Up until recently, I confess that I wouldn’t have even thought to press deeper into this subject. I had already concluded the alleged wisdom of apologetically engaging Evolutionary thought, especially as it has become so widely accepted. Although, as I have begun to peel the layers of the onion, man’s thinking which I have accepted, I find a rather odd situation. I find myself rethinking that which would seem to most religious people; impossible to rethink. Here’s why.

So many questions as to why we would engage the argument of Evolution have surfaced since I have started to rethink the real essence of apologetics and its recent expression in Creationism. These aren’t the garden-variety basic questions. These questions are the type that in answering them honestly; will demand for more invasive questions. Questions we don’t have simple answers for, questions whose answers divulge our true purposes; stripped of the smooth justifications we’ve given them.

Questions aren’t just the means of discovery; sometimes they are the means of discovering how we have hidden the truth from ourselves. Discovery, say I? Indeed! To discover, one can question what is thought to be foregone conclusions as well as what is still obscure. If great discoverers in history hadn’t questioned certain accepted conclusions, it is unthinkable to imagine where civilization might still be today had these inquisitives not grappled with what had been accepted as correct.

Should religious sentiments be reserved from this process of question?

Certainly, we cannot say that mankind, even having entered the sanctuary of what is held to be sacred, is somehow incapable of error in understanding, venture or even point-of-view. Many would be quick to admit simple shortcomings in ecclesiastical history in an attempt to downplay the big screw-ups. But what about errors which do not appear to be huge, that later staggers the mind? A short look at religious history, even in the traditions to which we are accustomed, should erase any confidence that we    are unquestionably correct in all things, even most things. The core points in our understanding are probably solid; we have sizable amounts of evidence and support for these [the nature of Christ, the authenticity of the Bible and so forth]. Yet, there remain large points Christians hold to such as: various types of Millennialism just as one example, that have much less authorization to assure us of true correctness. Even so, huge numbers of people unequivocally subscribe to these ideas without question.

It is areas such as these where we should be exceptionally careful and readily willing to reconsider. That which mankind as a whole, saved or unsaved, knows for a fact; is minuscule compared to that which even the most brilliant among us do not know. Therefore, only fools can afford to be close-minded and declare that they are fully correct on a large quantity of concepts and perspectives. The discussion of origins is one such area to which more is unknown than we will ever “know” for sure. Therefore, we need to illustrate being readily willing to reconsider matters, because there are more of them than we think.

Here are a few questions to think about:

1. Why do Christians feel the need to justify/prove their belief in scientific terms?
2. Does God require people to understand everything about Him or His word to initially commit themselves to His way and/or to stay committed?
3. Are followers of Christ disenfranchised by the content, approach or essence of the Evolutionist?
4. What would happen if Christ’s followers generally did not engage the Evolutionist according to their foolishness?
5. What purpose does it serve to engage the discussion of the Evolutionist from within the terms and mindset they use?
6. What are the real issues in the Evolution/Creation debate?

These questions are tremendous for sure. For many they’ll stir anger, while others will be baffled. In addition, there are lots of church people who just don’t want to think about this stuff. One can only question why. If there is potential error or if we could be deceiving ourselves, what does it hurt to dig a little deeper? The point of posing such questions is to lead us to still more questions that will uncover the real issues at play. Let’s start with the first one and work it out from there.

Question 1
Why do Christians feel the need to justify/prove their belief in scientific terms?

Creationism is just one branch of Christian apologetics, just as Evolution is one branch of Atheistic apologetics. Creationism is to the religious what Evolution is to the anti-religious. Both are reactions to the other. Neither justifies nor proves anything other than, two groups will air their philosophical wares in direct reaction to one another. This is done in order to attract anyone foolish enough to take part in the insignificance and sophism of religion and anti-religion.

Conservative religious people involved in kingdom-of-the-world-thinking often believe that their enemies are the liberals, the gay activist, the ACLU, the pro-choice advocates, the Evolutionists, and so on…Demonizing one’s enemies is a part of the tit-for-tat game of Babylon, for only by doing so do we justify our animosity, if not violence, towards them. What we have here [the religious right and apologetics] is [a] religious version of the kingdom of the world. (emphasis and inclusions are mine for clarity)

– Dr. Greg Boyd –
Myth of a Christian Nation, pg. 48

It is thought that Christians need to defend the Gospel by using apologetics. This seems wise; however, how does this square with the Bible telling us that the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing (2 Cor. 4:3). Therefore, if a person/culture is purposely darkened in their minds, then how can we appeal to them even if we contextualize our appeal within their logic? We are to share the Gospel there is no question. Yet, if people are not interested and they readily hold to something as foolish as Evolution to justify their avoidance of God, why do we pursue them? Answering a fool according to his foolishness can many times be a diluting venture (Prov. 26:4).

What happens to our relationship with God in the process of contextualizing it in terms and concepts that the scientific minded will allow themselves to agree with? Are Christians somehow isolated by their beliefs [God’s account of “the beginning” in Genesis]? Are they so uncomfortable with it just as God put it, that they would redefine it into more acceptable language and concepts [Creationism/intelligent design] so as to fit in with the discussions of society allegedly to get non-believing people to see believing God is not really blind faith?

If there is no accommodation [to the culture] Christianity is unintelligible and cannot be spread; if there is too much accommodation it will be spread, but will no longer be Christian.

– Roland H. Bainton –

What if Christians did not attempt describing their beliefs in scientific terms? Would they loose adherence, or voice in the market place of ideas? The tendency to contextualize our ideas in this way seems to be more of an attempt to fit in and be accepted by the culture around us than any else. Thus, security and place in society seems to be more of a drive behind Creationism than it ever would be a means to get people into relationship with God. Look at output from the circles that are doing this type of teaching [Creationism/Apologetics]. The value of a an approach will be verified by its product, if we aren’t looking here then we are selling ourselves short and possibly accepting the traditions of men as being the truth of God.

Our best minds were enlisted in the Constantinian enterprise of making faith credible to the powers that be so that Christians might now have a share in those powers [of the state].  After all, we would never be culturally significant if we Christians talked a language unintelligible to the Empire.  Apologetics is based on the political assumption that Christians somehow have a stake in transforming our ecclesial claims into intellectual assumptions that will enable us to be faithful to Christ while still participating in the political structures of a world that does not know Christ.

– Stanley Hauerwas –
Resident Aliens, pg. 22

I fail to see the justification for accepting as legitimate all the questions about the revelation, more or less, brought up from different points of view, while at the same time refusing to question those systems, methods, and conclusions from the point of view of revelation.

– Jacques Ellul –
Hope In A Time of Abandonment, pg. 145

Engaging the Evolutionist on their terms only expands in direct relationship to the antithesis of Evolution, not because of an intrinsic necessity or purpose of making “Creationism” known or available to the needy masses. More directly, if there weren’t Evolutionists trying to negate, what was formerly culturally accepted concerning the Bible, there would be no “Creationist” apologetics. For centuries, Christian’s believed the Bible because it was God’s word. They didn’t believe the Bible because they could prove it in contrast to some sarcastic sophist using Evolution to try and refute it.  Thus, Creationism is only the synthesis product of a dialectic process.*

*Note: Dialectics is an observable process by which a thesis is changed to a synthesis when an antithesis has been brought against it. To put it in plain terms: the acceptance of God’s explanation of origins (the thesis) becomes modified to a philosophical/scientific pursuit [to try and make mystery acceptable to unregenerate men and those who might listen to them] (a synthesis) when an alternate belief was foisted on the world’s population (the antithesis). This process is only based on the presupposition that Christians and their beliefs should be accepted in society and that Christians are trying to maintain this power-over* position. The fact that the antithesis [Evolution] has the potential to fuel persecution and harm makes the threat posed by Evolution supposedly worthy of engagement. However, when we change the simple explanations of God for complex arguments that will satiate man’s desire to seem high-minded we fail to be saying the same things as God and we confirm men in their endless pursuit of foolishness.

*Note: This “Power-Over” concept was elaborated on by Dr. Greg Boyd in his new book, The Myth of a Christian Nation. Boyd describes a mindset where Christians are dominant in society as a means of maintaining control for themselves. He contrasts this with what was evident of Christ, “Power-Under” expression that describes Christ’s servanthood: a vulnerable position.

It does not appear as though the higher-thinkers behind the Creationist movement understand the craft and ploys of the enemy. They seem to be totally ignorant of his schemes. I am almost sure God is flummoxing from the Evolutionist onslaught, not really. So, if God is not worried about the threat of physical violence, isolation and cultural insignificance that will come as a part of Evolution becoming more dominate and enmeshed in society, and if He did not answer some foolish questions by making His words foolish enough for the fools to accept, why should we? After all, He only spoke for those who had ears to hear with, not those who had ears but refused to understand what He was saying, because they didn’t want to. Are we here to serve like Christ or to dominate for our own purposes like religion?

Question 2
Does God require people to understand everything about Him or His word to initially commit themselves to His way and/or to stay committed?

Many Christians bemoan the complexity that Evolutionary thinking adds to the process of winning souls. I have heard numerous; talk-show hosts, pastors and teachers say that having “Creationism” as a commonly understood idea in society makes the job       of evangelism easier.* What hogwash! If the unregenerate will accept a scien-tific/philosophical explanation of origins on the basis that it makes sense to their darkened mind, of what need is there for the gospel that Christ taught; a stumbling block and foolishness to the “wise” and “learned?” Just what perspective would this kind of “convert” be converting to, if they already accept a rendition of God’s perspective, e.g. Creationism?

It is a major error to even think finite man can start to explain/understand God in His infiniteness. It is even a bigger error to think that the darkened mind of the unregenerate would be able to or should even allowed to think they understand God. If man thinks, he can explain the infinite God; though he is only finite, then God isn’t God anymore; man becomes god in that process. The apologetic mind places too much emphasis on knowledge and knowing about “God” and argumentation rather than knowing God. Those who are in a vital relationship with God are not likely to stray, fall or walk a way from Him. Those who are in an actual relationship with God will be so dynamic in their work, ministry and conversation that the atheist sophist will not be able to contend with that kind of reality. Basically, the apologist is promoting religion and a belief system rather than relationship with the Almighty.

*Note: See my interview with Bob Dutko of WMUZ in Detroit, Michigan @ http://www.kingdomcitizenship.org/book/bdutkointerview.html. This is just one way in which I can document the idea that Christians think that creationism being accepted and prevalent in society makes it easier to witness and Evolution makes it more difficult.

Question 3
Are followers of Christ disenfranchised by the content, approach or essence of the Evolutionist?

If there was any disenfranchisement for Christians due to the content or approach of the Evolutionist it is because of two factors: the weakened position of the Christian by trying to protect the security of a temporal belonging and being confined to somebody else’s argument because the power of a transformed life does not exist within a belief system. Let me explain further.

If there is only one way to deal with a problem, then when we are faced with that problem we are limited to the single solution by which the problem is said to be dealt with successfully. Take for instance a hole in a boat. The only way the hole can be surely fixed is to patch it from the outside. Many problems are like this [having one solution] yet many are not. What do I mean by this? Sometimes we limit ourselves either by “conventional wisdom” or by lack of creativity. Concerning the problem of what the Evolutionist mindset will do to society; traditional wisdom says that Christians should fight back point-for-point, never mind what the scriptures say, (2 Cor. 10:4*, Eph. 6:12). However, combating Evolution from within its mindset or approach will not do what the Creationists think it will.

*Note: This text is commonly misunderstood because of the verse that follows it and a concept based from it was catalyzed and embellished by the Constantinian change in the church in 325AD. Since Constantine, the church has seen itself as the establishment or the force in society that maintains morality, justice and every good thing. Thus, the organized church has seen its job in a physical here-and-now sense as the force of God for maintaining these aspects in whatever society it has found itself. The “church” has become very procrustean in this aspect to the point of committing atrocities equal to Hitler’s holocaust. Thus, belief is just a matter of religion and mental assent, not the co-existive relational reality which Jesus, Paul and the early church gave evidence of. Thus, 2 Corinthians 10:4 is shoveled under the rug in favor of verse 5 which has been the proof text for religious domination and many of the “churches” worst blunders for more than a millennia.

Since the Evolutionist’s theories are subjective and based on anti-god, the speculations are endless. To engage such a pig-in-a-poke discussion is to become the same. We are chasing shadows and vapors; engaging Evolution is a ruse! The question we should ask ourselves is; why we would engage an enemy that is speculative and nebulous, in other words it’s not concrete or substantive? If we answer this question we will find out that our motive isn’t so much to make it easy to witness, or that we are protecting people from being inoculated against God by foolish theories or that we are standing up for truth. The fact is that the Christians’ dominance in western society is threatened and this is the real motive that drives the “culture wars,” and the “belief/ideas wars.”

Several things disenfranchise Christians and the reaction to the “attack of Evolution” merely reveals this to be true. Evolution is not a literal danger as in an army parked outside your gate, which is ready to storm the doors; annihilating all behind it as in the siege of Jerusalem… Christians are disenfranchised in that they have no means to incarnate the truth of God in today’s living because what they subscribe to is mainly belief, not the relationship, which ironically they commonly tout. Relationship, and that which comes out of it, will out-strip theories and postulations any day! Christians are disenfranchised by their own hollowness and ineptness, not by the speculations and ravings of darkened minds. Culturally, Christians have a form of godliness but they deny its power (2 Tim. 3:5).

We have to be careful about which analysis to which we will subscribe. Will we pay attention to the creationist/religionist analysis that is worried about their own importance and place in a temporal society; trying to maintain it through domination, rational ideas, court appeals and political maneuvering? Or, will we listen to the prophetic analysis that calls the church to be an eternal alternative in the context of the temporal situation of the societies of men, co-existing with them as ambassadors?

Question 4
What would happen if Christ’s followers generally did not engage the Evolutionist according to their foolishness?

It is thought that Evolution will be society’s undoing. This idea gives us a clue as to the real motives of the Creationist apologetics. Will this undoing really happen, and what will happen to the Christian in this situation? I would agree with the Creationist that Evolution has had a hugely negative effect on society; people have become animal like since the theory has been widely taught… I would also agree that Evolutionist thought will eventually cause great persecution upon the religious as well as many faithful followers of Christ.* However, I don’t think this is a bad thing. The society that totally embraces Evolution and the natural extremes that will come along because of it, will be in stark contrast to the true followers of Christ sprinkled around in their midst. As the dark becomes darker, the light becomes more evident. Striking a lighter will not be noticed in broad daylight, but strike that same lighter in a pitch black cave 300 feet underground in a group of people and it will not be unnoticed.

Note: The reasons for this differentiation [religious and faithful follower of Christ] are manifold. Persecution will come mainly from the foolishness and hypocrisy of Christians, which parade as followers of Christ. Society is growing sick of their domination, whining and control based from religious ideas. Christians fail to see that they are controlling and that they are trying to hold on to cultural dominance, for their own purposes and with esoteric ideas, in a culture that has had enough of their headtrip. Christians have made God odious to the common man with all their shenanigans. The follower of Christ will bear the guff of a society that is sick of “the Christian.” Christians are quickly digging their own grave. In addition, God wants to purify His bride and this only happens as persecution separates the false from the real.

The majority of Christendom feels that Evolution is an affront that cannot go unchallenged. Those who feel this way would also go chasing after an enemy just to find themselves in an ambush that was set for them ahead of time. The thought of a “christian” not engaging the Evolutionist is tantamount to asking a hunting dog not to give chase to an animal while out on a hunt. We’ve got the game wrong and we do not have Christ as an example. We need to become followers of Christ, instead of being Christians. There is a huge difference.

Christ sometimes did not answer a question leveled by the antagonists of His day. Evolutionists are generally antagonists, but there is generally no reason to engage them broad-based as the Creationist advocate. I wonder if Jesus was a Creationist? The Evolutionists’ arguments are hollow and subjective. They question just to find cause to dismiss God or base their hatred of Him. Their whole agenda is reactionary. Jesus would sometimes ask His own questions in response to the antagonist, and sometimes He would say nothing. His questions exposed their motives and prejudice and His silence enraged them because Christ’s silence did not give them satisfaction. Yet, either response was an action of power, security and purpose beyond survival and the prestige of belonging to the establishment. If Christians would become followers of Christ and tend to their business and realize that their place in society is that of an ambassador [not belonging], they would be able to incarnate truth the way Jesus did: in power and by the direction and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Answering a fool according to his folly, merely clouds the situation, the antagonist is made to feel engaged and important in his absurdity. He is given a place to stand just by the fact that his argument has been engaged. If truth is not being used to support the temporal establishments of men that are weak to ideas and being taken in and taken over throughout the centuries, then it will demonstrate the eternalness of the Kingdom to which we belong as followers of Christ. It will also demonstrate that ideas and mere men cannot weaken the Kingdom, or takeover, because it is outside of their control. The Kingdom of God does not belong to men; it belongs to God Himself and the followers of His Son. Therefore, we have a secure position from which to stand, minister and represent truth. The world [the collective of non-believers] or the anti-god antagonist cannot commandeer what they do not know. Therefore, if we play our game the right way the world cannot do much more than legitimize our way by attacking us because our alternative is a danger to their social order and control; the tables will be turned. Evolution is merely an antithesis; it is not an outright all out attack. Thus, Evolution is more of a danger for us when we engage it, than it is just because the idea exists.

Question 5
What purpose does it serve to engage the discussion of the Evolutionist from within the terms and mindset they use?

If we go to the local gambling joint [I am not advocating that we should, I am just using it as an illustration] and play their games according to their rules, we will loose more times than we ever win. However, if we “cheat” [I am not advocating this either just using it to make a point] or introduce some other dynamic into the game that they had not planned into their odds, we will win more. We are in a sinful world order that is passing away, therefore the world’s system is in greater danger of “loosing,” that is to say insecure, when we introduce God’s truth into their game by way of incarnating truth in their realm rather than trying to gain power in their system and dominate for our good purposes. Incarnation is a dynamic that comes from beyond us. The establishment of the world is temporal and weakened by the fluidity of human’s sin and the constant change of power being gained then lost to another. Therefore, we are more than conquerors through Christ, not through the world’s system.

The Evolutionist owns the language of the argument of origins because the society lives and thinks in scientific concepts with the idea that everything should be explainable. Evolution is a darkened idea that speaks to a society and world that is darkened. Evolutionist also control most of the venues from which the theory is commonly foisted. Society and its institutions are temporal so trying to get on top of their establishment and dominate it for our own purposes is a reductionist proposition and it is selfish. Engaging Evolution is also the way to nullify our Kingdom and make it confused with the here-and-now thinking of religion. In all the years, which Creationists have tried to engage the Evolutionists within their thinking, Christian have made very little impact at the street level. Evolution is still taught and infused in the day-to-day life of society. Society has become more animalistic in the mean time while Creationists fight for air time and continue to give less and less of a representation of truth and the Kingdom of God. God’s supposed believers are trying to engage a ridiculous argument in order to maintain control of a temporal situation so that they can continue to be comfortable in a world that is going to hell fast.

One weakness in the activities of Christians is that they tend to have very few different responses to any number of various attacks, challenges or comparisons that come against them. This is one reason for disenfranchisement. People look at Paul on Mars Hill and use this text and a couple others as proof texts to respond in with “apologetics” to any and all situations that challenge the beliefs of Christians in society. Apologetics has become over-rated and too commonplace. Many do not understand that Paul’s attempt to “philosophize” with the people at Athens was merely an attempt to contextualize his message in a way they might understand if they were inclined to. If they didn’t respond, he did not keep it up. Apologetics has gone from being a card that can be played to being the only card that religious people have to play. Paul tried apologetics a few different times for different reasons and then moved on to other outreaches. Since the change brought by Constantine, where the church became part of the State [the establishment] now this former approach of contextualization of the message has of Christ become a defense technique to dominate and maintain a hold on society.

If Evolution is false then prove it by applying God’s truth in concrete ways so that God’s way cannot be denied. Instead of looking at the past, trying to figure different ways to interpret “finds” so that Creationist thought is plausible to those who would normally fall for the ravings of Evolutionary theory, God’s truth should be applied to things going from now into the future. We should produce that which is superior in other areas to what Evolutionists try to develop based from their silly theories. When ideas based on God’s truth prove to be superior to ideas based on anti-god theories, this will disenfranchise the Evolutionist because their argument will not be the center of attention. We can argue about things that were in the past, where no one can say for sure about any of it because we weren’t there, but no one can argue with the facts of what is in front of them as a direct result of applying God’s truth unless they are idiots.

Question 6
What are the real issues in the Evolution/Creation debate?

The real issue concerning the Creation/Evolution debate is; just how stupid and temporal minded Christians are? They engage an argument that defies everything that we know of for sure in scripture. Evolution in no way erases or challenges scripture. Another issue is the argument shows that Christians are merely engaged in trying to maintain control of thought in society so that it will continue to be a nice place for us to hang our hats until Christ comes back. Still a third issue is the argument shows that Christians would rather use rational concepts which make sense to the darkened mind of unregenerate men than to show the world truth by its employ in the life of the believer. Fourthly, the argument shows that Christians are insecure in their dependence on being accepted in society and that this is the main reason that they engage the Evolutionist.

Evolution is the opiate of the Atheist masses. Evolution cannot make a sinner worse than he already is. If it is accepted and employed in society it can only make life harder in some ways for the so-called “Christian” and the follower of Christ. This is hardly a reason to combat Evolution; did Christ promise that following Him would be a bed of roses? Since this life is all that the Atheist/Evolutionist has (so they think) let them have their opiate, if it will make their life of hating or avoiding God easier. Proverbs 31:6-7 encourages us to, “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.”

The follower of Christ should welcome Evolution as a truth. Unregenerate man is little short of an animal and society’s acceptance of Evolution has proven that unregenerate man is increasingly animalistic. Conversely, the believer can only be what human always were intended to be. The atheist should be encouraged to spout folly and kick against the goads. He will find his error quickly if he is allowed to. But if we as believers are dependant on society liking us and employing a good measure of our understanding in their way of living, the difference between those who follow God and those who play under a façade of religious beliefs will be much less obvious. Many in the world will think that believing in a few points based on Biblical truth is; the way, the truth and the life. In going along with the charade of engaging the Evolutionist, we will confuse many and we will destroy the representation of the Kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men.

The believer who puts great emphasis on “proving” or “legitimizing” their belief in terms the non-believer will accept, will be found to be as silly as the believer who charts and re-charts the return Christ only to be found false every time. Apologetics is the tool one must succumb to using when the power of a changed life is not evident, prevalent or available. Nothing demonstrates veracity and truth better than demonstratable, quantifiable, and obvious change: he used to be an abuser now he is not, he used to hate people no he demonstrates love for everybody; he was blind yet now he sees… The apologetic believer has to use the crutch of sophist argumentation because they have no other “currency” which the world recognizes or accepts.

Conclusion:

Creationism and Apologetics have become hallmarks of establishment thinking in the organized church, particularly in America. In order to be a Creationist one either has to be diluted into thinking they must make it easy for non-believers to believe or they are merely interested in maintaining the lofty place in human society of being accepted because their view is just as believable as the nay Sayers. What other conclusion is more plausible when all the questions concerning motives have been asked?

Apologetics may have some use in certain situations but it has become far overplayed. Instead of being a contextualization technique, apologetics has become a full-court-press approach to legitimize the mysteries of God to men with darkened minds who don’t necessarily want to know anything about God at all. Apologetics works great as a once-in-a-while tool, when Christ was unknown to the vast majority of the world. However, since Christ, or rather a misrepresented concept of Him, has become so commonplace; apologetics is not the tool we should be using. Our motives are incorrect [trying to stay on top of the establishment] and we are not as concerned with people coming into a right relationship with God, because we ourselves are more concentrated on other things than knowing God.

The power of a changed life is to discussions of truth the same thing as a Royal Flush is to poker. There is no way to beat either. Yet, a changed life, as in what we see in the gospels or New Testament, is about as common today in church people’s lives as a Royal Flush is in poker. It needn’t be this way because God says we are a new creation, old things have passed away (2 Cor. 5:17). If we are a new creation in Christ then where can it be seen in the organized cult of “church” today? We ought to set our own house in order before we go out and try to get non-believers to go along with ideas that either we don’t fully apply or believe or that can only be seen by a mind that has been opened by God.

We need to get away from motives based in maintaining a hold on society [as if to make it Christian by laws, education, social order or perspective] and get into the humble position of not belonging [being a sojourner, resident alien or an outsider] so that we can be ambassadors. Ambassadorship, which Paul refers to twice in the New Testament (2 Cor. 5:20 and Eph. 6:20), entails not belonging to the group we are representing our realm to.* The trouble with Christians is that they fail to see the Kingdom, which Christ taught about as a reality in their lives. It is something which is thought that will come, yet Jesus said in Luke 17:21 that the Kingdom of God is here, right now! The full measure of the Kingdom of God will come to pass in the future for sure, but it is to be a reality in our lives daily, which has impact in our outreach and interaction with the world.

*Note: Paul is not alone in this imagery; as Peter wrote of being a Holy Nation (I Peter 2:9) and Christ also spoke of being a Nation unto God (Matt. 21:43). In addition, Christ spoke of the Kingdom of God (Heaven) some 90 times. This “imagery” is not allegorical or non-literal, because it was taken to be quite seditious by the Roman’s.

The Creationist is just a contender for the attentions of men. We can use contextualization when we see that people or a group has openness to our message. However, to try to contextualize our message in the terms of militant unbelievers is merely throwing pearls before swine. Alternatively, the follower of Christ offers to all those who would listen what no man can offer in the temporal here-and-now. However, we should be offering it at the high-cost of loosing everything and to become nothing in the world’s eyes as a follower of Christ, not at the cheap discount rates of mental assent to join a group deluded into thinking they should dominate the rest of the world who does not hold to a religious ideal they have perfected. The Creationist says, ”you can believe in the mysteries of God, because we’ll make it easy.” On the other hand, the Creationtists’ work is also only propping up a hollow easy-believism of the public cult calling itself “church.” In either case, their premise is based on maintaining dominance in society; there is no servanthood humility quotient in their approach.

Were have all the followers of Christ gone? Have we thrown our lot in with the sophists who call themselves Christian? Have we traded our eternal belonging and ambassadorship in the temporal for the insecure temporal preeminence in the world, using lobbying to maintain our control over a system that Christ said was passing away? We can see truth here if we want to or we can go on denying that Creationism/Apologetics/Constantinian Christianity is going the wrong direction. We can’t justify our approach by saying a little good has been done. But what will we tell the master of Luke 19 that we did with the endowment He entrusted to us? Will we continue in putting our “talent” into the earthliness of man’s way of doing things, in his systems and world order or will we go out and creatively put it to use for the greater purpose of the Kingdom, which is supposed to be among men so that it is available to them?

Where is our loyalty: to God’s purposes or to ourselves, our importance, our believability and acceptableness to men with darkened minds, justified in good sounding reasons? Our job is not to do the best we can so that some good may come of it. Our job is to know God and make Him available to men by way of allow Him to be incarnated through our lives. You will notice that Jesus did not debate, the sophists and rhetoricians of His day. He did something more powerful than mere words; He lived what His Father directed Him to do. Nothing trumps God’s way, nor impedes His progress.

Introduction:

War is to the modern citizen what child sacrifice was to the ancients. People offer the life of their children [all be they grown] on the altar of war to the god of security and perpetuity that they should profit and continue for having made the sacrifice. In the 20th century more people have fought or died in the commission of “war” than in all the other wars of the past 6 centuries combined. It is no doubt that this huge waste of life motivates some people to recoil from war to embrace so-called peace. This kind of peace on the other hand has come to mean an elusive pursuit for a growing number of people. With the last century being the exhibit of what man can do, it doesn’t seem that peace is within mankind’s repertoire. So the argument goes back and forth between those that justify war for whatever purpose and those who pursue the course of a so-called peace at any cost.

This pamphlet is an attempt to go back to scripture, particularly Christ’s teachings, and dust off a major concept that has gone unnoticed by the greatest majority of church people and bible teachers, no matter their flavor. Evidence of this point was given during “the 1974 Lausanne Conference on World Evangelization, Michael Green asked rhetorically, ‘How much have you heard here about the Kingdom of God? His answer as, ‘Not much. It is not our language. But it was Jesus’ prime concern.”1 The Kingdom of God is to be an alternative to the games and extremes of the world [the collective of non-believers]. In order to be an alternative, a prerequisite requires that believers cannot be on either side of the status quo. But on a similar note, this “not being either side of the status-quo” does not mean that we can become reclusives. Jesus as our example was totally different than either the Pharisees or the Sadducees [the cultural status-quo] but He was approachable and available to all.

The Gospel of Peace

An alternative to the familiar discussions of War and Peace

War is a subject that dominates conversation today while soldiers continue to die in Iraqi and the official conflict being described as “over.” There is no shortage of opinions on this subject, or people to offer them. Positions go all the way from adaptations of Augustine’s so-called Just Cause to the alleged high-minded thinking of non-violence and pacifism. These arguments are as old as the hills but for one reason or another people continue to argue this controversy as if there will be a final conclusion. I in no way intend to engage the usual arguments on this issue. I want to raise a more provocative thought as it relates to people whose aim it is to follow Christ.

What has interested me is the nature of the argument between war and peace. Disagreements usually occur on surface details, which are thought to be opposing. What is more, there are religious ideas and concepts behind both sides of the argument, which ironically have the same origins. The Liberal ideas of long-lasting peace on earth or non-violence and pacifism are pulled from the same religious source as the Conservative tolerance for war in the name of “peace” contrived by either means of superior firepower [deterrence] or the sound thrashing of an enemy. Odd isn’t it?

So how is it that two very different views on a subject come from the same origins?

Both seem to have support in scripture, and certain ideas have definitely been put into practice historically. Yet the pendulum continually swings back and forth between war and peace: subjects in constant controversy. We should first get a general overview of the differing political ideas and then we can get around to discussing war and peace from another point of view.

The Liberal Mindset In General Terms

The Liberal mindset is very wide, encompassing extremes as well as a main thrust to which the widest majority of liberal minded people agree. Liberals generally hail from mainline denominations (Presbyterian, Methodist, or Anglican/Episcopalian), but there are significant numbers of secularists or atheists in their ranks.

The Liberal is humanistic and values mankind itself. They value human rights with no caveats and the right of existence with almost hallowed veneration. The Liberal view seems to be focused in the here and now, which might best be characterized by the adage; “You only go around once.”

Liberals tend to believe that man is basically good and that the bad elements in society and life are absorbed from outside sources. They believe that education and environment are the two major components that play into making people who and what they become. Amongst their ideals is the concept of social justice and fairness: a tangible right for everyone no matter the circumstances surrounding them. And since there is not enough education and there are bad environments, there is still much to do. Liberal ideals range from a “don’t rock the boat” incremental progressiveness to an aggressive utopianism.

Many Liberals believe in the Bible, as far as being a good guide to morality and goodness, but they do not hold to it in an absolutist way. They believe man is able determine a good way for himself if he is broad-minded, has been educated with high ideals and a positive outlook. The Liberal values the individual’s responsibility to community. This ideal voices itself in a myriad of ways such as obsessive environmental concerns, obsessive social concern or a constant comparison between the haves and have-nots.

The Conservative Mindset In General Terms

The Conservative camp is broad as well, but much narrower in scope than Liberal thinking. The Conservative view is based more on the individualism of; self-discipline, personal responsibility, and determination. These are held with a religious reverence. The Conservative view is held mainly by religious groups like; Fundamentalist, Evangelical and Charismatic denominations (Baptist, Evangelical-Free or the Assembly of God). There are secularists and atheists within the Conservative view as well.

The Conservative values the responsibility of the individual as it has implications on society at large. The Conservative mindset is a little more negative towards mankind, because many of their ideals are based from evolutions of puritanical piety. They have a strong work ethic and are focused on what the individual achieves. It appears as though the Conservative view is based in a mindset, where everything seems to be a means to a futurist end.

The Conservative mindset is shaped by their view of reality, which might best be characterized in words sang by Johnny Cash, “This world is rough and if a man’s gonna make it he’s gotta be tough.”2 It appears as though the survival of the fittest is latent in the Conservative mindset. This is ironic seeing as how the religious among them abhor the hint of any connection to the catch phrases of evolutionists.

Turning The Corner

We obviously cannot take into consideration all that each value system entails. I merely wanted to give overview of some generalized ideas from both groups, which will be relevant to our discussion. Having observed some differences between Liberals and Conservatives there is also a confluence of ideas between the two ideals where many people blend the extremes. The incompleteness of either view is perhaps one reason why people on a common level in society vacillate between the two ideals; sometimes voting for the candidate in the other party. On the other hand, some, who are dyed in the wool party members wouldn’t cross party lines because they refuse see beyond their chosen point of view.

Concerning war and peace, there are significant problems both for Liberal and Conservative ideals as it relates to believers. One of the problems concerning the opposing ideas dealing with war and peace is the constant conflict between the two ideals. The whole discussion, being confined to a political context, integrates believers into an oppositional discussion. Another problem is that the political stage has become the very place for both disagreements to take place between brethren and where various problems are allegedly “solved” by either reductionist compromise or further alienating discord. Still another problem is that believers look for continued inclusion and answers in the political arena concerning the problems between war and peace as well as many other issues.

Below is a list outlining some specific areas that generally define each political mindset. Accompanying each aspect are scriptures that could be used to support the political values listed. These texts are possibly the origins of the religious mindset behind the political shroud of the “issues” which everybody argues over.

Liberal

1. Peace (at almost any price), cf. Matt. 5:9, 5:44
2. Social Equality, cf. Acts 10:28 and James 2:2-4
3. Care For The Poor, cf. James 1:27
4. Spread Wealth cf. Acts 2:44-45
5. Conservation, cf. Gen. 41, Lev. 25:3-5
6. Judicial Leniency, cf. Luke 18:2-5 (appeals), John 8:3-11

Conservative

1. War (to maintain peace or political interest) cf. Joshua and 2nd Samuel
2. Determination, Discipline, and Self-Will, cf. Prov. 22:29, Dan. 1:8-9
3. Small Government cf. Prov. 28:2
4. Government To Protect Religious Standards, cf. Prov. 14:34
5. Private Property, cf. Exod. 22:8, Lev. 25:1-31
6. Making Use Of Natural Resources, cf. Gen. 1:28
7. Judicial Firmness, cf. 1 Kings 3:16-28

Note: I have made no attempt to quote these scriptures in context or even to use the exact texts each group might use in support of their ideals. My point is to show that the Bible can be used to support various political ideals. The operative word is “used” because most texts employed to support various secular ideas have been lifted from their context to support something that is foreign to that context.

The above comparison between Conservative and Liberal is not exact point for point between the two views. Obviously there are points that Liberals are more attuned to, which Conservatives maybe less so and vice versa. Something that should concern us is the sparse or very partial scriptural support behind either political ideal. This should be a special concern because there are tremendous amounts of scripture that would inform us about the issues politicians have forged with a thin lacing of truth. Is anybody asking about these types of problems? Hold that thought, lets consider some other details first.

Lets Frame The Real Issue

War and peace was not always a discussion between religious Liberals and Conservatives. But there has hardly been a time in the last 1600 years when this discussion did not take place between political factions that were much like the Liberals and Conservatives of our day. The debate about war and peace is fundamentally a religiously discussion, but the essence of this religious thought was not always available to the state as it has been in the last 1600 years.

The inclusion of the “Christian” mindset, as far as becoming a regular part at society’s round table, came through an event many have documented in different ways but what one fellow labeled as: the Constantinian Change.3 Early in the 4th century Constantine the Great 285-337AD issued an edict of toleration for the followers of Christ, who, up until then had been aggressively hunted down and killed as enemies of the state. Once believers were included in the realm of the state it wasn’t long till they became a formidable influence in the politics of the state. In one fell swoop; the enclave of the faithful went from being the single representatives of the Kingdom of God, to becoming the citizens of the kingdoms of men. They went from the unique position of representing the only true and lasting peace the world has ever known, to representing peace, amongst other things, as a commodity in kingdoms of conquest, intrigue and factions.

The combination of including the church in the state, and then the churches’ attempt to influence the factions within the realm ended up emasculating the of Kingdom of God as being a unique and exclusive entity. Believers, before they were joined to the state, were good ambassadors of the Kingdom of God to the kingdoms of men. They were not manipulated by what could be gained or lost from the state, because the state afforded them nothing, God was their only provision. Once the state officially included Christians, and believers gave into this ploy, they failed to be the ambassadors of God because now they sought the continued favor and provisions of the state. They began being “lobbyists” within the state in order to protect their rights and expanded their privileges.

Since Constantine there have been few times in history where Christians ventured out of the cultural mold the state has provided them, to once again represent the Kingdom of God as being foreign to the kingdoms of men. It has been thought that the syncretism between the church and state under Constantine’s engineering was a good opportunity for the church. Yet G. K. Chesterton confronts this idea by stating “The coziness between church and state is good for the state and bad for the church.”

The Kingdom Of God

The truth of God represented by the followers of Christ was the Kingdom of God. It was the first fruits of God’s intent, but no less a reality. It operated in peace but was warred against by the state. The Kingdom of God took care of its own, sharing wealth and living in social/economic equality. The early church was not silent, unavailable, or inattentive to the needs of people in Roman society. The Kingdom of God showed initiative towards the downtrodden and throwaways of the Roman cultural monolith. It was the alternative to the states’ promotion and use of classism to rule, divide and keep the masses in manageable groups. For many years the Kingdom of God [made up solely of believers] governed itself in a decentralized fashion, keeping dynamics local and meaningful to meet needs in the most efficient and sensitive ways.

The Kingdom of God warred against the state on a spiritual level, for besides its only physical aspect—our bodies—a spiritual reality is what the Kingdom of God is all about. In the early years, believers were not deterred by the states’ ban on them. They did not ask the state if they could meet, teach, preach, or if their meeting needs was according to government regulations. The Kingdom of God even in its infancy was a formidable alternative on every level to the society and culture of Rome—which represented the unbelieving world. The followers of Christ were the most model citizens by any measure of Roman standards in; ethics, morality, and social conduct, with the exception of not bowing the knee before the god of the state or Caesar.

Truth Fractured Through Politics

The real damage of the Constantinian Change is that the realities of the Kingdom of God were parted out and masked in secular, political dogmas. These derivatives were then used to feed the aspirations of men, while being stripped of having anything to do with the Kingdom of God.

Through this process certain details conveniently fell through the cracks. One such detail is the fact that we live in a fallen world, because of sin. Another is that while God established governments and realms in the physical world, He also established the Kingdom of God through Christ: a spiritual world reality within the physical world. Dallas Willard concurs writing that, “The kingdom of God is not a social or political reality at all.”4 A proper view of eternity is something that also has dropped into obscurity. To one political faction, eternity has become some far off possibility that often impedes living in the here and now. Conversely, the other political faction is only focused on Christ’s return, [their idea of the beginning of eternity]. To them everything is focused on a preparation for this event. Eternity has become either marginalized or fixated on, and both miss the point.

Finally, the political process of dissecting the truth of God into pieces has resulted in people taking or leaving aspects of it as if they are options, thus the physical life eclipses the reality of spiritual life even for Christians. To illustrate what politics has done to the church; let’s consider metallurgy. Metallurgy is the science of developing the uses and capacities of metal by combining various metals into alloys. This science has been able to positively affect industry, art and life. Converse to increasing the value of metal by mixing them, nothing is more valuable than pure gold. Think of the Kingdom of God as “pure gold” and politics as a “metallurgist” gone mad: mixing a precious metal [truth] with common industrial/structural metals [the order of a sinful world]. The gold [truth] would be useless and totally insignificant in this arrangement. Jacques Ellul concludes this reality as well:

The moment Christians make it a habit to understand questions, which the world has elaborated, they adopt at the same time a certain number of ideological positions, responses and doctrines which also originate in 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]…This [kind of] Christianity is then a religion which develops in terms of the world’s economic and technological evolution, and whose aim is to provide ideological and moral satisfaction to those who are in fact incapable of changing the situation. It is a substitute.5 [additions mine for clarity]

The trinkets and structure of the political realm brag of its’ hint of gold [truth], but this gold is nothing like gold [Truth] in its pure form of God and His Kingdom. The political process divides the believer’s uniqueness and collective as the Kingdom of God. It tries to give us the pretense of inclusion while in reality it washes us down stream towards either objectives or obscurity either of which do not support who we really are as followers of Christ.

Moving Towards Restoration

As I mentioned earlier the two alleged opposing views concerning war and peace originate from the same source: the Bible. The truth that Liberals and Conservatives have morphed into opposite extremes need to be recombined into the tension under which God articulated them in the first place. Tension maintains the balance in which the aspects of truth work properly.

At the same time we need to divest of the encrustations of political and secular thinking that have surrounded these facets of truth. As believers we need to get back to whole thinking and living as the Kingdom of God. In order to be restored in Kingdom of God living we must deal with a few details and get them right in our heads. Otherwise we’ll start off in another direction and end up in a different extreme.

God instituted governments on earth for the purpose of order, without which man in his sinful condition can do nothing but fight and kill. Government is a means of restraint, administering law and order in a realm, (cf. Rom. 13:1-3, 1 Pet. 2:13-15). This all has to do with the physical world. Christ introduced a spiritual-world Kingdom of God that was to be in the midst of the realms of men, yet distinct from them. God never purposed for the Kingdom of God to belong to one or any of the kingdoms of men. There was to be the tension of coexistence between the two, (cf. Matt. 24:10, John 15:18-20). And this kind of tension comes from lack of conformity.

Secondly, the result of sin, which marks each and every man (cf. Rom. 3:23), also makes war inevitable. This earth is a fallen world made up of people who are full of sin. War, killing, pillaging, destruction, treachery, and infamy are the commodities of a fallen world. And peace, by the world’s standards, is only that pause between all the wars it can’t help but fight. Even this pause is marked with rancor, avarice, and selfishness between people and countries, which are precursors of more out-right war. The dream of real peace, in a world full of sinful people, is nothing short of ludicrous.* Absolute peace on earth, aside from the Kingdom of God, will never be known by mankind until the Prince of Peace comes to rule in the physical world (cf. Isa. 2:4, 60:18-20, Mic. 4:1-4).

Thirdly, when the Kingdom of God becomes a restored understanding to believers in this life, eternity will not be an annoyance to the hear-and-now, neither will it be a selfish motivation to try and get unbelieving people to act a certain way so that Christ will be impressed when He returns. “New Testament passages make plain that this Kingdom [eternity] is not something to be “accepted” now and enjoyed later, but something to be entered [into] now.”6 We won’t know eternity fully until the end of time, but its reality in the here and now gives us a different perspective. [additions mine for clarity]

As members of the Kingdom of God we are not restricted from nor mandated to work with or through the governments of men. Politics is not a pinnacle of achievement or calling for the church [the gathering of believers]. The Kingdom of God does not have to push into the realms of men and demand our way. The realms of men are temporary but we have the eternal way of equity, peace, love, social equality, conservation, and concern for others. Unregenerate men may be able to mimic these aspects with limited success, but they will be sharply contrasted wherever they encounter real followers of Christ. We should be little cities set upon a hill amidst the dark realms of men. Our goal is not synthesis, or the culture recognizing our beliefs in symbolism. And it is certainly not assimilation into the societies of men. Our job is to live the reality of truth as the Kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men, so that Christ is lifted up, (cf. John 12:32).

As believers we do not need the government’s of men to uphold the righteousness we know in God. We need to stand clear of governments on this aspect to be a testimony of righteousness whether they believe it, allow it, incorporate what they know of it, or crush any representation of it. We can warn, advise and offer our help as they ask what we think, but the culture around us must choose what they will do with a free hand to choose. They should not be forced, coerced or manipulated into doing what is right, just because it’s right. We need to be free to let men and their governments fail and do foolish things. They will find their error quickly, especially as we stand in comparison to them and their ideals. Left to freely choose their own device; destruction, poverty and degeneration will follow. *a

When failure strikes the state due to its’ rejection of God’s principles, this will open the door for the answers we have that the world doesn’t. If we don’t take sides on their issues we can be available to minister to man’s need on to either side of the issue, which has been made hopeless by the political process.

*Note: The thought that real peace is possible amongst mankind, without the direct influence of God, is the vain attempt to prove God wrong or that He is non-existent. Since man in the 20th century has put such an emphasis on world peace it is more out of reach now than ever before. What does this tell us? Man’s attempts to leave God out will end in hopelessness!

The state can’t be the Kingdom of God and the church can’t be the state. If Christians are going to busy themselves predominately in the affairs of the state, who will be the Kingdom of God as Christ modeled it? *b

The idea of changing the world, as in making it a better place, is a ruse. This focus basically denies God’s assessment of this fallen world (cf. Rom. 3:9-18, 1 Cor. 2:6, 1 John 2:17). It places a futile cause in front of believers that keeps them pre-occupied. The Kingdom of God [the collective of believers] is to represent God and His eternal purposes to men in all the kingdoms of this world. If we take the truth and play the political games the world has turned it into, this only serves to eliminate the realities of who and what we are.

The world will be changed only as its people are transformed, and no government can do this. Governments can only hold off anarchy and keep corruption to a bearable level. The people of God should be in the midst of the culture waiting to offer the means of transformation to all that would cross the line separating the Kingdom of God from the kingdoms of men. Our job is not to make the world a better place in which to live. Our job is to offer the exclusive truth of God to any who would listen. Those who cross over into the Kingdom of God will have a positive affect on the world around them, but this is a by-product not the prime objective.

Conscientious people, who always wanted to fully follow God, do not have to take sides in the world’s political games in order to advance a shred of truth buried in some issue. In reaffirming the Kingdom of God, rejoining its aspects in its exclusivity, we won’t be upstaged by the world. The non-believing world will buffet us, mock us, kill us, and jail us or whatever else. But if we are doing what is right in the eyes of God, the aggression against us will merely be evidence that we are doing what God wants, (cf. Matt. 10:22, John 15:18, 17:14).

The church has to once again become a contrast to the world, which it hasn’t been from centuries. We can’t try to benefit from something to which we are trying to be an alternative. The contrast between the world and the Kingdom of God will expose the emptiness, foolishness and futility of the world’s way. We cannot do this and hope to maintain our rights, privileges and security. If we continue to immerse ourselves in the ways of the world for the purposes of inclusion or security or to manipulate towards our private purposes, we will fail to represent God. God wants a stark contrast between the world, whichever side it puts forward, and the Kingdom of God. God wants a separation between His Kingdom and the kingdoms of men, and this separation is truth, [God never intended that we separate from the world, by ways of walls, distance or appearance (cf. john 15)].

*a Note: If we hoping to benefit from or protect ourselves with the system of the world, or if we want to keep comfortable within the realms of men, we won’t be able to let the world do its foolishness. Allowing the world to run its course in its’ foolishness would endanger our sugar-daddy relationship with it. And thus we will compromise the truth we say we believe for the continued benefits of the state: belonging, security, and a passive but co-dependant relationship with the non-believing world.  Do you see how we could be going at the world with selfish motives? Wanting non-believers around us to go along with our principles has more to do with maintaining our position of luxury and ease within its’ system than it has to do with furthering the kingdom of God or allegedly “standing up for righteousness.”

*b Note: If God only recorded 12 to 15 people throughout the entire history of the Bible, to directly do His bidding within the political realms of their day, then why do religious people today need to spend so much time and energy to try and force a religious agenda by populating parties and institutions with “our people” to try and get the job done? I bet its because this approach is our own will and not God’s. God doesn’t believe in futility or forcing people to do what they don’t want to do, so why do religious conservatives?

The Kingdom Of God As Jesus Illustrated

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (cf. Matt. 10:34)

Jesus was our example in providing an alternative to society. The essence of the Sadducees and Pharisees represented the politics of polar opposites, which divided people into groups. Then they used aspects of truth to manipulate society politically. The Sadducees and Pharisees respectively represent the Left and Right that we see at work in politics today. *

The Sadducees believed in God but they didn’t believe in the super-natural, the resurrection from the dead or miracles (cf. Matt. 22:23, Acts 4:1-2, 23:8). They were incrementalist, not wanting to rock the boat, but wanting to give the pretense that all considerations had been made in public affairs. The Sadducees were concerned about their power base, but not much beyond this. The Pharisees were similar in many ways, but their soapbox was religious legalism. They were mainly concerned about everybody towing the line on their brand of religious orthodoxy, whether society at large believed the same way or not, (cf. Matt. 12:2, Luke 12:37-42). You couldn’t bear a Pharisees, just like many cannot bear the average religious Conservative today. The Pharisees were enforcers of the Mosaic Law, (cf. John 8:3-5). They had a dim view of humanity, one of sternness and control as a means to perfection.

In various stories Jesus illustrates the Kingdom of God as the alternative to the Kingdoms of men by means of contrasting the religious approach against His. Matthew 5:20 is a verse that seems to imply that the Kingdom of God was definitely something other than what the Sadducees of Pharisees had in mind.

Woman Taken In The Act Of Adultery

(cf. John 8:3-11)
In this story Jesus illustrates the nature of God’s Kingdom. It is not one of harsh rules and stern analysis, or legalism but one of forgiveness, restoration and love. Jesus illustrates that the Kingdom of God is about relationship, not laws, political maneuvering or mushy relativity. Why would the woman stop sinning if it wasn’t for Jesus’ kind words of forgiveness?

Her obedience was based out of her connection to and experience with God in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus wasn’t soft on sin, “forgiving” as it is thought to be, to the point where there is no moral standard. Nor was the Son of God so “under-standing” of her background or environment that He would excuse her sins as understandable extension of them. But neither was Jesus a do-it-because-its-right, or fear-of-cultural-breakdown, kind of guy.

*Note: If God only recorded 12 to 15 people throughout the entire history of the Bible, to directly do His bidding within the political realms of their day, then why do religious people today need to spend so much time and energy to try and force a religious agenda by populating parties and institutions with “our people” to try and get the job done? I bet its because this approach is our own will and not God’s. God doesn’t believe in futility or forcing people to do what they don’t want to do, so why do religious conservatives?
Jesus illustrates how the Kingdom of God doesn’t need to be bullied by political urgencies (cf. John 8:7-8), or even their pressure to conform to a subjective cultural ideal. Jesus stood resolute, independent of the power base of a majority but all the while representing the alternative of the Kingdom of God. His quiet way and standing in comparison to the excesses and weakness of the political realm offered people of that day a contrast they could see, feel, touch and have if they wanted it bad enough.

My Kingdom Is Not Of This World

(cf. John 18:36 – 19:16)
In this text Jesus is talking to the epitome of power in the human realm in the region of Judea: the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate. There should be now doubt in the mind of anybody who reads this text as to who was in control. Jesus was in control not because He was God. He was in control because He was an ambassador of a realm that was becoming increasingly attractive to the people of the realm Pilate governed.

Pilate could not manipulate Christ or turn a blind eye on what His non-conforming alternative was doing to the politics of the realm [Judea] for which the governor was responsible. Jesus stood before this ruler vulnerable, but Christ made weighty statements in the face of a brutally oppressive dictator simply because He was an ambassador valued by the common people yet unconnected to the encumbering political machine Pilate was being crushed in by this situation.

Jesus’ approach was a menace to the power structures of His day, though it was totally unintentional on His part. The feeling of menace was more a reflection on the religious/political attempt to control the people to which He ministered. The oligarchy of the ruling class in Israel could not upstage Jesus or disenfranchise Him, and thus He was a threat to their being valued by the people, i.e. being in power. Christ’s approach trumped their practice of marginalizing everything towards the goal of the ruling class being important [in reality being a god] and having the last say. Jesus made His Father and His Kingdom so real that all who wanted to see could understand the difference between the god of this world and his kingdoms and that which God offers. This type of contrast could never have been demonstrated so drastically from within the systems of men.

Washing The Disciples’ Feet

(cf. John 13:1-17)
Jesus illustrates the Kingdom of God as being totally different than the world’s thinking. In this text Jesus, the King of Kings, takes up the job of a slave. In those days the people who washed the feet of guests’ were the bottom of the social structure. Jesus was a recognized “Rabbi” [a revered position in that society] but He took up this task and presented a powerful illustration about His upside-down Kingdom. His Kingdom is upside down because it values and accesses everything opposite of natural human thinking.

Here in John’s gospel, Jesus shows us the meaning of, “the greatest among you shall be your servant” (cf. Matt. 23:11). He contrasted the righteousness of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who wouldn’t stoop to such a lowly task for various reasons, by doing the unthinkable: stripping down, taking up a washbasin and washing a bunch of nasty feet.

What does this have to do with war and peace?

The discussion of war and peace is a discussion over which the church —The Kingdom of God— has allowed itself to be divided. We have come to think there are two sides of this discussion: a right one and a wrong one. In reality, the opposites everybody argues over are really in fact only opposite ends of the same quagmire. Either end of this discussion [the entire debate] in no way emulates the example of Christ, where He constantly contrasted the polar opposite debates of His time with an alternative.

Why would God settle in on one side of an oppositional discussion in human terms, when He has an alternative?

The world’s system has bought and sold parts of the truth, which the Kingdom of God once represented as a single reality. But because the world has successfully infiltrated and neutralized the Kingdom of God as being the single representative of truth. And since it has split the truth into pieces, now it is thought that these scrapes can be taken or left as it becomes useful to do so. The world’s system has mixed the truth with other things, offering them as political footballs that can be; tossed around in order to gather a following, or it can be taken sides of, or held ransom in a political game.

Jesus on the other hand stood in front of the political Left [the Sadducees] and Right [the Pharisees], neither playing their game nor retreating into obscurity, all the while spreading His Kingdom just by the reality of being an identifiable alternative. Jesus shows us in just these few vignettes, what the Kingdom of God is and what it is not. He also directs us to follow in His footstep, (cf. John 13:15).

Conclusion

Peace is something that the non-believing world can only know by comparison. They don’t have it and never will. The warring world can only know its futility by comparing what it has [death, war, infamy, betrayal, inequity, conquest and treachery] to the Kingdom of God, whose main mark is the ability of peace.

Peace does not mean a mushy, compromising ideal; that gives into aggressive factions who want to take advantage, as the political Left has tended to respond. Nor does peace mean being anti-war or being pacifistic. At the same time beating your enemy into surrender or arming yourself to the teeth so that no one will want to mess with you, as the political Right has tended to believe, does not achieve peace.

War is the inescapable reality of a world order that is full of sinful people, especially as they try to prove that God either wrong or non-existent. War is natural to mankind since he originally chose to disbelieve God in the beginning. Man’s attempt at “peace” is either ignorance or foolishness, because Christ only promised peace in Himself, but tribulations a plenty in the world, (cf. John 16:33).

The Kingdom of God cannot be intertwined with the kingdoms of men through a political faction just because one party advertises openness to religious ideals for a time, as the political Religious-Right has tended to believe. Neither should The Kingdom of God be so gullible as to think that it can be properly represented in a society by another political faction who is bent on proving God wrong or that He is non-existent.

The pretense of inclusion in society through its political apparatus should never be a motive or even an attraction for the Kingdom of God to involve itself with the foolishness of men. This is not to say we cannot be involved with the society or its politics. To be clear, there are more ways to do be involved with a society and its people other than through its political realm. Jacques Ellul makes an astute comment about the lack of creativity Christians have in engaging a culture. He wrote, “The moment one speaks of ‘presence to the world’ Christians translate this as political presence. It would seem that there is absolutely no other way to be present to the world other than to engage in politics.”7 God is not limited to a one-dimensional approach. Ellul speaks further on this point by saying:

One soon becomes aware of the idea that politics constitutes a sort of ultimate issue for the Christian. For some not to engage is a betrayal of the entire Christian life…The political order takes on such importance that all teaching seems to converge on this entrance into politics. Bible passages, which clearly have nothing to do with the question, are interpreted in a straight political sense. One rejects those biblical passages which minimize politics.”8

In addition, the Kingdom of God cannot support or be active in the wars of a political realm under any circumstance, be they offensive or defensive. * To do so discredits the Kingdom of God as being an alternative. Believers would by denying their loyalty to God by joining either side in the worlds’ affairs. Stanley Hauerwas put it right when he wrote:

Christians have never killed as willingly as when they have been asked to do so for “freedom”. I take it, therefore, that one of the most important challenges facing Christians today is to remember that the democratic state is still a state that would ask us to qualify our loyalty to Jesus in the name of some lesser loyalty [of men]. 9 [additions mine to clarify]

Conscientious believers who have fallen for the political Left or Right need to come back to being the Kingdom of God. They need to rid themselves of the dogma and ideals that the various political factions have wrapped truth into and begin to be as Jesus: an identifiable alternative. There is nothing significant that either the political Left or Right can do in which the Kingdom of God isn’t already far superior. God would be better represented in our day, as He was through Christ and his disciples. They did not enter the political arena of their day; accept on their own terms. But Christ and His followers presented to the world, what the political Left and Right is bankrupt and incapable of. Thus, the example in Christ and His disciples is even a contrast to the approaches of most religious people, in their attempt at relating to the state, over the past 1600 years.

*Note: This may seem harsh since many believers have served in the military, even as I have. Yet, we ought not feel condemned in reading this pamphlet, because we are exposed to new ideas that challenge or nullify our prior activities. We can be forgiven for misrepresenting our true Kingdom through the things we’ve done in the past. We personally are not nullified or less of a person because we did something that is totally inconsistent to our acclaimed beliefs. We can move on with God and forget the things that lay behind us, (cf. Phil. 1:13-14).

Believers should never lower themselves to being the special interest group of a political system. We should not give into being represented in the political arena or in a society by a political faction. We are the only representation of God in the world. In representing the Kingdom of God solely, believers will rob the world of its’ pretense of truth, goodness, equity or peace. In addition, the world’s utopian dreams will be destabilized if believers stop empowering them by through our patronage. Then we can concentrate on our own Kingdom’s work. Peace on earth is not, just not warring. Neither is peace anti-war, deterrence or the obliteration of any potential enemy.

Peace is submitting to Jesus Christ and living in His Kingdom now!

Bibliography:

1. Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard, HarperSanFransico p. 59
2. A Boy Named Sue, Shel Silverstein, sang by Johnny Cash Columbia Records 1969 #44944
3. Reformers and their Stepchildren, Leonard Verduin
4. Dallas Willard, p. 25
5. The False Presences of the Kingdom, Jacques Ellul, Seabury Press, pp. 50-51
6. Ibid, Dallas Willard, p. 28
7. Ibid, Jacques Ellul, p. 96
8. Ibid, Jacques Ellul, p. 95
9. Resident Aliens, Stanley Hauerwas, Abingdon Press

While the title may imply a wild agenda I must state that I am for an orderly respectful decorum towards God’s institution of government, established to maintain order and longevity of the inhabitance on this planet. I pay my taxes and I obey all laws that are in accordance to the directives that God has given us in His Word. I am unopposed to followers of Christ working through government as we have the opportunity to do so under our terms. If we subject ourselves in anyway to the societal system’s ideology or protocol, we merely become a pawn in their game. God would have us to be a light and salt in this world and we cannot do this from under a rock somewhere, nor can we do it when we compromise by surrendering to the world’s way of doing business.

We must see that when we follow Christ there is a separation between mere humans and those who have chosen to follow Christ. And we, who have chosen the road of Christ, must live this separation amongst the kingdoms of men. We’ve become citizens of a different realm and we should act in accordance to this fact as ambassadors from our realm to the one in which we live and work. I have never seen an ambassador take up allegiance to another country in which he is representing his own realm.

I Pledge Allegiance…NOT!!!

Today in this country there is a growing desire among younger followers of Christ to understand why we do what we do as the “church” and to find out if all that has been handed to us in the way of traditions and teachings are really the way they should be. Much of this has to do with these young people coming into the ranks never having been raised in an understanding of church. Suddenly, many of these searchers are at a crossroads wherein some things that made sense to those before them no longer make sense to the newcomer. One case in point would be “I pledge allegiance.”

For those who have participated in the cultural tradition of pledging over the years, it may seem trite or absurd for anyone to question this practice. Many whom I have talked with feel that it hurts nothing to say, “I pledge allegiance”, since it is “only words.” The pledge does not have much value to the average person in society today so it may seem natural to think that, it’s “only words” However, is saying the pledge indeed “just meaningless words” as some think?

Some wonder why anyone wouldn’t pledge allegiance to a country that has given them “freedom.” Others feel that not following suit with those the world us in society is to draw unnecessary attention to ourselves and may invite trouble of which seems to grow more drastic by the day. Recently, I was informed by a cousin, who was a missionary for many years that I should be investigated by the Feds for what I teach. This may happen, and so be it, if it does! But doesn’t this blow your mind that one believer would threaten another over a difference of opinion about nationalism? What have religious people come to in our day? The insecurity that would cause one to make such a threat against another follower of Christ really brings questions to mind. Are the status quo people in the USA insecure with their temporal mindset? Or, are they insecure about either being challenged or simply found to be inconsistent with what the Bible teaches?

Not a Universal Truth

First of all, for a believer “pledging ones’ allegiance” to anything but Christ is not a universal truth. What do I mean universal truth? By this I mean a truth that is applicable in every situation anyone could find themselves anywhere in this physical world. For instance, we are commanded to love our neighbors [John 13:35] even to love our enemies [Matthew 5:44-48]. No matter where a disciple might be in this world he is commanded to apply this behavior to the way that he lives. There is no exception to this truth, period! Thus, love is a universal truth.

In addition, historically speaking, such a practice as “pledging” to human governments was never been a consistent practice of the early church from the time of Acts and even into the 2nd and 3rd centuries. But since the time of Constantine, when the church began copulating with the state, there has been a caving into this practice of pledging allegiance to the state, but in the beginning is was not so. Many today would say that never before was there a country that accepted us, as followers of Christ as does the USA, as if this makes pledging allegiance ok…

It is thought that since this society was once founded on christianized principles [notice I did not say on Christ] that we can go ahead and pledge an allegiance to it. Can believers in Communist China pledge an allegiance to the societal government they live under? Obviously, they cannot because China is an anti-god regime. Notice the lack of universalness in the ideal of “pledging allegiance.” If truth is absolute there can’t be exceptions to its application.

Taking up what the Bible does tell believers: about HONORING those in authority whether they are kings, emperors, or tyrants… This command is universal truth, which is to be applied no matter the situation; including believers all the way from Albania to Zimbabwe. In addition, notice also that every text in the New Testament dealing with governing authorities is voiced in the impersonal sense: the kings, the rulers instead of the personal sense: your kings and rulers.

Some would use this specter to say that the Bible was written from the cultural reality that government was not representative and so it would not be applicable to make the references to a government being personal. This may seem like a solid argument except that homosexuals have used the same approach to make a lot of headway in their alleged agenda using this same type of argument. In actuality Paul and Peter made these references to government general and impersonal so that they would be applicable in all situations, therefore all could use these texts universally. It’s dangerous to consider the Bible in light of our situation rather than our situation in light of the Bible. One is situational ethics and the other is living consistently to what we’ve been taught through the Bible. In addition, if we become citizens of another Kingdom with Christ, human governments would continue to remain in the impersonal sense to us because we are focused on the eternal, not the temporal when we pass from darkness to light.

A Gift Horse or a Trojan Horse?

One difficulty that we will run into while trying to come to greater truth on this subject is that we live in a seemingly “tolerant” society. This clouds the issue greatly for some people. A “free lollipop” blinds the minds of the naive, as to why he shouldn’t get in or stay in the car of the guy offering him the treat. Church people think that because the government isn’t bashing our doors down and threatening us, that somehow it is a welcome friend and we are equally as welcome to dilly-dally with it.

The institutional church in this country has accepted this practice of “pledging allegiance” because this country was supposedly founded by Christians, which is not the truth at all. True believers according to the Word of God were much less prevalent in this country than many like to think. In addition, many believers see that this government gives place to them in law, governance and politics. Consequently, many church people feel that to question “pledging allegiance” is the equivalent to looking a gift horse in the mouth, i.e. being critical of a gift by inspecting and/or rejecting certain aspects. Instead of feeling that we are doing wrong to “check the spirits” and questioning this practice, we need to see that we could just as well be overlooking a Trojan Horse.

What Are The Ramifications Of “Pledging Allegiance”?

In joining a body politic through a pledge of allegiance we are no longer an autonomous moral body, the Kingdom of God, we are supposed to be. We have rejoined the kingdoms of men. There is no longer a clear representation of Christ in this society because we are one with the society around us in part through this ritual. Any representation of Christ and His Kingdom now exists mostly in the believer’s head. And unfortunately most unconverted people are not mind readers therefore they cannot see the difference between themselves and what has come to be equated as a follower Christ, i.e. the “nationalistic christian”.

We can begin to see there is a great cost wrapped up in going along with the society around us and pledging our loyalty to its’ government. Pledging is just one part of being assimilated back into a worldly culture. Our very understanding of who we are amongst the world today is so skewed; the Apostle Paul would hardly recognize the modern organized-church as being consistent to following Christ.

An Oath

The “Pledge of Allegiance” is an oath. In the Old Testament God’s people took any oath very seriously. There was no such thing as “just words” as is thought about the cultural “pledge” today. In the OT a person’s word meant something and they were committed to keeping any oath or vow no matter the consequences. Read about Jephthah in Judges 11:30-35. The story in Joshua 9 where Israel unknowingly made a covenant with the people of Gibeon is another example of taking an oath seriously even if it meant disadvantage.

Do we have the ability in a biblical sense to keep the oath of allegiance to any country?

If America becomes openly committed to an ungodly end, such as Communist China has been for years, can we continue our oath? Again in the Old Testament oaths were taken seriously and not to be broken, (cf. Numbers 30:2). In truth we can only commit to that which we can personally deliver and to that which is not manipulated by outside forces beyond our control. When we commit to a country we commit ourselves to follow what comes out of secret smoke filled rooms or the minds of mere men which may be totally ungodly and that which we have no control over. There is no advocacy in Christ or the Apostle for this practice. We have to ask ourselves seriously if Christ or Paul were on earth today if they would pledge allegiance? This question is almost ludicrous however most church-people today cannot think properly about this subject unless they are forced to put Christ in the position of doing what they do without thought.

History Please

To gain a better understanding of the magnitude of “the pledge”, even if it were purposely done without meaning it, we need to go back in history and see how others thought about the magnitude of their words and actions. Could they disassociate their words as meaning nothing even though they said them? Additionally, we might be able to draw courage from them to reassert ourselves in restraint from this seeming insignificant practice of “pledging allegiance” in order to be the type of testimony that God meant us to be in the first place.

Saying “the pledge” is nothing different than what pledging loyalty to Caesar was for believers in the first 3-centuries after Christ. The only problem is we don’t see it that way. But back then they would not think of pledging loyalty to anyone save Christ. To them the mere thought of doing such was almost painful; such a grotesque sin it was akin to becoming another Judas. Either these people were extremely ignorant or we have immensely perverted what they started, to the point to where we dismiss their lead.

Yesteryear’s governments are not all together different then the ones we know in modern times, i.e. “there is nothing new under the sun.” Notice if you will that I did not exclude America from this statement. In the book, The Reformers and their StepChildren, author Leonard Verduin made reference to what he called a “sacral society”, meaning a “society held together by a religion to which all members of that society are committed”, to some degree. There are thus significant comparabilities between all types of governmental systems on this level. Even beyond this delineation there is very little real difference between societies of today and yesterday. Freedom is of course the trump card most will play at this point, but how much freer can one be than he who the Son of God has sets free? Does the USA have some thing that Christ hasn’t given us yet?

To be a part of a sacral society one has to be committed or amenable to the belief system of the realm. In a sacral society like this there is no such thing as allowing personal revelation or a personal belief. While this country is a quasi-sacral society [few in it fail to worships “freedom” and the elusive American Dream] it has historical jailed tons of people, who dared to publicly offer a personal revelation separate of the corporate will, just the same as all other countries. Examples of totally “sacral” societies would be an Islamic State or a Communist State. A sacral society can only be based in a common system of belief; with rituals and the pledging public allegiance is the test of loyalty. That is why there can be no such thing as a “Christian Nation.” Following Christ can be reduced to a religion, as it has become so at many points in Western Civilization. But in the purity of a genuine relationship with God, a religion it cannot be, being used to force people in a region to be committed to it.

Ancient Rome was pantheistic, meaning it allowed many gods, but it would not allow Jehovah, who demands exclusive worship, i.e. the God that Paul preached. Verduin wrote that when the gospel is truly preached and believed in any society, that society becomes composite, meaning: there are varying ideas competing for a “following” for lack of better terms. It is this problem of composite thinking and thus living that the full weight of the Roman Empire was brought to bear on a fledgling group of believers, derisively called Christians.

It is this same detail, which Rome sought to eradicate that the Jewish leaders also sought to extinguish by pushing to have Christ crucified. Both civil authorities wanted control. Burning incense and doing a ritual pledge was a means of securing the control Rome wanted. Such words or acts compromised the believer, even if ever so slightly. If a pledge were “mere words”, why was it only “mere words” that governments of godless states since the time of Rome, have sought to acquire from people, especially followers of Christ?

In a round about way Rome realized the religious nature of doing these acts of “pledging” as worship. Satan was at the core of what was going on because the he is the ruler of this world, (cf. Matt. 4:8-11). The enemy knows that there are no idle words which “just mean nothing,” especially when they engender worship and veneration.

Historically rulers have tried to secure for themselves control by means of coercion through the threat of wide spread force, eradicating pockets of composite thinking and living in their public. It has been that way all the way down through history. Yet, God has always had His remnant that would standup to the tide of mere worldly cultural thought. These proclaimed Christ exclusively as the only way to salvation and as the Leader of their Kingdom, which was altogether different than what the world’s system affords a person. This alternative was seditious to Rome and it will continue to be seen as subversive even today, if believers begin to live the same way the early church did.

Throughout history the great struggle of the church has been to “be” the ecclesia: the called out ones. It is easy to hide behind the state’s skirt and proclaim we serve God only while we do homage to a state that protects us and gives us place in their governmental court. But let us come out from this idolatry and become pure on this point. This is just one detail that is missing from today’s teaching. In America believers do not perceive the fullness of what it means that we are part of the Kingdom of God, nor do we see our lifestyle as being called out for His purposes. Yes, we agree that the Kingdom of God exists but what is it? Many would agree that we should be set-aside for God, but that does not infer in many people’s minds that there is any discomfort or austerity from the world when we practice this truth. The living part is where there will be a great falling away because the gospel we teach is one that has our comfort built in as an unspoken tenet.

In the time of Christ, to follow Christ meant to lose all that one had in the ways of the world: family, social position, respect, citizenship and many other things, (cf. Mark 10:29, 2 Cor. 5:17-20 Phil. 3:2-20, Heb. 13:14). There was a high price to pay. Yet in following Christ, one gained a spiritual family, a Kingdom and purpose that defies all the natural laws of human existence under Satan’s control, (cf. Matt. 12:47-50, John 18:36). We were translated out of the kingdom of darkness in to the Kingdom of Light, (cf. 1 Peter 2:9b).

Was not burning incense to Caesar, an act of ignorant stiff-necked religious zealots?

Or was it consistent with living out of the conviction that there is only one God and that burning incense to Caesar was an act of allegiance and worship. It was pledging allegiance to a god and thus an act of idol worship for any believer. So how is “pledging allegiance” to a flag today any different? In plainest of terms this next question is what it comes down to for us today.

Are we going to worship the state and “freedom,” or God?

Fourth Century Donatists refused an oath of loyalty to the bishop of Rome, who by that time was a recognized operative of the state institution. This fact was clearly demonstrated when the Emperor of Rome upheld the “bishop’s” condemnation of the Donatists’ by bringing in armies and exterminating them. Many throughout the Dark Ages, and even after the Reformation, refused such oaths and pledges. The Waldensians, the Hussites, the Bohemian Brethren, Moravians, and countless other groupings and configurations of faithful people throughout history saw what we have refused to see today in this country: declaring loyalty to the state is anti-ekklesia!

Many today, which gather in buildings, mistakenly called “church”, would never in a million years agree to bow before some ugly idol or seek the blessing of a spirit “god.” This would be a clear act of sin, idol worship, as well it should be! Acts associated with bowing or seeking a blessing would also be correctly identified as acts of worship. How come we fail to make this judgment on an act that is no different with respect to the flag, saluting and pledging allegiance to a country?

The government and the flag are token images of that by which we are allegedly “provided for and blessed.” Are we to venerate government/society or are we to thank God for using them to benefit us? It seems to me that the reason “pledging” is not seen the same way as idol worship is because the state has given us place and enticed us with a candy called freedom and power, which has in turn deluded us. Freedom and power are highly valued by believers in this country, but at what cost? And again, how much freer can one be than he who the Son of God sets free?

We must heed Paul’s teaching to not let freedom be a means for sin, and being compromised is a sin. Normally this text is only interpreted in regards to food and such. Yet there is no reason not to bring applications into our subject of church/state relations. In fact it is naive not to make this correlation. The state is not forcing us to do these acts of worship, which is another detail that throws a curve at many believers. Does an act of worship change into not being an act of worship just because it is not forced? Hardly!

We need to see that “the pledge” is nothing more than idol-worship. Through it we combine ourselves with a category of people dissimilar to whom we are supposed to be according to scripture. Followers of Christ are: a Holy people, a Kingdom unto God, the Bride of the King, and Ambassadors of our Kingdom to the kingdoms of this world. How can we turn to anything else for recognition, position and purpose if we are not at the same time turning away from God and our allegiance to Him? We cannot serve two masters, either we will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to on and despise the other, (cf. Matt. 6:24).

We have defiled ourselves with the states’ choice delicacies of “freedom and power,” by pledging our allegiance to it. Daniel gives us clear testimony of what it means to be set-apart for God in lifestyle and day-to-day living as one dedicated to something outside a belonging to the state’s religion. We have failed to do the same!

Just what can we do?

First of all we need to pray and ask God for clear understanding. We do not need to seek the approval men on what is said here. God is articulate in His universe and He is able to recall to us all that He has said through the Word. To seek men may cause us to stop seeking the truth. God can give us the conviction it takes to stand for truth, even when it is unpopular with the religious crowd around us. We live for the audience of One, not for a denomination or various statements of faith.

Once we have sought God we need to renounce this behavior of pledging allegiance and making oaths to any country, friendly to the teaching of Christ or not, as being unchrist-like, unbiblical and anti-ekklesia. We need to desist in doing this ritual even though it seems so natural and even ungrateful not to do it. We need to repent of our idolatry in state worship and seek God’s forgiveness.

When we learn new truths, often we feel that we have to convert those around us who have not seen the light… This does not work very well in getting people to see the truth. Many are very attached to that which they have done for so long. There is a ritualistic bondage in “pledging” and there is a significant blinding-stronghold the enemy has built in peoples’ minds in order to maintain control over them.

During the coliseum games in Rome it has been recorded that many Christians went to their death quietly. This spoke to a few in the stands, which were so pricked spiritually speaking, that they were moved to the point of committing themselves to Jesus Christ on the spot. Many were thrown to the lions with the crowd already there. When we begin to stand in truth, others around us will be pricked in the same way. They may ask questions or just see the light. It is this quiet approach that gets people’s attention. Others may be moved to more rash behaviors but do not worry about this.

Commonly, my children and I stand in respect of others’ beliefs when “the pledge” is being done. This is a blatant enough approach that people notice but it is not such an aggressive approach that people are commonly offended. Remember true believers are in the minority both in public and state institutions as well as religious constructs. Quiet overtures are the way to give deference to others while espousing the truth we have come into. So far the most abuse we have experienced is from “Christians” who are indignant that we should set ourselves apart in this way. I believe that in time these will not be the only people we’ll receive abuse from over this detail of separating from nationalistic connections. It is puzzling why the religious crowd stirs up the secular culture into extremes against true believers on this point. Doesn’t sound like Demetrius, a silversmith Paul faced in Ephesus?

Commonly, a view such as this [separating from the cultural norm of national belonging] will be seen as antagonistic or “anti” whatever is accepted. Some feel that if we are not for something that we are automatically diametrically against it. And thus violent prejudice is stirred up against anything that looks like opposition, even if it is only quiet non-participation. Take a look at Sir Thomas More as an example of what public silence does. Sometimes silence speaks louder than words. But many are opposed to such a simple approach. Yet, it is this simple approach Christ Himself took in both living an alternative and moving forward with the real agenda. Our objective is to continue to do what God wants in the same step by both doing something about what is current in society and moving forward in God’s plan. The current approach of joining someone else’s game to try and dominate for even a good purpose of good is a ruse. We loose our unique position of being an alternative, we become deluded in the attempt and we only deal with the temporal.

We can also share with open people what we have found in this newly rediscovered truth. Perhaps this pamphlet or some such other written piece will help to convey the truth. Written works are perhaps the easiest way of communicating a complete idea to someone else without spawning an eruption. People can take their time to contemplate ideas without feeling they have to respond to us… There will be violent responses from reactionaries who do not want to come under the discomfort of following Christ, but at least we are not causing more of an eruption.

We must not argue about such subjects because ultimately God needs to be doing the convicting and opening of people’s minds. This subject is connected to many other details, which have a great influence on not only us but also those who are not waking up to the problems attached to this subject. It would be good to do some reading for your own education. Discover for yourself how people thought and lived in the pre-Constantine church and in the radical reformation. In reading material such as this we will not only come to a greater conviction of our own waywardness and ignorance but we will be able to start restoring truth to the bride of Christ one person at a time.

Some suggested reading:

• The Reformers and their StepChildren, by: Leonard Verduin
• The False Presence of the Kingdom, by: Jacques Ellul
• The Pilgrim Church, by: E.H. Broadbent
• Hope in a time of Abandonment, By: Jacques Ellul
• Spiritual Warfare, by: Dean Sherman
• Unveiled at Last, by: Bob Sjogren
• Count Zinzendorf, by: Felix Bovet
• Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Church, by Dean Merrill
• Resident Aliens, by: Stanley Hauerwas

This list of books will give anyone a good lesson in history, which is not commonly understood in most Christian fellowship circles today. Hence people teach and live in ignorance of truth that has been bought and paid for by a greater multitude than those who have bought the “freedom” that this state offers… Additionally, some of these books will challenge commonly accepted ideas today both with regard to politics, patriotism and our thoughts on what church is and is not.

Note: Some of these books are hard to find. You can commonly go to a library and get what is known as an “inter-library loan” for only a few dollars. The library will find a copy at some other library and bring it in for you. Some of these book are extraordinary and maybe of use to you for many years. You can go to places such as ADDALL.Com or Bookfind.com and do searches for good used copies and save a bundle in obtaining one for yourself.

Introduction:
There are few subjects in modern times that are less understood than this topic. As we get further into the End-Times this subject will need to be embraced because survival will require it. To be able to maintain the testimony of a faithful servant of God we will have to part ways with some currently favored ideas that are not the gospel, which Paul taught. This pamphlet is in a teaching presentation format of a presentation that was delivered at the July 2004 Searching Together conference.

The Kingdom of God Amongst the Kingdoms of Men

This work came about through the preparation of a book I wrote over the past several years, entitled: The Diluted Church, published June 05’. I boiled down the subject to its essence for the 2004, Searching Together conference in St. Croix, Wisconsin. The conference theme was the “one another teachings” in the New Testament. The point of my teaching was to articulate the objective of all the “one another teachings.” Our objective should be to be the Kingdom of God amongst the Kingdoms of men.

I started by asking a simple question. Do we really hold the Bible as the absolute authority on our practice and thinking? There are huge questions in my mind as to whether we really do.  Additionally, we need to ask ourselves several other questions that may seem a little intrusive, however let’s just be flat out honest.

Questions

1. How many of us identify ourselves as: Americans
2. How many of us identify ourselves as: Republicans, Democrats, or Independents…
3. How many identify ourselves as: Baptists, Methodists, Charismatic, Lutherans, Evangelical Free, Covenant, or some other denomination: you fill in the blank.

We all use some means to identify ourselves. So these are weird questions in a sense because most who read this will have lived in the country since their birth and their parent before them did as well. It seems almost stupid to ask such questions seriously, but I am. When I presented this teaching I used an illustration of which I shall try to describe. I put on a jester’s cap, [a hat with three tails] complete with little bells on the end. This was quite a sight because it is so out of my nature to do such a theatrical presentation. I proceeded to clip little tag on to each tail so as to name them. The tails each represent one aspect of identity that was just queried about.

1. One tail represents a nationalistic “identity” which draws attention to the fact that we have rejoined a territorial part of the world’s system.
2. Another tail represents a political “identity” which illustrates that we’ve relegated ourselves to being just another special interest group.
3. The third tail represents a religious “identity” where we divide the truth of God into little pockets and the fight over them and against one another.

To illustrate further I made several unkind comments concerning each aspect of identity in the hearing of the group while tugging on each tail of the cap representing that facet. My head would bob or be pulled to whatever side I tugged from, illustrating how what is in our head [what we hold as significant] affects us and grabs our attention. If we are Independents and someone degrades this group for any reason we are tempted to defend and protect what we’ve held dear. If someone were to say an awful thing regarding the denomination we belong to, we would be provoked to defend our connection and belonging to that group. If anyone degraded this nation, most likely a great amount of abuse will be unleashed on any person who would make such comments.

We’ve never thought we should let go of these identities and nobody has ever suggested that we should. And we do not realize how much of a grip the have on us. Many times we react to negative comments against these identities, not so much because the comments are wrong as much as we want to protect that which is important to us. A second error we make is that; what we belong to, in way of connections of an identity, are not absolute truths or realities. God isn’t a Baptist, and certainly not a Republican, yet many “Christians” react to negative comments against these groups as if God were a card-carrying member. We feel that any negative comment against the group we associate to is a comment against God because we want to follow God, when in reality we are sold out to one group or another as an identity. Thus, we are tugged side to side by these allegiances and identities we maintain.

In one sense we are like a fish with a hook in its mouth. A fish will fight once he is hooked. But the hook in his mouth and the intentions of the angler on the other end, largely control the fish. All fish will try to get rid of the anglers hook in order to go back to the freedom of his normal existence. Yet we respond towards the hooks of the world, which is outside our Kingdom. We defended these connections [hooks] as both being rightfully ours and being meaningful to our lives… The modern church has really become a people of a confused existence. We claim to be following God when in fact we are dedicated to many other things outside of God’s revealed intentions.

My purpose is to concern us with the common concepts we have about our identity which are also in direct contrast to what the Scriptures tell us. With all that is talked about today regarding the subject of the believer’s identity, there is one facet that is never touched, and that is: who we are not. Yet, until we deal with: who we are not, it is impossible to take on and live all that we really are as followers of Christ. If we never come to terms with: who we are not, we will not exit the place of; thinking, trust and belonging that we have always thought of ourselves in order to begin to live the truth.

In tandem, we desperately need to recover a reality of the Kingdom of God in the sense of the way we live and our sense and practice of community. Identity and Kingdom are mutually dependant. If we do not deeply understand our real identity, kingdom will be impossible to comprehend much less live. Today there is a wide chasm between the scriptural mandate of the Kingdom of God and the practical living experience of the modern church. Coming to terms with our true identity is the single entrance to being able to be the Kingdom of God that Christ initiated.

Question

Can anyone cite any major theme throughout the New Testament, which would allow a believer to maintain these types of identity appendages?(political, nationalistic and denominational)

For years, I have tried to get anyone to engage in serious debate on this question but dead silence the usual response.

We need to do three things regarding the Bible.

1. We should allow scripture to interpret itself.
2. We should see how texts were understood in the practices of the early church to bring back greater application in our own day.
3. In addition, we need to allow God to open our minds by speaking to us about the scriptures.

Let’s look at 2 Corinthians 5:14-20

14      For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;

15      and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

16      Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

17      Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; (all things have become new.) (NKJV replacing NASB)

18      Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

19      namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20      Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Several points about this text:

1. Many know the 17^th verse outside its context, but how about within its context? [The connotation of the common evangelistic use is that people get a fresh start…they don’t have to feel guilty anymore. Both of these concepts are on the shallow side of the whole truth.]
2. Paul is speaking from the perspective of being dead, yet resurrected in newness of life.
3. Paul’s outline focuses on the essence of the believer’s ministry in both reconciliation and ambassadorship. [We’ll deal with this detail more later on.]

Questions

1. How many things become new according to verse 17?
2. What is not included in this “ALL”?
3. Does this text speak to all people, even us today, or does it only speak to the Corinthians because of some specific detail the Apostle was trying to deal with at that time?

To help answer these questions let’s compare this text with another section of scripture in order to get a better perspective on the application of this “ALL” that Paul was talking about in Corinthians.

Let’s look at Philippians 3:1-12 NASB

1         Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

2         Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;

3         for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

4         although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:

5         circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;

6         as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness, which is in the Law, found blameless.

7         But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.

8         More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ,

9         and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,

10   that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;

11   in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

12  Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press     on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

In this section of the book of Philippians, Paul talks about putting confidence in his flesh, at least in what it accomplished before conversion, see: verse 7. As we can see in verses 5 and 6, Paul had much to be proud of in his flesh prior to meeting God on the road to Damascus. It is perhaps difficult in our day to understand the significance of all the things Paul was proud of, because they do not appear to be culturally relevant to our situation. It is this detail that may have prevented modern thinkers from drawing application of this text into our situation today. On the next page we will draw some comparisons between Paul’s day and our own.

We can see from the text that Paul counted all these things, accomplishments, status and identity, as dung! Do we realize the magnitude of Paul is saying here? When was the last time we have ever heard any teacher tell us to count all that we were before Christ, as dung? Look at these different aspects above. Most of us still place heavy stock in these. Yet, Paul is saying all of these things are sewage?

Philippians 3:5-6

We might be reeling, mentally scrambling to access: if this is true how this will affect our lives? Maybe we are checking our priorities, or maybe we are already justifying what we have accepted. Yet, the scripture here stares us in the face!

Backing up to our lead question what does the word “ALL” in 2 Corinthians 5:17 mean? Does this “all” deal with our identity, nationalistically, denominationally, theologically, socially or even our political affiliations? Or is this “ALL” just some esoteric hyperbole that has little to do with the practical day-to-day involvements of an identity? Indeed not! If Paul did not understand this “ALL” to include his identity, as the world reckons, he went through an awful lot of unnecessary trouble in ministry. Paul in fact was committed to living the lifestyle of being the kingdom of God over and against still identifying himself within the kingdoms of men.

Let’s Look At Acts 16 NASB

The story starts a bit earlier in the chapter at verse 12, our interest is with the end of the story.

22      and the crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them, and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods.

23      And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely;

24      and he, having received such a command, threw them into the inner prison, and fastened their feet in the stocks.

25      But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them;

26      and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s chains were unfastened.

27      And when the jailer had been roused out of sleep and had seen the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.

28      But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here!”

29      And he called for lights and rushed in and, trembling with fear, he fell down before Paul and Silas,

30      and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31      And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.”

32      And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33      And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34      And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

35      Now when day came, the chief magistrates sent their policemen, saying, “Release those men.”

36      And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The chief magistrates have sent to release you. Now therefore, come out and go in peace.”

37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.”

38 And the policemen reported these words to the chief magistrates. And they were afraid when they heard that they were Romans,

39  and they came and appealed to them, and when they had brought them out, they kept begging them to leave the city.

40  And they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia, and when they saw the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.

Paul endured a savage and unlawful beating, according to the rights afforded him as a Roman citizen. Yet, instead of using these earthly rights to save his skin/back he instead used what the world understood, from a human point of view, for a Kingdom of God purpose. In short, his earthly status according the flesh became a tool that he used rather than continuing in his mind as a right or a substance that he owned: an   identity.

Today, we do not grow in our repentance on this aspect. We never make this particular turn of dealing with our identity. We instead revert back to reveling in state granted rights and the identity we had in America before Christ in the same self-serving ways the world does. Our manipulation through political activity is a demonstration of this point. Our activity isn’t as much an attempt at spreading the gospel as it is about keeping what we thinking is ours, and maintaining a safe place to just enjoy freedom with no concerns. In the last 40-years of consorted political effort, Christians collectively speaking have achieved far less for the Kingdom than Paul, and his sidekicks accomplished in 25 or so years. While we meander in group-think-politics we have forgotten about being the Kingdom of God, not only in this country but also around the world. The church in third world countries is now doing what the church in this country used to do, as far as building the Kingdom.

The issue of Paul’s citizenship as a Roman is a study few in the modern church have really looked at comprehensively. If we had, we wouldn’t be using pieces of the New Testament to support the patriotic mindset, which is in such vogue in today’s “Christian” teaching. Using his earthly recognized citizenship was never Paul’s first line of attack or defense. Paul used his citizenship as a tool in various ways.

1. In Acts 16:12-40; Paul took a beating and then used this beating as a means to keep the ministry going in Philippi.
2. In Acts 22:24-30; Paul used his citizenship as a series of stopgap measures to get a hearing with the Roman governor.
3. In Acts 25:8-12; Paul appealed to Caesar, based upon the world’s recognition of his citizenship.

Each case was a last-ditch effort, where Paul had no other alternative, or where just the gospel would be better served in doing so. In the last example God’s intentions were clearly spelled out in scripture just prior to the example, (cf. Acts 23:11). “…Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also.” After this text we find nothing that would indicate that Paul took matters into his own hands (doing it his way) to self-fulfill God’s prophecy as Abraham did with the incident of Hagar/Ishmael. Therefore we must conclude that Paul was directly cooperating with God.

The concept of Paul disassociating from the usual connections in the flesh, is not without significant evidence. Paul makes a comment of distinction between the Kingdom of God and the people of society, (cf. Gal. 6:10). In 3-cases Paul writes about our conduct towards “outsiders”, (cf. 1 Cor. 5:12, Col. 4:5, & 1 Thes. 4:12). Peter uses similar distancing language in writing to believers of gentile origin in I Peter 2:12. If the gentiles were still gentiles in Peter’s mind why would he warn them to be careful towards gentiles, unless “gentiles” in this case referred to those outside the community of faith? Paul makes another distancing comment in Romans 9:3 when he refers to the Jews as, “his kinsman according to the flesh.”

If Paul still saw himself as a Jew, why did he make this distancing comment: “my kinsman,  according to the flesh”? It is because he was no longer living or working “according to the flesh”. This phrase occurs 17-times in the NT under Paul’s hand, which indicates a strong message of disassociation from thinking in physical terms, in favor of living in spiritual realities. Paul was not alone in this concept. Peter, early in Acts, refers to the leaders of Jews as “your rulers” suggesting this same disassociation, (cf. Acts 3:17). (These examples are mere emulations of one thing Christ Himself said, and we’ll get to that text momentarily.)*

Question
Why is it important that our human achievement and status, i.e. our identity, die when we come to Christ?

The importance of how we think of ourselves is dealt with in, Proverbs 23:7.  “For as a man thinks in himself, so is he.” As we think about ourselves we will act in concurrence to these thoughts.

More Specific Detail

1. If our former identity isn’t dead to us it will be a detriment in our service to God because it will divide our attention.
2. Former belongings manipulate us and tempt us to walk off the narrow path and to go back to serving the gods of the land(s) around us.
   1. If someone takes away a right we will try and protect the privilege, defending against its seizure. At this point are struggling for selfishness sake, not the gospel of the Kingdom.
   2. These identities will make us trade our allegiance to the eternal, in favor of allegiances to the temporal. [Notice what multiplicitous divisions do, see: Mark 3:25]
      1. There will be unnatural insecurities about worldly assumptions of identity.
      2. We will always be challenged simply by the insecurity of the temporal.
      3. We will be challenged by being personally attacked on something we hold as significant, which in not based on the eternalness of being hidden with Christ in God, (cf. Col. 3:3).

4.We cannot walk in any depth with God if we do not totally identify with Christ in a death like His, to be raised in newness of life, also like His.

5. We will be divided against people of the Kingdom around the world by these aspects of identity. There should only be one division between people: they are either in or outside the Kingdom of God. Believers are ONE in Christ. (cf. Acts 15:9, Rom. 1:14-16, 2:9-26, 3:22, 10:12, 1 Cor. 1:24, 12:12-13, Gal. 3:28, Eph. 2:11-22 and Col. 3:1-15)

If this first details of what “ALL” refers to 2 Corinthians 5:17; our belonging, our affiliations, our identity, as delineated in Philippians 3:2-12 isn’t enough of a shock to the modern mind, then lets look at a textual factor. Going back to Philippians 3, Paul uses the Greek word “Hina”, [Strongs #2443] in verses 8. The word “that”, which can also be translated from “Hina”, is also implied two other times in verses 9-11 by the Greek text. The word “that” or the phrase “in order that” are conjunctions. While there seems to be no hassle here, what do these words mean in their context? Most people have written off Paul’s phrase “in order that” simply as hyperbole, which accounts for the way the modern church lives today. We cannot make this discounting argument since Paul’s actions, as we saw before in Acts 16, does not support this interpretation. Additionally, this phrase “in order that”, used throughout the NT in excess of 80-times, is in every case used to join a result to a restrictive clause, i.e. a condition. But in the case of Philippians 3, a significant condition is placed on salvation/fellowship with Christ.

Question
What is the condition referred to by this phrase “in order that”, in the Philippians 3:8 text?

The condition is: Everything that we were before Christ must be dead to us; the result is that we may gain Christ and fellowship with Him.

The first disciples understood that in following Christ, they lost everything of who they were, (cf. Mark 10:25-31). To clarify, I am not suggesting in any way that people today, which haven’t made the jump between kingdoms in their commitment to Christ, are unsaved. Rather, this detail was a transition process even in Paul’s day, and at this late juncture in church history, especially in the West, this teaching is a rediscovery. God wants to again dust off this aspect and bring it back to the church so that we may deepen our walk with Him and begin to know the power of His resurrection, the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed unto His death so that we can adequately represent Him to the nations of this physical world.

To Sum Up The “Identity Discussion,” We Must Note

The importance of cashing in our former identities is that we have a new one in Christ and His Kingdom. We came to Christ as some subculture group of the world’s society but we are supposed to lay this down, in order to become resurrected in oneness with others of the Kingdom of God around the world. Additionally, we cannot be who we are in Christ, unless what we were before Christ is completely sacrificed. I am directly going on record to say that we are no longer American’s or whatever we thought we were before we came to Christ, according to the scripture! We are not, Democrats, Anglo-Saxon, Black, Protestant, Baptist, and Methodist, White-Collar, Middle-Class or anything else. We are now “ONE” as followers of Christ with a new citizenship, (cf. Phil. 3:20, Heb. 13:14). There is no such thing as a minority in the Kingdom of God, only in the kingdoms of men.

Let’s Jump To The Other Half Of The Subject

The word “Kingdom”, as it refers to the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven, is not some biblical obscurity. This single word is mentioned more that 130-times in most books of the NT. Christ, made reference to “the Kingdom” at least 90-times Himself. Take a look at just one of the times Christ used the word “Kingdom” in John 18:36. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” *(This is the text is that Paul and Peter emulated in their teaching and living.)

Question
Is this comment just some passing statement or is there more to it than just the recorded dialog between Jesus and the local Roman authority?

In reality, Jesus was making a clear statement about His purpose and the candor of His work through this comment. Both, the hangers-on around Him and His disciples interpreted Jesus’ “Kingdom” comments in their own way. They thought Jesus intended to throw off Roman power and reestablish Israel as a sovereign nation. The disciples persisted with these ideas up until Pentecost, (cf. Acts 1:6). The institutional church has our own nationalistic misinterpretations of scripture. For centuries we have discarded fundamental details in Christ’s teaching in order to support our own little sideshows. This has happened for so long modern believers wouldn’t know that they have lost much of what Christ taught.

When talking with people of the religious conservative bent [take dominion over creation and politics] about this teaching, you’ll usually get a volley of snide derisive comments. Sarcastically you’ll be asked, “How does this kingdom stuff look on a day-to-day basis?” To be followed by other throw-it-in-your-face retorts like: “If we are not part of the kingdoms around us do we run right out and tell everyone that, hey we are former Americans?” Additionally, “Do we become activists against the state and taxes as the Jews did?” Or, “Do we go out and become modern day zealots and militant protestors to announce our departure?”

Invariably, when someone proposes what appears to be “new idea” to the organized status-quo, it ALWAYS is thought to be extremist and opposite of all that is currently accepted. However, opposite is not the only option available to us. Some high profile people in the religious circles of this country talk about the “god given mandate” to change culture because of the moral implosion we see in society. A Russian economist named Ivan Illlich, was once asked, “What is the most revolutionary way to change society. Is it violent revolution or is it gradual reform? Illich gave a careful thought and answered, ‘Neither, if you want to change society, then you must tell an alternative story.”

Jesus told an exclusive alternative story. He said “I am the way the truth the life…” and society of that time was radically changed as a result of how the Disciples lived this truth and shared about this truth. Today we’ve stopped living as “an alternative to the society of the world” in turn we’ve rejoined it, hoping the mixed      marriage would reform the latter. In doing thus we have in as much said to the unconverted around us, “save thyself” by asking/forcing them to be moral without knowing the basis for morality. This world needs an example of truth and morality in the flesh, but it will not find these alternatives when it looks at the modern church in its current condition, the world will simply see itself.

Christ said His followers would be known by their love, currently the society around us knows us for a lot of others questionable things, in addition to our lack of love. This ought to utterly grieve our hearts because it grieves God’s. How can we have been so out of touch with what Christ said, unless we have totally departed from His way?

But to refocus, what is this Kingdom going to look like in practical terms? Since it does not have boundaries, what are its distinctives? How do we live the Kingdom instead of talk about it? Kingdoms and societies have their own culture that differentiates one group from another. In the same way the Kingdom of God also has it’s “dominate cultural values”, to use the sociologic term. Our next text is not generally viewed in the light in which we are going to use it. But we should not be so narrow minded as to miss the many applications that can be made from any text.

Let’s look At Galatians 5:22-25

²² But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

²³ gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

²⁴ Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

²⁵ If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

Christ said, we will be known for our love [John 13:35] and not just for those who love us [Matthew 5:44-48]. We are to be a culture of love that is measured in the aspects parsed out in Galatians.

Now we are beginning to talk about who we are. But for every aspect of who we really are, there are opposites or inversions. We need to see the contrast between the two so that we are not tricked back into worldliness.

1. We are ambassadors, “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God”, (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20).

The inversion: Lobbyist, just another special interest group, trying to grab power

2. We are soldiers, “Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier”, (cf. 2 Tim. 2:3-4).

The opposite: Civilians, inactive in the spiritual fight

3. We are servants, “Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God”, (cf. 1 Cor. 4:1) [Steward in the Greek meant slave].

The opposite: Co-Equals in the modern society of mediocrity

4. We are light, “for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light, (cf. Eph. 5:8-11). “You are the light of the world,” (cf. Matt. 5:14).

The opposite: The darkness of religiosity

5. We are not our own anymore, “you are not your own. For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body”, (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19b-20), [Implied what we do with our life, not just what we ingest].

The opposite: Self-actuatating and independent, able to do what we want, when we want.

6. We are priests; “…But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION” (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9).

The inversion: “Lower calling” laity being distinguished from the clergy “Higher calling.”

7. We are citizens of Heaven, “For our citizenship is in Heaven, from which we also eagerly await for a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ”, (cf. Phil. 3:20).

The opposite: Citizens of the kingdoms of men.

8. We are salt, “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men, (cf. Matt. 5:13).

The opposite: The common aggregate of society that is always treaded upon.

9. We are a city set on the hill, “A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house” (cf. Matt. 5:14-15).

The inversion: Putting ourselves under the basket of societies’ philosophy, conduct and protocol, thus hiding our light.

10. We are aliens and strangers, “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts…” (cf. 1 Pet. 2:11-12).

The opposite: Those that belong to the society.

Note: The enemy always has a fast substitution for God’s plan, the only problem is that it is always involves a reversal of God’s intent. We need to be careful not to fall into the devil’s subtleties.

This short list of identity facets in the Kingdom of God are complemented and facilitated through certain norms of living. We need to live differently to be different. Many have stop short of being a real difference and just settled to be different by outward appearances or making their “difference” one of removal. These approaches are petty. Most would affirm all that was listed above but they choose not to submit to this kind of rigor.

Spiritual Disciplines Flow Chart

This is a tremendous list of details to concern ourselves with. There is the basic essence of discipline that builds us up personally. But it is for a purpose of a healthy carry-through into our groupings plus a direct representation in the world. There is so much that we are supposed to do, that we have time little to play somebody else’s game. I can not fathom how any conservative activist could take a flow chart like the one above and say that it is burying ones head in the sand just because it doesn’t involve; picketing, harassing politicians, browbeating people about their sin and flooding the airwaves with action alerts as “good conservatives” tend to do. If our only interaction with the world is through politics or political action we are desperately under represented in the right things and tremendously misrepresenting what we are, for all the wrong reasons.

One fellow, who drew attention to the dangerous trend of conservative politics in evangelicalism, wrote:

One soon becomes aware of the idea that politics constitutes a sort of ultimate issue for the Christian. For some not to engage is a betrayal of the entire Christian life. Politics becomes a test of the sincerity of one’s faith. The political order takes on such importance that all teaching seems to converge on this entrance into politics. Bible passages, which clearly have nothing to do with the question, are interpreted in a straight political sense. One rejects (or forgets) those biblical passages which minimize politics, or which treat it as a sphere of activity, which is evil.²

Another quote helps us to understand the peril we encounter as we seek to play the world’s game the world’s way.

The moment Christians make it a habit to understand questions, which the world has elaborated, they adopt at the same time a certain number of ideological positions, responses and doctrines, which also originate in 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). When one takes world hunger as “the problem” and repeats the analyses of Castro and others, adapts Christianity to those views, then Marx is right…Christianity is then a religion which develops in terms of the world’s economic and technological evolution, and whose aim is to provide ideological and moral satisfaction to those who are in fact incapable of changing the situation… It is said that Christianity should arouse people to action in changing the situation. Those who enter that work area find out very soon how useless, futile and ineffective Christianity is in all that. Further, since the Christian is involved in a gigantic, technical and “weighty” endeavor, he soon discards spiritual preoccupations… for these are now mere embarrassments. To seize upon the world’s problem as the world states them, is to accept the world’s basic notions of them, its self-sufficient prescriptions or solutions, and to give them first place, is to become part of the dialectic trend as Karl Marx described it. This is accurate to the very extent to which Christians allow themselves to be confined, (by the world’s logic) to the extent to which they cease to represent the HOLY OTHER who intervenes and who introduces miracles into history. Now acting thus, Christians are abandoning the very thing which is their function with respect to the world, and which has a bearing on the course of events in this century. That function is to introduce a “tension”, an element of contradiction and conflict, which replaces the false dialectic of Marx with the true dialectic. However, this true dialectic cannot exist in the concrete situations of the world unless the Christians really have another Fatherland and are “ambassadors” for Christ, “strangers” among nations and “exiles” on the earth. If they are not that, they can keep on declaring that “Jesus is Lord”, but they still limit themselves to confirming the course of the world as it is.³

Still a third quote drives the point home.

You have noted that we have posed the ethical dilemma in terms of church-world. Our use of the images of the church as a colony and Christian as resident aliens was meant to set this matter in stark contrast. From a Christian point of view, the world needs the church, not to help the world run more smoothly or to make the world a better and safer place for Christians to live. Rather, the world needs the church because, without the church, the world does not know who it is. The only way for the world to know that it is being redeemed is for the church to point to the Redeemer by being a redeemed people. The way for the world to know that it needs redeeming, that it is broken and fallen, is for the church to enable the world to strike hard against something, which is alternative to what the world offers. Unfortunately, the accomodationist church, so intent on running errands for the world, is giving the world less and less in which to disbelieve. Atheism slips into the church where God really does not matter, as we go about building bigger and better congregations (church administration), confirming people’s self-esteem (worship), enabling people to adjust to their anxieties brought on by their materialism (pastoral care), and making Christ a worthy subject for poetic reflection (preaching). At every turn the church must ask itself, does it really make a difference, in our life together, in what we do, that Jesus Christ and God is reconciling the world to Himself?”⁴

Taking an earlier directive to find out how the early church understood scriptures’ application, we must learn to live under the direction of Christ as aliens and sojourners as they did. As an example of their thinking a fellow named Mathetes AD130-150 wrote an “epistle” to another fellow named Diognetus. He had the following to say about our way of life as the kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men.

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life, which is marked out by any singularity… But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their   wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers.⁵

The early church Historian Eusebius gives record of what another fellow said in regards to his identity, circa AD177. “Sanctus…steadfastly endured tortures beyond all measure…to every question he gave only one answer… ‘I am a follower of Christ’ instead of giving his name, native city, family…his race or whether he was slave or free.⁶

These two citings are not isolated instances. Entire books are dedicated to unearthing what the early church did and what they thought about the application of scripture to real life. We have not perfected in our day the simplicity of what the early church started; we have instead perverted it.

Closing Thoughts

I get fried with the constant modern drivel of upholding “family values” or “Judeo-Christian ethics”, what about Kingdom values and Kingdom Living! What about citizenship in the Kingdom of God being expected and lived in our midst? What about being a light to the culture around us by introducing an alternative, rather than attempting to coral it into a form of our values so that we can be comfortable in their society, much like Lot in Sodom. In Luke 9:62, Jesus makes an interesting statement that I think we forget, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Are we going to continue “touching” the kingdom of God with our mental commitments to Christ while we look back and lean on who or what we were in our life before Christ? God is beginning to call the church to come out from the world in the sense of belonging and identity in order to be the same alternative that Christ was in His earthly ministry. If we are following Christ can we be doing any different?

Let’s be done with extra identities and loyalties other than to God alone. Let’s stop being merely religious: having a form of godliness but denying its power. Let’s stop taking our significance from a belonging in the world. Let’s press into God and know Him more fully. Let’s be conformed to His image and represent Him accurately. Let the Kingdom of God; once again become the city set on a hill shining its light into the darkness of the kingdoms of this world.

Bibliography

1. The Shaping of Things to Come, Michael Frost/Alan Hirsh, Hendrickson 2003, pg. 33
2. False Presence of the Kingdom, Jacques Ellul Seabury Press 1972 Congress Catalog Card Number 77-163369-736-272-C-6, pg. 95
3. Ibid., pp. 50-51
4. Resident Aliens, by: Stanley Hauerwas, Abingdon Press, pg. 94-95
5. THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS The Writings of the Fathers down to AD 325. Compiled and edited by The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D. (Ages Digital Master Christian Library Version.5), pp. 58-60
6. The Early Christians, by: Eberhard Arnold, Baker Book House 1979, pp. 77-82

Some suggested reading

• The Reformers and their StepChildren, by: Leonard Verduin*
• The False Presence of the Kingdom, by: Jacques Ellul*
• The Pilgrim Church, by: E.H. Broadbent*
• Hope in a time of Abandonment, by: Jacques Ellul*
• Unveiled at Last, by: Bob Sjogren
• Count Zinzendorf, by: Felix Bovet*
• Resident Aliens, by: Stanley Hauerwas*
• Hearing God, by: Peter Lord*
• Houses that Change the World, by: Wolfgang Simson.

The above list is a good start to a better understanding of the history of the church.  There is a plethora of material out there and these books will give you a lot of leads to other books that are impactful on the subject of our identity and responsibility as the Kingdom of God amongst the Kingdoms of men.

*I have found it helpful to go to Addall.com to find these books.  I hope you enjoy all these book as much as I have.