The video was well done but there are some serious questions anyone who thinks they are follower of Christ but feel themselves drawn to this video.

Born-Again America is an odd idea. When we think of “born again” what is the purpose of being born again? From what are we departing and to what do we become in this process?

I think the video is well-meaning. That is to say, the people and motive behind it are for an ostensibly for “good” purpose. However, is this purpose/motive God breathed? How does it line up with Christ’s message and stated purposes?

I would submit that this video utterly disconnected from the point of Christ’s teaching.

This assessment may come as a surprise since many “christians” in this country hold America high as the pinnacle of what the entire world should be: “christian.” This is another point I find troubling for alleged “christian.” America never has been “christian” in any sense of the word by nature of what christian is said to mean. America will not go to heaven because it has a relationship with God and has never repented of its sins to where it could collectively have a relationship with the Lord. And how does an entire nation have a relationship with the Lord anyway? The mere suggestion sounds more like a neo-Israel Covenant Theology mindset; not New Testament (NT) personal relationship with God on an individual level…

America could only at best be “christianized” to a greater or lesser degree. Even this is highly debatable. What is christian about slavery, the annihilation of aboriginal people—that would be indians to all you Homeschoolers? What is christian about nuking 600,000 non-combatants allegedly to save 50,000 soldiers to turn around and then waste as many or more in the next two “wars?” What is christian about a culture of materialism, indebtedness, consumerism, usury, manipulation of other country’s affairs for this country’s political interests all of which “churches” either support or turn a blind eye to? What is christian about occult practices, clandestine fraternal orders and hate groups, which have been allowed in many “churches” memberships in this country’s history? These evils are not committed by a narrow few but by the vast majority of who calls themselves “church.” Nope America is about as “christianized” as Joseph Stalin, though it is a little more cheery.

The phrase kingdom of God, mentioned in the New Testament 130+ times is a reality that what calls itself “church” has neither connection to nor understanding. Christ himself mentioned this concept some 90 times. Aside from the fact that modern “church” as interpreted this phrase in so many ways relegating it to near myth or a best only any eventuality makes America an allowable replacement therapy for most christians in this country. Yet, Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world…”

If we are following Christ can our’s be of this world, namely, America?

The text 2 Cor. 5:17 known by heart by most evangellifish—a term coined by George Verwer founder of Operation Mobilization to describe Evangelicals who have become very wishy-washy in recent decades. They skate right over a major little word in this well-known text, which is in the original language but is many times missing or downplayed in English versions. Let me put it out here to reconsider:

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” KJV (I am not a KJV nut but in this case this version is consistent with the original language).

The little word that has killer meaning in this verse is “all.”

What is new if we are really in Christ? Everything!

If we came to Christ as Americans, according to this verse and many others we are no longer.  (See: http://kingdomcitizenship.org/wp/2010/01/a-follower-of-christ-is-an-american-no-more-2/)

More authoritative than this article, there are 175 texts in the NT depicting “not belonging.” What do I mean, not belonging? Paul and most other NT writers use various terms, slavery, bondservant, soldier, ambassador, alien, stranger and many others, to depict the followers of Christ. The common denominator between them is that the person depicted in these ways, e.g. any follower of Christ, does not belong to the society around them.

In addition to this, another 35 texts illustrate clear disassociation from former belongings and identity within what culture, and what the believer thought—past tense in case all you non-grammarians hadn’t caught—of themselves. Let’s use a text to put in another way; apostle Peter in Acts 3 speaks about a man’s healing… In verse 11 he starts by relating about early Israel, for which he uses the inclusive pronoun “our” to indicate identification with them. He continues this trend until he starts talking about the Israel who executed Christ. In this case, Peter uses the disassociative pronoun “your” in respect to the leaders of Israel, hence Israel as a whole. The context is not broken into separate stories or situations, so why would Peter change pronounal usages unless he was illustrating disassociation from things in the flesh to things of the Spirit? This occurrence happens another 34 times in the NT.

There is still more, another 40 texts in the NT drives this trend further. Another factor of this concept is a class of texts that differentiates between things of the flesh and of the Spirit in direct connection to “belonging” and “identity” with the world as the collective of non-believers. In 1 Cor. 5:9-11 Paul writes about not having interaction with immoral people, which are actually believers who have become wholly wicked once again but still attempt to hang around the followers of Christ. The Corinthians could have taken Paul to mean something else in verse nine. However, Paul carefully closes any potential misunderstands noting if we were to stay away from non-believers, whom religious people would normally consider immoral, we’d have to leave the planet.

Back to the video, Born Again America…
There is not an ounce of kingdom of God understanding in this video. When we strip away the eternal perspective within a temporal existence (what I am advocating) we get a temporal focus, no different from any religion, like that of anybody walking the planet. Since conservative christians—an adjective concept I find hard to reconcile with anybody really following Christ—feel they were marginalized in the Presidential election of ’08, now they will pursue the political system for better inclusion or to try and regain dominance…

Could it be that America is on the skids because this is the only way God can get many believers’ attention?

God is not in America. He is in believers who are in America as well as many other places. The focus on America “coming back to Christ” is a hysterically laughable ruse. It is a temptation to focus on the temporal at the expense of what God is doing. Jesus was not concerned about Israel being free of Rome. Neither should we be concerned about Neo-Rome (America for you in church pews) recognizing us or giving us inclusion. The modern church is typified in the Old Testament by the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the time when it was judged. There is/was epic compromise and spiritual adultery. I am not referring all the religious edifices you don’t go to because they are screwed up. I am talking 98% of what you would call orthodox, fundamental, primary, evangelical, charismatic churches in the best sense possible.

I have written extensively, if this treatise is not enough, about this subject church-state relations in a book, The Diluted Church; calling believers to live out of their true heritage. It is available on my website www.kingdomcitizenship.org or Amazon. Discussion on this topic is available to you at http://kingdomcitizenship.org/forums/index.php -or- http://kingdomcitzenship.ning.com/ I and my friend Kyle Knapp, a folk musician and house church operative in the Nebraska area, do a podcast about related subjects: http://www.tuesdaytogether.us/podcast/

It is about time that the followers of Christ in America begin to listen to what God is doing rather than allow themselves to be manipulated by a political order that seeks to distract us from following God. We need discernment and we need to realize who we are and that our kingdom (belonging and identity) are not in this world. This does not mean we stick our head in the sand and wait for the sweet-bye-and-bye. It means we engage the world as the only alternative to man’s ways so that it can see itself.

When believers join one side or the other in the world’s political games anything that would be differentiating about who we are following us is obscured by the political basket we hide our light under. Those who seek representation in a political process are automatically marginalized in the essence that the political process is about the gaining of power, not the wielding it to help a cause. Causes and issues are merely bait. If the political order (democrat and republican) were to really fix all the problems they’d have a hard time finding ways to be elected.

Please stop by and visit us at www.kingdomcitizenship.org. We do not have all the answers but we are pressing into the One who does.

Sincerely,

Timothy L. Price

You can here many reasons why Christians are up in arms about the latest attack on exterior things that comfort the souls of many believers in this country. Yet what do these reasons tell us about what the believer really thinks and how does what we really think square with scripture? Additionally, how do these reasons and fighting better equip us to minister the truth to a dying world?

I have heard not just a few radio personalities say that America’s law system is based on the Ten Commandments. We are left to fill in the blanks as far as why it is important as to whether the Commandments need to stay on display or not. Could it be that these who make such claims are worried that if the Laws of God are not on display that somehow the legal system of this country will cave in to the ocean of philosophical hogwash and be replaced by some other less preferable system of law? Could be, but this brings up some questions for the truly thoughtful mind. Secondly, others say that this country is a Christian Nation and the attempt to remove a representation of this “Christian” basis is a provocative attack by people with a nefarious agenda. This could be true also.

What do these two presupposition tell us about those who think the way religious conservatives tend to? First, it tells us that the believer’s trust is in whether their knick-knacks are on the wall or that somebody else’s might replace them. Secondly, there is another presupposition that Christians are in the majority and that the public square must to represent our views. Neither of these ideas are true, but they are commonly thought. This shows a potential superiority complex rather than humility. Thirdly, there is the hint of pure unadulterated selfishness on the part of believers for demanding that society continue to placate them by allowing this basis for Law to be displayed further. Fourthly, it shows the worship of other gods, i.e. the state, when believers: appeal to, demand from, show contempt for, and demonstrate against, all in attempts to get their way and keep a mere token on display.

Is God hurt if the Ten Commandments are done away with? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Is God somehow incapacitated by this turn of events? NOT EVEN FOR A SECOND!

Then how come believers are so animated about this, unless the above analysis is at least somewhat correct? If we are not honoring God by doing what He is [this would be over and against a sacrifice of our own design like Cain] then we are not motivated by what we should be, but rather selfishness.

We can draw an illustration from football. A common trick by a defense is to encroach on the line of scrimmage or to distract in various ways to draw the offense off sides and get them to draw a penalty. This strategy is based on the predisposition of the offense to try and out perform/maneuver the defense. Therefore, because of this divided focus [to out perform but not draw penalties], instead of intensely focusing on playing ones own game according to the schedule of the quarterback, [the guy leading things] these mistakes are often made. The world is tempting us to react and respond to their overtures. God is not directing his flock to get outraged over the Ten Commandments.

Are we going to react and be “drawn off sides” or are we going to think and pray as to what God wants us to do and play our game His way?

Various high-powered leaders are talking about “standing up on this issue” because of the illegal means by which this issue is being foisted on society at large. These leaders also feel that this is either the end for us as far as having sway in the society or the beginning of an increasingly nastier relationship between society/state and believers. If we look at this issue purely from a human/carnal standpoint, which is what these national leaders are doing, I suppose it could be seen this way. Yet we are told in scripture that our fight is not against flesh and blood, nor what the {flesh and blood] does. We are also told that we wage war NOT according to the flesh.

In the Old Testament most of the time when Israel was attacked it was because God allowed it. One of the main reasons He did so was to turn Israel to Him in repentance. They had turned from serving God to serving themselves or somebody else. The attacks usually provoked the right response and Israel again returned to the Lord. This did not always happen and eventually it destroyed them as a nation… The same is true today. God has allowed this turn of events. Will we try and fight in our own strength or will we turn to God and repent for having served other god’s including ourselves? The church’s sin is great and it grows by the day! We are not walking with God nor are we serving Him, other than in word or mental assent. God is looking for more. He is looking for people who will deny self and what self wants and turn to Him, no matter the cost.

Let the human operatives who are cooperating with evil forces think they have done us grave harm in taking down this display of the Ten Commandments. Let them think they are gaining ground in society by removing references to our ways of thinking and living. We are not a religion or even merely religious therefore we are not to fight against flesh and blood, (cf. Eph. 6:12). We are not disenfranchised the least by this little effort on the part of atheist or secularists. We can live and speak all we want. Better yet we can serve both our enemies and those in need with the very essence of what we know to be right, if we don’t waste our time and ability on outrage that only supports a temporal existence. If we worked emulating Christ rather than protecting a token regarding Him, this is a far greater display of what we believe. We can trust in God because we are not depending on man and what man might do.

Palin is merely window dressing. McCain is still a liberal, left of Kennedy in the 1960s. It is true that Palin may see the driver’s seat at McCain’s age. Yet, this is not what the political system is betting on. They are betting the voting public will go along with the offering that is being made. It certainly is a choice, unmasked Socialism in Obama and more moderate Liberalism in McCain, but Liberalism indeed cloaked by a religious conservative. Folks this is no choice. It is an ambush. The political system is playing all odds against each other to see how little voters will settle for.

There is no winner in this situation. People who say they follow Christ ought to really follow Him and not help perpetuate a system that continually offers more compromised, lesser of two evils. We ought to quit hoping to postpone ultimate “evil” by by voting in one who is less evil. That is like settling for a demon over and against the devil himself. Where in scripture do you find an admonition first of all to make a choice under these circumstances? Secondly, where in scripture do you find support for considering yourself, as a follower of Christ, to be part of the society of mere men who have not been regenerated? And thirdly, is the only form of presenting what you believe to the world have to be done through a political platform?

I am glad Christ was not like the modern church person. I am glad He was an alternative to the political left and right of His day. I am glad that His kingdom is not of this world, so that the kingdoms of this world would be upstaged and made insignificant.

I am however, very saddened that believers today think, unscripturally I might add, that their place is to help perpetrate a kingdom of the world while they deny and abdicate their duty and unadulterated service to the Kingdom of the God they claim to follow.

America will continue to careen downhill and off a cliff until either it is too late or until the supposed believers within it recognize their adulterous affair with the state and repent, so the unregenerate can see their real condition and also repent. Partisan politics is not mightier than the alternative Christ was in His time on earth and His kingdom still is. God is not saying “Vote” for McCain. Politics has put in your head that it would be best to vote for McCain as the country continues to lumber towards totalitarianism.

America may be the greatest empire to grace the planet in man’s efforts to prove God wrong; that man can be good without Him… America does not know God, how could they? Church people, most of them, do not know God and they say they are in the business of representing Him. Is America anywhere close to competing with the Kingdom of God? If not why are you excited or worried about this election?

This election is not so much about choosing a president than it is about casting another vote for your real god.

Sincerely,

Timothy L. Price

Recently, the house church trend is taking America by storm. House church has been in practice for a long time, but in the past 5-8 years there has been a precipitous increase in groups moving into this format of church. Two recent books, The Coming Revolution, by well-known researcher George Barna, and The Shaping of Things To Come, hale examples and statistics concerning this trend. There is also a plethora of new books, websites, and organizations, popping up all over America, concerning this revised approach to church.

Before we go out and jump off the deep-end, trying to start our own group and thinking we’ll catch the proverbial wave, we should think about a couple details. A chief consideration should be: What has really changed through this new approach to church in America? Another point of concern should be: Will this change—whatever this change may be—be effective towards making the church more of what God wants or just a change of scenery?

In much of the house church printed materials there is pandemic reference given to the change in church in the aftermath of Constantine the Great, 285-337AD. For a quick overview, Constantine embraced the church, revolutionizing it. He brought it out of the shadows and periphery of the Roman-world, institutionalizing it into buildings, structures, and organizations directly connecting it to the society and the state. In addition, he changed “conversion” to where edict, or military annexation, became the active means of “spreading the gospel.” Constantine’s armies conquered under the symbol of the Cross, bringing this bastardized form of “Christianity” into regions where it had not been introduced, on Roman social, political and cultural levels. It is said Constantine reinvented the way people have thought about church ever since his time.

Many house church theorists and leaders see Constantine, perhaps, as the most corrupting individual in church history. But even with this view, there doesn’t seem to be a connection between the observations that the changes under Constantine were bad and a move to track them down in our own day to rid ourselves of these errors. If Constantine were really as bad as he is made out to be, you’d think eradicating the problems he instituted would be the top order of the day. Many authors stop at identifying the point where the church went off into tremendous error. They correlate this point to various surface details, such as: the introduction of buildings, hierarchal structures, ritual practices, and the inventions of traditions. These introductions signal epic change. However, few writers deal with the real problems of the Constantinian church; like the confusion over the believers’ true identity, assimilation of the church into secular society, and how this changed the way we relate to the non-believing world.

All is to say, there continues to be several wide chasms separating what we see of the church in the early decades after Christ, or in the church in oppressive states, from our own attempt to recapture these “hallowed” experiences in this modern movement. While we’d like to think we are emulating the former in our efforts, but we haven’t really stepped into their shoes yet. For all the talk of cutting off Constantine, we have not made it as far away from him as we think. Here’s why:

1. Church people in America think of themselves in a pluralism: spiritual and physical. First, they think of themselves as Christians, the spiritual aspect. At the same time they equally identify themselves as Americans, the physical parallel. This observation seems inane but consider what is statistically aggregated about the church1 in this country and it will become apparent that one loyalty is being served at the expense of the other (cf. Matt 6:24*). Lesslie Newbigin alludes to the problem of dueling loyalties when he wrote: “In the twentieth century we have become accustomed to the fact that in the name of the nation, Catholics with fight Catholics, Protestants will fight Protestants… but the charge of treason, of placing another loyalty above that to the nation state, is treated as the unforgivable crime.” 2

These diluting factors go unnoticed in the church, even in house church. What we really think of ourselves, as being Americans, operates just fine. The other association, of being followers of Christ, is just given mental assent. It appears to be thought there is no conflict of interests in this pluralism. We have been taught “for God and Country” for years, but where did this come from? Does the New Testament teach us this? Was Paul stumping for Israel and Rome, as well as God, on his missionary trips? If he was, why did he write some of his epistles under house arrest? And why did his “countrymen according to the flesh” create the situation where he ended up under house arrest? Rather we find that the idea “for God and Country” came straight out of the much clamored about Constantinian change.3 But those decrying this change, under Constantine, say very little about how the idea “for God and Country” contrasts the gospel that Christ and Paul taught and how it effected: church/state relations, the believer’s identity and the way we relate to the world.

The current form of Constantinian church assimilates “Christianity” into an American identity. This means that most believers in this country walk into their fellowships more as Americans than followers of Christ.4 This assertion can be leveled because believers in America have never been taught or required to disavow their allegiances to the lifestyle, mindset, values, objectives, and identity of the unrepentant world around them, which is evident by the way they live. What are Americans, and no less church people, most known for? They are known for being: rugged individualists, self-sufficient, proud, nationalistic, materialistic, indebted most of the time, self-righteous, consumeristic, patriotic, focused on relaxation and recreation, self-absorbed, sentimental, very giving, guilt ridden, defensive, self-conscious, and hedonistic. In addition, Christians are no less rights-oriented than the unregenerate world around them. They, just like non-believers, require others to mind their rights to the point of being litigious or vengeful if crossed. The vast majority of church folks march in lock step with the values and objectives of the non-believing world around them with few exceptions. Therefore, there is no tangible difference between “Christians” and non-Christians in America. This is just one chasm.

2. Another major expanse that separates the house church in the West from being directly comparable to the early church or the modern oppressed church is the fact that we have not divested the wares of the institutional church. These are simply being reverse-engineered into much of the house church. Many of the mechanisms of the institutional church are migrating directly into the house church experience; methods focus, program focus, being personality driven, a parade of certain gifts at the expense of all others. These are just of few of the sinews that are transferring over into a significant portion the house church experience. Huge organizations are popping up in support of the house church, which is thought to be greasing the axles to gear up for huge spiritual exploits. In addition, church is still very much of an activity, though more relational in a house setting.

3. A third abyss preventing us from being able to compare the house church movement in America to the early church or the church in closed countries, is that we have not considered our part in suffering and persecution. Our Americanized value of comfort and ease has led us down the wide path of least resistance. The Scriptures tell us that followers of Christ will be hated and persecuted on account of His name (cf. Luke 6:27, John 15:18-20, 2 Tim. 3:12). Persecution was not to be an exception, even if we live in an allegedly tolerant country. Persecution and suffering should be expectations, the very marks of authentication for the true gospel being lived and taught in consistency to Christ and Paul. The absence of real persecution, not to be confused with someone sticking their tongue out at us, strongly suggests that we aren’t teaching the same gospel as both Christ and Paul. Therefore, we must be teaching another “Jesus” who as been Americanized for the spiritual palette of those who want nothing more than mental assent, platitudes, and easy-believism.

The house church welcomes the shackles of man’s effort to ease the fear of having to wait quietly on God for His timing and direction. This became apparent, after I attended several national house church conferences during the past two years. No! We have to be busy, hard-at-work—we wouldn’t want God to find us waiting, even though we are lost in fleshly means and techniques! Jacques Ellul once wrote: “The passion for language [constant talking], analysis and hermeneutics is the unintentional expression of God’s silence.”5 If God isn’t speaking and directing, then what are we doing?

Frankly, we need a modern-day Pentecost, where we once again start to receive power and direction from God. This is not to be confused with a charismaniac holy-roller event. This is an event that will revive what God wants to do through the church, once man has sat down, clasped his hand over his mouth, and waited upon the Holy Spirit. This will be an event where God removes the dead works of religion, misconception, misunderstandings and foolishness so closely associated to church even the house church. A careful study of the book of Acts will reveal that the Apostles foolish ideas of establishment in and identity with the physical-world around them totally changed in the wake of Pentecost. The house church in the West is still in love with the belonging and privileges that the Constantinian order provides. They don’t even realize that the church has become: the established, protected, social-order—a cog of society. This error has to be broken in order for us to find our soul and culture as the Kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men.

By ignorantly defaulting to the world’s culture around us (much like Lot in Sodom), we have compromised one of the main distinctives of who we really are. Without a culture and identity of our own, distinct from secular society around us, we will be unable to influence non-believers. Mental accent to a belief is not very distinct or practical. Non-believers are supposed to be able to distinguish between mere religion and what most Christians talk about, but they can’t because it’s the same thing. A new identity and culture, as the essence of conversion, is something even the blind can see. If we actually became the Kingdom of God, the house church, just like its institutional predecessors, would do much better at entering into the ambassadorship Paul spoke of (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20, Eph. 6:20). This is assuming that when Paul said he was an ambassador that we should be ambassadors also because he directed us to follow his example (cf. 1 Cor. 4:16, 11:1, 1 Thes. 1:6). We cannot be ambassadors to our own people; therefore, we need to set ourselves apart from the people of this world.

The people in house church need to enlist as real soldiers, not part-time second-stringers. 2 Timothy 2:3-4 tells us that we are soldiers: “No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who has enlisted him as a soldier” (NASB). This text is a contrast to civilians (people in the kingdoms of men) who do entangle themselves in the things of everyday life so they cannot be pleasing to God, even if they “believe” in Him. This is one of many Bible texts that illustrate the idea of distinction between the world and the church. Are we active duty, or are we the second stringers? Or worse yet, have we gone back to civilian living just to “play” church (which has most recently gone back into houses to try to make it more intimate, hoping to recapture something profound)?

In analyzing this biopsy of the emerging house church in America, I do not want anyone to dismiss it for all its problems. God is clearly doing something! Having people from all areas of the institutional church at the same time—from Fundamental/Evangelical types to those with various Charismatic or Mainline backgrounds—seeking simpler more flexible means of worship and fellowship, is not because of the will of men. My point in this piece is to warn of huge problems, which left unchecked will make the house church stagnant, ingrown and nothing more than a change of scenery. If we do not go under The Divine Surgeon’s knife, Constantine will continue to be meeting with us in our living rooms and we will not have made any substantive change. House church is not a panacea or an escape; it’s a merely a means to an end. That end is emulating Christ and fellowshipping with Him and each other. If we truly emulate Christ, won’t what was done to Him also be done to us? We are in the Kingdom of God to die “to self, to family, to country, and to humanity.”6 This is where we will have the fellowship of His sufferings, a unique and irreplaceable bond with God.

Footnotes:

1. Timothy L. Price, The Diluted Church, Ekklesia Press, pp. 32-44
2. Lesslie Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984, Church House Publishing, Cambridge, UK, pp. 13-15
3. Leonard Verduin, Reformers and their Stepchildren, Eerdmans Pub. Grand Rapids MI, pg. 32
4. Timothy L. Price, The Diluted Church, Ekklesia Press, pp. 86-95.
5. Jacques Ellul, Hope in a Time of Abandonment, Seabury Press, pg. 141
6. Bob Sjogren, Unveiled at Last, YWAM Publishers, pg. 17

Recommended Reading:

• Houses That Change The World, by Wolfgang Simson
• The Shaping Of Things To Come, by Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost
• Resident Aliens, by Stanley Hauerwas
• The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, by Leonard Verduin
• Unveiled at Last, by Bob Sjogren
• The Diluted Church, by Timothy L. Price

The Letter to the Editor on 12/6/05 entitled: “Christ in Christmas” is another fine illustration of the dominating ideas of Christians. American society is not homogeneously Christian or even religious, so why should society have to tolerate a public religious observance they don’t believe in? Laughably the Christian idea of tragedy at Christmas is that Christ is not as celebrated at this juncture of the societal calendar, as he used to be.

The real tragedy of Christmas is that those who claim Christ as their leader do very little of what He did. He gave his life to give mankind the opportunity to come back into relationship with God. Statistically Christians barely give 2% of their income to people in ministry who are actually following Christ in this way. Those who merely seek representation in society’s celebrations fail to see that Christ would be better celebrated by personally emulating his example.

This perennial drivel, about Christ not being kept in Christmas, represents whiners, malcontents, and complainers who are out of touch with reality. They gripe about the absence, or at least the downturn, in representation of their beliefs in the public square. The public square is actually much better off when religious people aren’t constantly parading ideas they are proud of, expecting non-believers to go along with it, as much as when they become servants in the public square as Christ was.

Part of the divisiveness of politics comes from vigorously held religious ideals lingering underneath the bi-party system of politics in this country. Both sides hold religious mindsets and use the Bible, but in strikingly differing ways. Conservatives use it to try and prove the preeminence their case over that of the Liberal. But more subtly, perhaps without know it, they also construct a rigid pharisaic system that motivates and separates them from everybody else. Religious Liberals use the Bible too, but they are more moved by what they see in the human predicament, seeking to apply what they hold to in the Bible to what they see.

Naturally a belief is for living out, but this doesn’t mean that politics is the place we should do it? What I am getting at is that there are more similarities between the two groups than differences. Both equally seek the political realm as a means to live out their beliefs in society. For starters both groups are political. Both groups claim the Bible as a means or at least a perspective. Both try to control policy according to their way of seeing things. Both engage one another in a competition of inherently religious ideals. Both try and increase their market share come election time.

While many would agree to all this what we may not have seen is that both are merely flip sides of the same coin. Another point we may fail to see is that both groups are taking part in a system that is bigger than they are. It is this “bigger thing” that we should look into. What compromise does one have to make to be a part of such a system? Is any of the most basic essence of what we hold to, lost to the system when we us it as a means to “live out” our belief?

It is this bigger system Jacques Ellul refers to when he wrote: “the moment one confines oneself to the basic notions of the problem as defined by non-Christians, (the world). In doing so, Christians achieve an exact confirmation of the analysis of Marx, according to which Christianity is (merely) a superstructure (in a larger organism). Christians, if you refer to them as either Liberal or Conservative, only confirm a system that is beyond them when they engage their “faith” through political means. They are not as much living what they believe as they are perpetuating and empowering a system through which they’ve chosen to voice their beliefs.

What does this really say? It says that the system is preeminent, not the messages being floated through it by various factions. It also diminishes the true uniqueness of the messages people try to voice through the system, as I shall articulate further down. In the short term this system and process in reality turns everything into shades of difference rather than total differences as opposite sides would imply.

Those hoping to be like Christ, for whatever reason, by exclusively using the political system, in trying to “live out their belief”, are immediately disqualified because Christ did nothing like this modern tendency. He never floated what He “believed” through the systems of men. In fact it is never recorded that He “believed” anything. Some may say that He did not have the opportunity to work through a government, an obvious allusion to the modern systems of representative government. This thinking is a joke because whether a regime of Christ’s era represented you, because you were part of the elite or it oppressed you as a paean, it always turned on a dime in response to rebellion. In addition, in similar ways it responded to being upstaged. Every solution was then, as it is now, the systems solution favoring the “sacred” institution of the state.

Christ did things in response to problems and issues, but on His own terms. In one instance, Jesus said tons about the cultures’ treatment of women and slaves without actually saying a word, or going the Sanhedrin, to Herod or Pilate. Women in those days had about, as much value as a mop handle and slavery was rampant. When visitors came to someone’s house, it was the slave woman’s job to tend to the visitors dirty feet. Now we are talking about the lowest part of society here. Yet in John 13:3-8, Jesus stripes down to His underwear, something a Jewish leader would never do, and immediately shrieks of emotion removed the oxygen from the room. Next He takes up a washbasin, grabs the disciple’ feet and again the oxygen leaves the room, as He begins washing the Disciple’s feet. The social implications of what He did were so outrageous, because only women slaves were good enough to wash people’s nasty feet. Good teachers were thought to be above ever stooping to this level. Yet, Christ made a statement in what He did, not a reaction to what some else did or did not do.

Christ dethrones the systems of men by doing what it refused to do and doing it outside of their means of slow controlled culture change for the expediency of the state… Christ ministered to the needs of people, being devalued and demeaned, by valuing them in ways the society had used to oppress them. Christ didn’t need a political platform, a place provided by the state to air complaints and work out clumsy laws that barely meets needs. He did not need to find people to say things better and create an issue for society to bat around in public debate for a while before a screwed up government solution was hammered out that would fit all the special-interest requirements.

Questions to Ponder:

1. If Christ did not use the political system to do his work, and we look to the Bible as a guide of sorts and consider Christ as a leader, why don’t we see His example and take notes?

2. Why do we need to form behind a faction of the political system today over issues they create and maintain to obtain a following?

3. Why do we allow ourselves to be divided over issues they develop and propagandize, when we can be like Christ and step out of the group politics and meet needs?

We will no longer be compromised in our work by depending on a system or other people in that system to carry our water for us, as religious conservatives and liberals tend to be. We’ll be able to provide a true alternative rather becoming either a synthesis of the political process (a dialectic reduction according to Hegelian theory) or the acrimonious polar options such as Conservatives are currently peddling as the lead purveyor according to this last election. We’ll not be frozen out of empowerment do to a system that pits competitors against each other for the chance to “lead.”

Christ was altogether different than the politicos of our day or conservative/liberal plebeians that empower them. The uniqueness of Christ, aside from obviously being the Son of God, is that He acted exclusively out of what His Father showed Him to do, (cf. John 5:19; 5:30; 6:38 and 8:28). Many today would back away from attaining this level of relationship with God. But the scripture is clear that God still has things to say, and we should be listening. Revelations mentions the phrase, “let him who has ears to hear, let him hear WHAT THE SPIRIT IS SAYING,” several times. Notice the present perfect tense of God saying and continuing to say things in this phrase. Notice that this phrase is repeated in the New Testament in various forms at least 16 times. This should indicate that God wants to show us what we should be doing.

When we step into the political realm as the exclusive means to “live out” our belief we are tempted most of the time to react to the stimuli the system throws at us, rather than acting on what God is showing us to do. Many times Jesus paid little attention to the systems’ antics as we can see in one story of the woman taken in the “act,” (cf. John 8:3-9). As Jesus is confronted with this weighty moral issue, He squats down and starts doodling in the dirt! The guys buttonholing Him are not some common folk; they are the “important leaders of the community.”

The Jewish ruling class was totally upstaged by Jesus, who were usually more absorbed with more exterior moral appearances and their own high positions in society than anything else. And with respect to Jesus Christ, they became paranoid about their political importance. Notice the High Priest’s fear in the comments recorded in Acts 5:28. In John 6:15 the 5000 Christ just fed intended to forcibly make Jesus king, which would be a loss of power for the current regime. Matthew 5:46 shows the malice of the leadership of Israel towards Christ. They were becoming less significant to the public and they feared it.

More Questions to Ponder:

1. Is the political realm solving the issues people face everyday? Or are they making problems bigger as a means to gather a following by the issues that are created from these problems?

2. Politically once you have a following, you need to maintain it. This doesn’t happen if there are no issues to dangle in front of people.

3. Are all people empowered to be helpful through the political system? Or are people just pitted against one another for preeminence in how change is going to be implemented through the system?

If we don’t have serious questions about using the political system as a means to meaningfully live out our faith, we ought to! We will find that we are more capable then the political system wants us to be. We will also find that change will happen much easier when we are listening to God and following Him. We can look at both the Liberal and Conservative agendas over the years and wag our heads because of the ineffectiveness of either side. In contrast to this, can we find any situation in the Bible where people obeyed God exactly in everything He told them to do and it failed? I think not!

How can we as believers lump ourselves in with the body politic called The United States of America? On what basis can we still consider our destiny as one with this temporal entity, albeit a 225-year old country we happen to be born in? It is exactly this problem of identifying with America that even allows us to consider the matter of a just cause in a war with Iraq as a serious discussion. If we did not consider ourselves to be American what would it matter? We should discuss the validness of seeing our identity as still being “American” after we have chosen to follow Christ.

The first question we must ask is rhetorical, was Jesus an American? The answer is of course NO! If he was not and we are following Him how can we still be as we were before we came to Christ? See: Philippians 3:20, Hebrews 13:14 and John 18:36. With this rhetorical question and answer out of the way let’s look at other written authorization for what we say we believe, what does it say? More than 11 times in the New Testament there is a phrase repeated in one form or another that has gone unnoticed it would seem for nearly 1700 years. That phrase is, “There is no distinction between Greek or Jew” is either repeated or intimated in the following scriptures Acts 15:9, 26:23 Roman 1:14-16, 2:9-26, 3:22, 10:12, I Corinthians 1:24, 12:12-13, Galatians 3:28, Ephesians. 2:11-22 Colossians. 3:11.

The significance of these statements for us today is exactly the same as it was then. First of all, no nationality is preeminent over the others so as to subject all others to itself. Secondly, we as believers share a common bond with all other believers the world over as being one entity. Additional, it can be noted that the idea of only two types of people existing in this world was also fostered in the early church. There were only believers and non-believers. The reason was is that when a person chose Christ, they also chose to be an alien in this world. A cursory review of early church history would back this up.

So how does this tie into the topic of discussing a just cause? Basically it dissolves the need to quantify the justness of cause in war because we are not citizens of this world any longer. To act or think from the perspective of the world is to denigrate who and what we really are. It is also to walk off the path of being able to minister as God had intended. The world should be able to come to us and expect to find comfort, love, truth and a higher purpose. If all we can do is discuss their matters of existence from one of their sides of the argument or the other, we make it difficult to minister to all the people. We will only be able to minister to those who share the same side we have chosen of any issue, be it foreign policy, welfare, the death penalty or any such other. We will offend the detractors of the side we have chosen over that one issue. There is only one issue that we can be on one side of and that is Salvation!

Secondly, the commission of war is not a blessing. Yet those who do not take the sides of factions in war can bless both sides. We can see people like Richard Wurmbrand in his work doing this. Mabel Francis a missionary to Japan during the war did this… We need not to see whose right or wrong concerning a single issue and get behind the former. We need to see that God has a higher purpose than a worldly assessment of right and wrong in an issues atmosphere. God is not for America or Iraq. He is for His Kingdom and the only bearing concerning either one of these countries in regards to His Kingdom is our concern. What are we doing about that?

The world and its “god” seek to pull us in on things like taking sides on ever issue of life to the demise The Issue of life. If we do not see our position and identity correctly we will get down in the hog trough of the world’s playground and play with it at the demise of this issue. We need to be re-educated in who and what we are. We can no longer say, “for God and Country”. It can only be for God or for country, but not both. You must decide on whose side you are on and then begin to live out of those realities.