as you read him, you may also see how he exemplifies the modernist problem. He believed and thought to prove that there no standard of law and morality exists beyond the crafted ‘ideals’ of specific societies and political groups. In other words, all of our values are man-made and relativistic. Goodness is subjective and relativistic. Hence his strong call for a values-facts split in the classroom so that teachers are not using lecterns as pulpits.
But his premise itself is a sermon, preached by example through the supposed objectivity of teachers who, in fact, must expunge goodness, beauty and truth (because to Weber, these are subjective) from the world of study, in favor of facts and data. I would argue that such a stripping damages the point of the objects of our study, which is to demonstrate order, goodness, and the presence of God himself in our universe.
You can see here how even Weber’s way of thinking (as a true modernist) is fundamentally different than that of the ancients. It’s good to read Plato . . . he sees a reality called Good, Love, Beauty, which is rooted in and IS God (see John 1) that is the fountain of truth, justice and morality. This Weber cannot accept. I.e. We make it up.
Thanks for weighing in.
bj
Fascinating discussion, Brian, and I find myself in substantial agreement with what you are saying. My only struggle is trying to figure out how I can explore these issues in the context where I work, a small Christian school where God and country are often considered to be one and the same. I am presently using bits of Lee Camp (Mere Discipleship) but there is not question that I feel on dangerous ground most of the time. Of all the incredibly dangerous “isms”, I think nationalism may be the toughest one of all. At least we can talk about materialim, consumerism, etc. Talking about nationalism in the Christian community is so highly charged with emotional energy(similiar to talking about racism in the public square) that, to do so is to almost court disaster. Greg Boyd tried and, to my knowledge, he lost 1/3 of his congregation. So the trick it seems to me is how do we “steal past watchful dragons” to have intelligent and desperately needed conversations about this with kids and their parents???
Sawdog,
Tell me about it. Nothing compares with the idol of nationalism. This idol requires blood. The big time false gods are always the national deities whose job it is to look out for the welfare of the state with which it is engaged in a religious social contract. Forget about nationalizing banks and healthcare; that’s nothing. The empire always nationalizes God!
I have a message I have delivered numerous times at pastors conferences. I call it “My Own Reformation”. In it I present my own 9.5 theses — 9.5 isms which I have come to reject:
1. Fundamentalism
2. Fanaticism
3. Tribalism
4. Gnosticism
5. Nationalism
6. Politicism
7. Presentism
8. Privatism
9. Pragmatism
9.5 Dogmatism
And it’s always Nationalism that evokes the most passionate reaction. At that point in my address, I can generally count on some pastors getting up and angrily walking out.
I think the trick is to tell it slant — something I’m not very good at, but trying to learn.
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant—
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth’s superb surprise
As lightning to the Children eased
With Explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind
–Emily Dickinson
Why did Jesus speak in parables?
I think the simple answer is he didn’t want to get killed in the first two weeks of his ministry.
Ultimately it was Jesus’ subversive actions undermining Israel’s nationalistic identity and agenda that prompted a conspiracy to murder him.
Challenging idolatrous nationalism was dangerous then and it is dangerous now.
But we must find a way forward if we hope to be a faithful church.
Grace & Peace,
BZ
perhaps these are not “watchful dragons” but ignorant, though well meaning, watchdogs (not to be mistaken for Watchmen)
to begin with, sincere prayer is what is required on all counts.
(but really and truly, what do i know?)
sincere blessings!
Could we distinguish between nation and state in this discussion? Seems to me that God is pretty much in favour of nations & peoples. Many of the problems associated with nationalism today relate to the church sanctioned and authorised idea of state, whereby the church abrogated its kingdom mandate to the state, gaining privileges in return for blessing the secular authorities. This doctrine was interestingly called ‘two-sword’.
Whilst we look to anyone outside of Christ as our Saviour then we are on sinking sand. Salvation in the OT was generally related to security of border and people. Jesus came and radically changed this perception. However, strangely, our individualistic approach has tended towards looking for a saviour other than the name given by which we shall be saved, to vouch for our freedoms and privileges, especially with regard to borders.
I have recently realised that idolatry is anything that causes me to step out of a face to face relation with him, as I should have no other god before his face.