Questioning the underlying reasons

Believers throw up their hands (sometimes physically) and say it’s their duty.

Ministers, preachers, pastors, and priests encourage it.

I deny that it is incumbent on any Christian believer.

Some time ago, a blog acquaintance posted this in her series of post-it-note-type expressions to and from God:

 

sticky-note-to-god-christian-poetry-by-deborah-ann-09-14-16

I always take this particular writer’s expressions as genuine and heartfelt.  I take pretty much every other believer’s similar expressions about elections and politics the same way.  For various reasons and with varying degrees of fear—and these do vary!—many of us are watchful and concerned.  However, I am compelled to wonder aloud. . . .

Do we think God is scrutinizing our “prayer lists” (as though a prayer list were a biblical notion in the first place) to see whether we are praying for the U.S. election?  Does God think more of us if we pray for election results (and less of us if we don’t)?

Most (vocal) Christian leaders seem to think that being involved in elections and praying for them is a requirement for all right-thinking believers.  Why are assumptions such as these so common?  (I intended that to be a targeted, conscientious question.)

Two weeks from this very night, my nation will be well into the process of reporting election poll results.  And many will be worrying, no matter which way the results are heading.  Frankly, I’ll be thinking about it all, too, but I’ve been more worried about Christians than about donkeys and elephants during the last year (and it’s the same in every election cycle).

This election seems to have generated more vitriol than most.  Sincere people pray for one result, and other sincere people (serious believer or not), for another.  And I ask . . .

What is the reason that underlies the praying?

One recent Sunday morning, I heard a spoken prayer—one of probably 18,468 prayers that very day—that God would “raise up godly leaders.”  I don’t question the good heart of the person praying, but I do question the underlying assumption—namely, that God “needs” “godly leaders” (however those things are conceived of) in public office in order to work out His purposes.

What is the reason for the seemingly intense, recurring desire for God to raise up someone who shares someone’s particular slant on Christian-ish beliefs?

I suspect that one prevalent reason to pray for the ascent of “godly leaders,” or for an election’s outcome, is that folks are too locked into this world.  (I do not advocate an unhealthy distance from this world, but I think most of us would be well reminded to think more like a pilgrim traveling peacefully through a foreign land.)  Too, some seem to feel that the U.S. was, or is supposed to be, “Christian.”  That, simply put, has never been and will never be the case.

I call myself—and you—not to a set of denominational doctrines but to a growing consciousness that the Lord’s kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, Jesus said near the end of His physical life, then His servants would be fighting the impending arrest and crucifixion.  He did not want them to struggle against that.

God’s reign (Kingdom) is quite distinct from any nation’s politics, and that has been the case since the end of theocratic Israel nearly two millennia ago.  This realization can be freeing—and compelling.

Subjects of the Kingdom: Christians, Conscience, Government, and the Reign of the King

[Discount available—see the bottom of this page.]

A poor point from 1Samuel 15

The portion of the Hebrew Bible that chronicles the beginning of the period of the great (and not-great) kings is not called Chronicles or Kings in English Bibles.¹  No, it’s called 1Samuel, and there’s a lot of really interesting stuff in it—stuff that can make us trip and fall all over ourselves.  There are some gruesome stories, some sad stories, and some even more problematic tales that can lead to dramatic misapplication in our time.

A few days ago, I heard a very capable, typically careful, on-target teacher say something irresponsible.  Here’s the background (and don’t miss that this instruction flies in the face of the “just war” philosophy). . . .

20161022_075424.jpgIn 1Sam 15, King Saul is instructed to destroy the Amalekites, including women and children, utterly.  In no one’s thinking today could that attack be characterized as “just.”  The rationale is probably not ours to figure out.  That aside, this otherwise capable teacher found himself saying that “as Christians, we could never do something like that, but that there are times that we have to do things like that for our country” (and by the way, “we ought to be grateful that people do things like that for our country”).

I was deeply disturbed by the almost subtle suggestion of hypocrisy inherent in this admonition.  I actually take it as representative of the “practical theology” of many, but I have come to expect better of this articulate, intelligent speaker.  Now, for those who feel no compunction in pledging allegiance to a flag, his position might make surface-level sense, but I deny it with all I am.  One cannot be one person for his country and another for his supposed Master.  Whatever the reason turns out to be for “genocide” commanded by God on the occasion of this particular battle between theocratic Israel and Amalek, there is nothing I should now do as a citizen of my country that I could not do as a Christian while looking into the eyes of the very One who is supposedly Lord of all my actions.

Spurred by the writing of Lee Camp in Who Is My Enemy? I’ve recently considered anew the duplicitous tradition of the so-called “just war” philosophy.  I may provide more detail on this in a future post.  Suffice it to say, here and now, that the U.S. of A. has not by any stretch consistently applied a valid just war tradition in the last century.  Nor have Muslim extremists, of course.  But a historical case can be made that earlier, non-“extremist,” and/or genuinely Qur’an-aware Muslims have shown a greater appreciation for some standards in meting out justice through “just conflict” than some Western armies have shown.

Back to King Saul.  He had certainly never heard of the modern concept of the “just war” and would not have been concerned with it.  On the surface, his concern would have been to obey God, but this entire narrative highlights Saul’s shadowy inconsistency.  We might also note 1Sam 14:52:  the conscription of men to fight for the cause—an outgrowth of the rise of a political nation—had been predicted by the prophet Samuel (8:10f).  I read this historical development as inherently unjust in its treatment of men and their families.

Leaving the aforementioned teacher’s theological misstep behind, I will speak to a couple things I do find in the text of 1Samuel.  I myself am not very experienced in OT narrative, but I’m growing more experienced with ancient texts and with literary interpretation in general, so I hazard a couple of guesses on my other blog here.


¹In the Greek Old Testament, 1st and 2nd Samuel are parts of the Kings sequence.

A Mennonite doctrine

A few weeks ago, I read a Mennonite pamphlet that gives these philosophical/doctrinal details as the 4th item in a list entitled “Summary of Fundamental Bible Doctrines of the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite”:


4.  Peace and Nonresistance

The Kingdom of Christ is peaceable and Nonresistant and must remain separate from the kingdoms of this world:

  1. Church and state must be separate (John 18:36)
    • The church is called to maintain the gospel standard of Christ’s kingdom for the regenerated children of God (Matthew 5:38-44, Romans 12:17-21).
    • The state represents God’s providential arm of justice within society, but it is not the responsibility of Christians to become involved in the enforcing of justice (Romans 13:1-7).
  2. A Christian may not hold civil office, vote in civil elections, or sit on civil juries (John 18:36).
  3. Biblical Nonresistance is based on divine love for all mankind and requires that the Christian may not
    • Quarrel with his fellow men
    • Use the law in retaliation or take part in lawsuits
    • Return evil for evil
    • Take part in the armed forces or war in any form
    • Serve in civil law enforcement (Matthew 5:38-44; Romans 12:17-21; 2 Corinthians 10:3-4)
  4. It is the Christian’s duty to pay his taxes (Romans 13:6-7), pray for the civil rulers (1 Timothy 2:1-4), and be subject to the state as long as it does not conflict with his Christian calling (Acts 5:29; Romans 13:1-7).

I find that the above principles and recommendations are in incontrovertibly in alignment with Jesus’ teaching and with the earliest Christian teaching and practice.  I do not necessarily think that all the above textual references are equally valid, but they are at least worthy of study and consideration.

B. Casey, 9/17/16

For a few anecdotes from my recent visit to a conservative Mennonite church, please see this post on my other blog.

Something new

[This essay is offered as a probe, in the vein of continuing conversation on the book Subjects of the KingdomI hope for some reflections and responses.]


Something new was coming.

In those days John the Baptist came on the scene, preaching in the desert of Judaea, “Repent, the Reign of heaven is near.”

. . .

But when he noticed the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who told you to flee from the coming Wrath?  Now, produce fruit that answers to your repentance, instead of presuming to say to yourselves, ‘We have a father in Abraham.’

. . .

The axe is lying all ready at the root of the trees; any tree that is not producing good fruit will be cut down. . . .”

The wording above is from an obscure yet fairly reputable 1922 translation by a single individual (James Moffatt, DD, DLitt).  Mental meanderings led me to compare the verbal description encapsulated in the word “lying” with other versions.  So I moved ahead almost a century to the NET Bible, which has “Even now the axe is laid.”  To my ear, the expression doesn’t sound as active and ready when the verb is “laid” instead of “lying.”  [The Greek is κεῖμαι | keimai, which is a present-tense, middle/passive voice verb that happens to be relatively uncommon in the NT—with only 24 uses overall, and half of those in the gospels.]  My understanding of the middle/passive voice is limited, but it allows for a range of understandings, so there is some latitude here.  The NRSV has “lying,” as does the New International Reader’s Version.  The NASB and ESV both have the more staid “laid.”  The rendering that jumps out the most is the almost-cobra-like HCSB one:

“Even now the ax is ready to strike the root of the trees!”

My eyes went to the verb this morning, but other grammatical aspects could be explored, such as the import of the post-positive conjunction δέ / de (often “and” or “but”) or the leading adverb ἤδη / édé (roughly “now”).  Any of these could reveal insight into what Matthew is saying about what John was saying.

Something was about to change when John (the submerger, not the apostle) was doing his thing in the wilderness.  Whatever a reader’s inclinations on any complicated theologies, one can’t read “The axe is lying all ready” or “the ax is ready to strike” without thinking that those who heard John say that would have started watching out for something, or at least looking over their shoulder.

So, what was changing?  The reign of God was about to have a new era.  Matthew called it ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν | the kingdom of heaven, or something like that.  Moffatt’s translation is “the Reign of heaven,” and that seems to be a richer, more apt expression.

In a fit of coincidence, I happened to have in my hands a copy of Viola and Sweet’s book The Jesus Manifesto yesterday.  (Previously, I’d only heard of this book, although I’ve read one other by the same authors.)  I zeroed in on chapter 7, “A Collision of Two Empires.”  I noticed this paragraph and hope readers of this post will, too:

A good definition of the kingdom of God is as follows:  the manifestation of God’s ruling presence.  “The kingdom of God is in the midst of you,” Jesus said.  In other words, Jesus was saying, “I’m standing here in your midst.  I am the kingdom incarnated.  Not only in what I do, but in who I am.” 

The Jesus Manifesto, 107

This type of presence was a new thing.  It made a difference, and makes a difference in 2016, too.

B. Casey, 10/13/16