I am no Anabaptist or ‘Yoderite’, but I thought I would highlight a video that I came across of theologian John Howard Yoder discussing the limitations of the concept of democracy. These “limitations” can easily be illustrated by the so called ‘Arab Spring’, and its aftermath (which is continuing), or they can also easily be illustrated in my own countries’ governmental framework in the United States. He makes some valid points which are worthy of further reflection. Here is the video:
Halden has a pretty good quote on Patriotism and Idolatry, it prompted me to post this. This quote comes from The Search For Christian America by Mark A. Noll • Nathan O. Hatch • George M. Marsden. In this quote they speak to the unhealthy level of patriotism associated with some of our early ‘fathers’. What’s more troubling is that this is the attitude we see exemplified by many Christians today, about America; to be thankful to be an American is one thing, to believe that we have ‘special nation status’ with God (vs. the other nations of the world), is another thing and just not Christian. This quote speaks to this, and provides some quotes from early ‘fathers’ that exemplify the idea that America has a special divine origin, and thus sanction in the world . . . again, this is just wrong:
American Christians were also especially susceptible to the lure of legend-building because they inherited a heightened religious interpretation of the nation’s founding. As we have seen in Chapter 2, early New Englanders had determined that they were God’s chosen people because they had such pure religion. By the time of the American Revolution, however, many throughout the colonies were making statements that America was elect because of the heights of civil liberty that it had achieved. This is a significant shift, for it made it possible to express secular purposes in religious terms, as Alan Heimert has indicated:
In the years between the Stamp Act and the Revolution the evangelical ministry often spoke in the phrases of Sam Adams — who in 1772 explained that the religion and public liberty of a people are so intimately connected, their interests are interwoven and cannot exist separately. Not the least of the conseqeunces of such a blending of interests and issues was that elements of the Calvinist populace were allowed to think that they were defending religion when in fact they were doing battle for civil liberties.
The following apocalyptic interpretation of the American Revolution by Samuel Sherwood, whose flaming rhetoric we have sampled before, was not atypical:
God almighty, with all the powers of heaven, is on our side, Great numbers of angels, no doubt, are encamping round our coast for our defense and protection. Michael stands ready, with all the artillery of heaven, to encounter the dragon, and to vanquish this black host. . . . It will soon be said and acknowledged that the kingdom of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.
Sherwood went on to attack the British as “one of the last efforts and dying struggles of the Man of Sin”; he threatened those hesitant to join the Revolution that the vials of God’s wrath would be poured out on anyone who did not oppose the anti-Christian tyranny of the British.
In this context, where sin became tyranny and righteousness the realization of liberty, it is not hard to understand the heightened millenial expectations that appeared after the Revolution. In earlier chapters we have seen how Christians worked with these visions. But they showed up as well in even the most secular minds in America. The often profane Benjamin Franklin proposed that the seal of the new republic be a picture of Moses with his rod held over the Red Sea. At the time of the Revolution, the vision of America’s sacred destiny remained intense but with an altered foundation. Instead of motivating men to create a Christian society, it encouraged them to bring about a revolution that would ensure the reign of civil liberty. (Noll, Hatch, Marsden, “The Search For Christian America,” 112-13)
I am afraid that too often this mentality has captured the psyche of ‘Christian America’ today. Often times, we hear Glenn Beck (Fox News commentator) appealing to much of this same kind of rhetoric. For him it makes more sense, since he is LDS/Mormon; and his conception of the ‘Republic’ is very horizontal in orientation (i.e. LDSism is very much so an American religion). But this should not have been the case for the Christians mentioned in the quote above, nor should it be the case for Christians now. We are not God’s final instantiation or His kingdom on earth (this is a very post-millennial perspective) — as a ‘nation’ that is — we instead are His ‘city on a hill’; which means that we are advancing a kingdom that transcends national boundaries and any notions of exceptionalism. It’s one thing to be thankful to be an American, it’s another thing to imbue that with divine sanction. Our citizenship is in heaven (cf. Phil. 3:21), we claim the ‘kingdom’ by proclaiming and living the Gospel; and we don’t do that by national identity, but by walking by the ‘Spirit’!
I am not doing a whole lot today, just chillin’; watching the continuous coverage of the unfolding mayhem taking place in Iran. Anything that takes place in the Middle East usually piques my interest, and some of that might just be related to my view of prophetic history and in particular, my Progressive Dispensational Premillennial point of view.
I just find it interesting to watch the political posturing that our own government is doing, in regards to taking a bold stand with those who would protest the totalitarian regime that they are currently living under. Our country, our leadership says we are ‘for political freedom’; but when it actually comes down to it, it seems that this is really only a matter of convenience and expediency — and I am referring to Obama’s “dead-fish” statements on the current controversy. I do realize that we can’t do much, but watch (as a country); but I think it would do the protesters well to know that other “states” that say that they believe in human rights and freedom are actually standing with them, and not in an indifferent state of flux (“wishy-washy”) . . . waiting to see what’s going to happen before we take any kind of principled stand.
In the end, what this Iranian situation illustrates is the inherent human desire for genuine freedom, even if they/we don’t know what that is. What upheavals like this highlight, amongst other things, is that people were created with a desire to be “free;” of course this freedom most certainly only comes when someone is brought into the life of God through Christ, who is truly “free” and not compelled one way or the other, except by Himself in relation to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So today I am actually going to be praying for Christian Iranians, and that they will be able to use this current controversy to introduce their countrymen to the true freedom that in fact they are all calling for; a freedom that will only be satisfied through Christ!
The world is a lost, wicked, dark, destitute wasteland; it just doesn’t necessarily know that, completely yet. The world tries to ‘create’ meaning for itself, it tries to use the perceived surplus of itself to manipulate the powers that be. In fact the world operates on the assumption that “he with the most ‘power’ in the end wins.” What defines or describes the ‘power’ that the world, collectively and individually, is after? To be honest I am not sure the world really knows what it is that they are looking for when it comes to ‘power’. Sure it thinks power is related to having lots of money, or being in a role like ‘President of the United States’, or more simply a CEO. Maybe it tries to find power through ‘controlling’ others, for example a murderer seeks to supplant the rightful place of God by taking or giving life (or so they assume), or a thief seeks to find power by violating other peoples’ perceived powers by taking from them ‘at their will’. Power is an elusive thing, for man that is, for man left to himself, his own vices.
But any critical person knows that man has no ‘real power’, that’s why man can never rest, there really is no ‘real power’ to be had — in himself. But isn’t that the dilemma? Man, by ‘fallen-nature’ is driven to ‘regain’ control, regain power over his circumstances — be god, if you will. I’m afraid this is all in vain though, real power only comes in an disarmingly brutal fashion. Real power is only undercut through a tearingly raw reality. Substantial power only comes from without, when man is ripped from himself unto the source of all power; unto the person who is power, who is an indestructible life. Real power, by the world’s standard is ‘revealed’ and ‘released’ through, for all intents and purposes, what the world is running away from, weakness. Here is the plight of the world’s power:
. . . He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by trimphing over them in him. Colossians 2:15
The world strives in vain, the structures of society are built upon vanity (even America). There is no safe haven to run to, there is no ‘city on a hill’ to find rest in, there is no ‘city of man’ to find refuge (sorry politicians); our only place of hope is found in what Jesus did to ‘disarm’ the principalities and powers, it is found in ‘taking up our crosses daily and following him’ — it is found in His life, exemplified and externalized at the cross, grave, and resurrection.
I am tired of hearing Christians, and especially American Christians, trying to find hope in the political system. It has been ‘undercut’, there is no hope there; there is no power to be had there, there is nothing to ‘control’. If you want control, if you want power, if you want refuge then quit looking for it in the places that this world does; quit mixing (syncretizing) Jesus with the structures of this world, this only ends up making us idolaters (just read Israel’s history in the bible). Sorry weary soul, but if you were looking for a sense of control, or some ’empowerment’ in your life, the ‘city of man’ is only really and always a slough of despondence.
I recently purchased the book: Christ, History and Apocalyptic: The Politics of Christian Mission authored by Nathan Kerr. It is certainly engaging modern theological concerns, with its goal, primarily — in conversation with some prominent theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries respectively — as articulating a vision of Christian engagement that is, ironically, Christ-centered, which means that it is Apocalyptic; both in its metaphysic, ontology, epistemology and praxis. Here is its synopsis from the back jacket (I am sure I will be quoting from and reflecting upon its content in the days to come):
This book offers a comprehensive reflection on what it means that Christians claim that “Jesus is Lord” by engaging in a defense of Christian apocalyptic as the criterion for evaluating the “truth” of history and of history’s relation to the transcendent political reality that theology calls “the Kingdom of God.” The heart of this work comprises an original genealogical analysis of twentieth-century theological encounters with the modern historicist problematic through a series of critical engagements with the work of Ernst Troeltsch, Karl Barth, Stanley Hauerwas, and John Howard Yoder. On the basis of a rereading of John Howard Yoder’s place within this genealogy, the author outlines an alternative “apocalyptic historicism,” which conceives the work of Christian politics as a mode of subversive, missionary encounter between church and world. The result is a profoundly original vision of history that at once calls for and is empowered by a Christian apocalyptic politics, in which the ideologically reductionist concerns for political effectiveness and productivity are surpassed by way of a missionary praxis of subversion and liberation rooted in liturgy and doxology.
Well it is finally done! America has elected her first socialist, in principle, president. I think the thing that surprised me the most about this election was how many “Evangelical” Christians voted for Obama; at least many who I know from my school days at Multnomah. What is it about Obama? Is it his charisma as a speaker? His presence as a person? His ideas? If it is his ideas, which ideas, and why? Is it his view on abortion that has resonated with Evangelicals? Maybe his fiscal policy and his “redistribution of wealth?” Or maybe it his view on labor and “unionization?” Maybe, and I’m sure this is a big one, it is his view on the Iraq war, right? Maybe it’s his position on universal healthcare? Maybe it’s none of these. Maybe it’s because he is friends with a domestic terrorist? Or maybe it’s his friendship with a former Palestinian terrorist? Maybe it’s his relationship with ACORN (that noble group)? Or maybe his affiliation with the “New Party” (an intentional Marxist/Socialist group)? Or maybe it’s his stewardship of environmental issues (like his proposal to bankrupt the coal industry)? Maybe it’s the “Fairness Doctrine?” Maybe you just wanted some good old fashioned change?
I don’t really know. Which one of the issues above is the clincher for my “Evangelical” friends from my school days? Or maybe I don’t know you from my school days, but you’re still an Evangelical who voted for Obama. If you fit into either group, can you identify what it was that actually propelled you to vote for Obama?
I was doing a little research on the inter-relationship between the policies forwarded by the organization known as ACORN, and the policies forwarded by Barack Obama and Joe Biden; and what I found was quite amazing, but not surprising. First watch this video by Obama (the video is only 4 minutes long), on his Blueprint for Change:
Do you see the striking resemblance between Obama’s “Blueprint for Change,” and ACORN’s core campaign initiatives? For further articulation on Obama’s points see his website here, here, and here. It seems clear to me that Obama/Biden and ACORN are in perfect concert, one with another. In fact there is such univocal correspondence between Obama’s “Blueprint” and ACORN’s that it must have been very easy for Obama to come to his plan as he did; as easy as ‘copy’, ‘cut’, and ‘paste’.
Jame’s Sire in describing Karl Marx’s framework for society building makes some very pertinent points, relative to the relationship of Capitalism, and Marxism:
. . . Capitalism requires a large body of propertyless workers, the proletariat, to exploit. As Marx saw it, the economic dynamics of capitalism will necessarily lead to a society in which the proletariat are more and more numerous, and more and more exploited. Capitalist societies become more and more productive, but wealth becomes more and more narrowly distributed. Eventually the concentration of wealth leads to a society in which more is produced than can be purchased; overproduction leads to unemployment and more suffering. At last the proletariat will be forced to revolt.
For Marx the revolt of the proletariat will be different from any previous revolution. In the past, one social class overthrew a rival oppressing class and became in its turn the oppressor. The proletariat will, however, be the majority, not a minority. They have no vested interest in the old order of things, so it will be in their own best interests to abolish the whole system of class oppression. The material abundance created by modern technology makes this a real possibility for the first time in human history, since without such abundance, struggle, competition and oppression would inevitably break out in new forms.
The new classless society which will emerge will make possible what Marxists call the “new socialist individual.” People will supposedly be less individualistic and competitive, more apt to find fulfillment in working for the good of others. The “alienation” of all previous societies will be overcome, and a new higher form of human life will emerge. This vision in many ways parallels the Christian vision of the coming of the kingdom of God, and it is therefore easy to see why some have characterized Marxism as a Christian heresy. (James W. Sire, “The Universe Next Door,” 68-9)
In this scheme of things, in our current societal situation in America, who is the “proletariat?” For Obama/Biden and ACORN it is the middle to low class income demographic. For Obama/Biden there is a “New America” coming, for the Marxist this would be his “New Socialist Individual.” In the “New America” the rich (for Obama/Biden defined as incomed at $250,000 or more a year) will now pay for an infrastructure that supposedly transcends the “classes” (i.e. Obama’s 2004 inaugural speech, “. . . we are not red America, or blue America, we are the ‘United States of America'” [my paraphrase]). So that the classless society (initially made up of the middle-class and low-class) becomes a beacon of hope that finally moves beyond Capitalistic greed and strife, by embodying the social justice and shalom that Capitalism has always suppressed (of course since there will no longer be incentive to be “rich,” and work accordingly, such socities typically crumble, with no wealth to support such infrastructure). We, at this point, are then able to enter a kind of Liberationist Utopian heaven where Humanities’ indomitable spirit reigns triumphant in self-justifying adulation as the ruler of its own self-created domain.
Certainly a classless society would be heaven, but you can’t have heaven without Jesus Christ at its center! That’s the interesting thing, the kingdom of darkness, in her privation and negation, will always try to survive her own demise by ‘parasitism’. In other words, world governments (as determined by their ‘Fallen’ nature) will try to live off of the surplus of the imago dei; so that what we see, say for example in Marxism, is the exemplification of man being as God (see Gen. 3), or his attempt to be such (i.e. humanity and nature, separate from God have “manifest destiny” determined not by God, but by their own ‘god’ shaped determinations).
In my view, Obama sees himself as the ‘Messiah’ of sorts, thus his confidence in his rather Marxist “blueprint” for the “New America.” He seems to believe that he can construct a utopian like paradise wherein social justice and equality for all is realizable—as long as we keep “His” blueprint at the center.
Is any ‘human’ societal framework ever going to be “perfect,” Capitalism or Marxism? No! But for my two cents, any framework that intentionally seeks to assert humanities’ god-hood should be avoided. Ultimately neither Capitalism nor Marxism is the greatest of options; but I do believe that the former (based on ‘Free-Trade’ principles, etc.) has more going for it, than outright socialist/Marxist policy will afford any given nation. Having said that, I can think of a whole slough of narcissitic, epicurean problems that Capitalism has inherent to it . . . oh LORD, come quickly 😉 !
There is nothing like putting your head in the sand, and hoping reality will some how just pass by. But how many of us are doing just this? When we look out at the economic disaster confronting the U.S., as well as the world, it seems to me that most of us just cannot accept the fact that we are in dire dire straights. We listen to main-stream media out-lets, and we hear the gloss that their ‘paid’ economists put on the situation; and we just think we are in the midst of another downward cycle—but it will cycle up again (we tell ourselves—or these paid economists tell us). The government tells us it is going to be okay, not to worry ‘they have it all under control’; in fact all they have to do is print more money, and then throw it at the problem, and it will all go away. They want us to think that we can go on our merry way, living the same gluttonous consumerist lives that we always have. That our standard of living does not have to change, that we can keep spending our little fuzzy hearts to death, using our credit cards, of course. Of course they tell us this, because this is exactly their own fiscal model; we borrow, borrow, borrow. We borrow to buy cars, to go to school, to buy big houses, to eat the best foods, to drink the best wines, to wear the coolest clothes, etc., etc.; the problem is, is that we have been borrowing, for years, from other countries (so our gvt.), and now those countries are starting to realize that we aren’t good for it. Furthermore our country is built, almost solely, on credit; and many of our ‘lending’ countries are not. Once the jello hits the wall, which we are just now starting to see, our whole economy will be shown for what it is—a house of cards. And while the world’s countries are not necessarily built on credit, we are all integrally inter-related; so that when we falter, they falter, and vice versa. For more clarity on this listen to Peter Schiff, an economist, at this link: Glenn Beck
Does not the problem above remind you of another problem, the problem of sin? You see people love themselves, in fact they love the darkness, according to Jesus (Jn 3), which does not allow them to look at reality in the face—the face of Jesus. Instead sinful people, create individual infrastructure to cope with their malice, so they really do not have to deal with reality. A perfect image of this, for me, comes from The Lord of the Rings’ ‘Gallum’; an ugly little emaciated creature who is so enamored with ‘His precious’, the ring that he could care less about anything else—including himself. But this is ironic, in fact the real problem with Gallum is not “His Precious” (ring), but it is himself; he is expressing the inward bent of his heart, and that is to please himself, at all costs. Isn’t this what sinful people do? We worship ourselves, at all costs, no matter what is going on around us; no matter what precipise we are about to go over—whether that be into the cavernous wasteland of hell, or temporally into an economic crisis the likes of which no one can imagine.
We have two choices, we can try and perfect nature, and repair ourselves (so our current situation in the world); or we can recognize that our situation is beyond repair, spiritually, and we accept the fact that the only answer is truly drastic; even apocalyptic. We all know the only answer for man’s dreadful rock-like desparately sick heart is for Jesus to break through and kill, kill, kill, that ugly Gallum like nature and give us His heart! We, as Christians, need to quit constructing models that try to fix and repair nature (many psychological integrationist models, philosophical models, ethical models, anthropological models, etc.); and instead build models of spirituality and holiness on the foundation which Christ alone has laid—the one that has put us to death at the cross!
Lets not mimick the world system, and continue to build churches and community on structurally broken ideas; instead lets be theologians of the cross who recognize the all sufficiency of Jesus Christ and His WAY! When I look at our situation in the world today, I can only say . . . Jesus come quickly!!
Here’s an interesting video. It apparently was put together by some New Age supporters of Barack Obama. The most troubling part of it, to me, is the song being used for background:
I wanted to clarify one other thing, it appears to me, as you will see, that the people in the video are merely Obama supporters, from all walks of life; in other words the people we see in the video, I don’t think (for the most part), are not “New Agers.”
I just think the video is interesting, as it illustrates, from an extreme vantage point, how far the Messiah complex has gone. One can only hope that Obama himself does not share the same aspirations.