NeilCraigan.Com

A thought from Michael Horton

I've been a huge fan of the work of Michael Horton ever since reading "Beyond the Culture Wars" some 20 years ago. His latest work, The Gospel Driven Life, is a terrific read. One of Horton's passions seems to be painting an accurate picture of the relationship between the church and world, the sacred and the profane, the common and the holy and, yes, he does address this topic in his latest work. Here's part of what he has to say...

Christ's kingdom is its own culture: holy rather than common. That does not mean that it is an alternative subculture. In other words, there is no such thing as Christian sports, entertainment, politics, architecture, or science. In these common fields, Christians and non-Christians are indistinguishable except by their ultimate goals and motivations. Ironically many of the statistics we read today show that professing evangelicals do not differ from non-Christians in their core beliefs and ethics, while an elaborate "Christian" subculture flourishes. In contrast, the second century Epistle of Diognetus reported that Christians are distinguished from others "neither by country nor by language nor by customs." They do not live in their own ghettos or "use a strange form of speech." They do not differ in cultural customs of their respective lands or in dress and food. Yet in their ordinary lives "they show forth the remarkable and admittedly strange order of their own [heavenly] citizenship." "They live in fatherlands of their own, but as aliens. They share all things as citizens, and suffer all things as strangers. Every foreign land is their fatherland, and every fatherland a foreign land... They pass their days on earth, but they have their citizenship in heaven." 

There is in this paragraph something for us all to wrestle with, some will wrestle with the idea of forgoing the Christian subculture, for others it will be the challenge of giving up our church culture (a culture more reflective of the a prior century than the one we live in today), for other the challenge will be to see their home country as a foreign land and perhaps the biggest challenge of all will be for us to learn to live for Christ in the world in which God has placed us.

"Kill Thy Enemy" - Gunsights made to "biblical standards!"

Every once in a while a news story comes along that just leaves me shaking my head, this is one of them. A top gunsight manufacturer, Trijico, is inscribing its sights with raised biblical references.

As the BBC report states, "The markings include "2COR4:6" and "JN8:12", relating to verses in the books of II Corinthians and John. Trijicon, the US-based manufacturer, was founded by a devout Christian, and says it runs to "Biblical standards"."

As the company states on its website, "We believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals."Someone needs to give these folks a brief theology lesson beginning with, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and that no one is good except God. America could be great if its people were good but its people are not good, we, like all people, are sinners standing in the need of grace.

So what are the inscriptions? The BBC reports...

The inscriptions are subtle and appear in raised lettering at the end of the stock number.

John 8:12 reads: "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

The nod to part of the second letter of Paul to the Corinthians, found on the company's Reflex sight, references the text: "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

I don't know about you but I don't think this was what Jesus and Paul had in mind for their words. Perhaps we could suggest some other texts for them, "love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you." "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty give him something to drink."

There is nothing more frightening to me than nationalism tied up with religion. I should know, I grew up in Northern Ireland.

Image from Boing Boing
 

World War 2 - family and friends - death and destruction

Seventy years ago today World War II officially began. Germany invaded Poland and Britain and France declared war on Germany. Neville Chamberlains iconic statement, "Peace in our time," would not be realized. A little over twenty years since the end of the "war to end all wars" another world war breaks out that would ultimately claim the lives of over 60 million people.

My grandfather, WC Kendrick, served in the Royal Navy during this war. For a while the ships he served on were part of the protection for the Atlantic convoys that ferried supplies from the United States and Canada to Britain. He witnessed the sinking of many ships but survived to tell the story.

Not so lucky was a young man by the name of Thomas Holmes. Thomas, my dads cousin, was in the Royal Air Force and served as a bomber pilot. Early in the war his plane was shot down over enemy occupied territory. For the duration of the war there was no word as to whether he had survived the crash or died. While the Red Cross were generally good at getting information on POW's back to Britain it was an imperfect system. With no good information at hand Kathleen, Tom's mum, sat out the duration of the war wondering about the fate of her son. After the war's end she learned that Tom, like so many, had been killed when his plane went down.

Ray Davey, a family friend, headed for North Africa in November of 1940. He was a chaplain with the YMCA. He would soon find himself captured and spend most of the war as a POW making his way from Tobruk to Dresden. His full story can be read in his book, "The War Diaries."

Ray walked the streets of Dresden shortly after the allied bombings and records in his diary onm March 12, 1945... "saw the ruins of that city in daylight... I walked for about an hour and a half... and saw what modern bombing does. It looked as if some supernatural giant had taken up the town and shaken it and then set it on fire. I walked for a very long time without seeing a house fit for habitation. I've never seen such absolute devastation on such a wide scale... Casualty figures now range from 80,000 to 300,000, and I don't think we wull ever know correctly.
We finally arrived at the station and found that only a shell remained... The synchronized clocks bore mute witness to the fact that the destruction had descended at 3 minutes to 11 o'clock. It is reckoned that 16,000 perished in the station... It was a terrible fact to realise that many thousands of bodies were still entombed under the debris. I did realise then what total war means."

Ray would later found the Corrymeela Community in Northern Ireland and devote his life to work for peace.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" Matthew 5:9

Citizenship and Allegiance

This has always been a very challenging topic for Christians to wrestle with. Ever since Constantine made Christianity the religion of the empire, and Justinian (528 AD) made it illegal for citizens of the Roman Empire not to be Christians, Christianity has struggled to separate itself from the kingdoms of this world.

The result has seen Christians waging war against Christians. English Christians fighting French Christians in the 100 Years War, British, French, German, Italian, Russian Christians fighting each other in World War 1. All the wars of Europe throughout the Middle Ages were wars were Christians were fighting and killing other Christians. The Second Lateran Council of 1139 introduced some weapons limitations, banning the use of crossbows, bows and arrows and siege machines in wars in which Christians were fighting Christians.

Why would Christians go to war against other Christians and would the clergy often be seen to be backing the troops in these wars? On one level the answer is simple enough, they had confused their citizenship in heaven with their citizenship on earth and being British, French, German, Russian etc. meant as much to them as being Christian.

In Philippians 3:20 Paul reminds us that, “Our citizenship is in heaven.” Philippi was a Roman Colony and all who were born in the city were granted Roman citizenship. This was a big deal, in Acts Paul mentions that he is a Roman citizen by virtue of being born in Tarsus. In these Roman towns a register would be kept listing all the citizens of the town, all those who were allowed the rights and privileges afforded only to citizen. Of course citizenship spoke not only of privilege but also of allegiance and therein lies the rub.

The earliest Christian confession was the simple statement “Jesus is Lord.” This was over and against the statement of allegiance to Caesar, “Caesar is Lord.” The Priene Inscription dating to around 9 BC speaks of Caesar Augustus, it states that he was sent, “as a savior both for us and our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since… the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the gospel for the world that came by reason of him.” A very different story is found in the bible. Mark’s gospel begins with the words, The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Did I mention that Caesar claimed the title “son of God” for himself?)

More could be said about to contrast Christ and his kingdom over and against the kingdom of the world. But I will leave this with one last thought. It was after traveling to Caesarea Philippi that Jesus asked the disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” and Peter gave his famous answer, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The geography is important here.

As citizens of God’s kingdom we live as, “aliens and strangers” in this world. We are “Ambassadors” of God’s kingdom. That means that our allegiance lies with no nation of this world. The Church is the international body of Christ, it is made up of people from every nation of the globe. As Paul reminds us in Colossians, “there is no Jew or Greek, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian (no Greek speakers seen to be uncivilized), Scythian (known for their brutality), slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

God’s people are part of a different tribe than any earthly nation, or tribal emblems are not a national flag and a constitution, rather they are the cross and the Scriptures. Our national songs are the Psalms. The voices we are to listen to are those of our fellow Christians around the world, not those of any national government.

That being said, Christians are still to respect the authorities of this world, wherever they may be as they play an important God ordained role in maintaining order in a sinful world. We still live in the world but we are not of the world.

Nick Megoran in speaking of God’s people says, “the citizens of this kingdom share their wealth freely with those in want, sure that their king will provide their need. They do not jealously protect their borders, but welcome all who will freely take citizenship. They do not hate their enemies – not only do they refuse to harm them, but they love and pray for their good. They do not joyfully line up behind their tribes when they go to war, but sorrow over violence and injustice, and actively seek to be peacemakers.”

The big question we all have to ask is whether we are singularly focused on Christ and his kingdom or do we have a divided loyalty? Jesus reminds us that we cannot serve two masters, there is no room for divided loyalty between the kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of heaven.

To become an American citizen you have to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which [you] have heretofore been a subject or citizen.” Christ demands that we make the same statement when we declare ourselves to be his followers.

Perhaps God’s people need to stand up and declare, “I pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ and to the kingdom for which he stands, one people under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Perhaps you find that statement offensive, it’s not supposed to be, actually it’s completely true.

Loving your enemy

I have been enjoying leading a class on Dietrich Bonhoeffer's classic "The Cost of Discipleship." This book, written in the mid 1930's presents us with an ongoing challenge as to what it means to be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ in the world.

Central to Bonhoeffer's thought is that Christ has to be the center of all that we are. The only way that we can live the Christian life is to learn to fully abide in Christ. No where does this become more apparent than when we encounter the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on Mount. In the three chapters of Matthew that make up this great sermon we are challenged in ways that force us to rethink how we live our lives and respond to others. At times the simple and clear teaching  of Jesus confronts us in such a way that we decide that he can't possibly mean what he says, so we try and explain it away. As Soren Kierkegaard said, "Christian scholarship is the church's attempt to defend itself against the bible."

Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the teaching of Jesus to turn the other cheek and then to show unconditional (agape) love for your enemy. A thought that is picked up by Paul in Romans 12 as he quotes from Proverbs.

Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:

"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The big question then is whether Jesus and then Paul, meant what they said to be taken at face value or whether we are supposed to temper this to allow for another level of interpretation?

Since Jesus is to be our example then we should probably take a look to see how he dealt with his enemies.

Who are Jesus enemies? "While we were God's enemies..." Romans 5:10 Yes, we were God's enemies and while we were God's enemies, sinners, Christ died for us. Christ's unconditional love for his enemies allowed him to die for us. The Romans were the enemies of the Jewish people and Jesus brought healing to the Romans. Jesus restored the ear of one of the men who came to arrest him after Peter cut it off. Jesus befriended and ate with collaborators like the tax collectors and made a despised Samaritan the hero of one of his stories, while on another occasion made an adulterous Samaritan woman the center of his incarnational  ministry to reach into Samaria.

Jesus clearly demonstrated that the kingdom of God would not be established in the same way that earthly kingdoms were, through the sword, but rather the kingdom of God would be established through sacrificial, unconditional love, that would extend even to our enemies.

Does this mean that Christians should never be involved in the killing of other human beings? The answer to that question depends on who you ask. For me it boils down to a question of citizenship and allegiance. I'll write on that in the next day or two.

God is Fuhrer // Jesus is President

In preparation for a Sunday School class I was watching a documentary on the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. (I will be leading a book study of his brilliant work "The Cost of Discipleship" in January)

Part of the documentary focused on the Confessing Churches and the courage of its leaders, one of whom was Martin Niemoller. Niemoller was at first a strong supporter of German patriotism and an early supporter of Hitler but quickly grew to see the evil of the Nazi machine and broke away from it.

He preached a sermon in which he declared, "God is my fuhrer" and it almost cost him his life as a bomb was thrown into his parsonage by members of the Hitler youth. This got me thinking... Hmmm....

We live in a culture that doesn't have Lords and Kings so perhaps its easy for us to say that "Jesus is Lord" because it poses no imminent threat to the earthly powers around us. Our civil religion can continue untainted. But what if the church started proclaiming, "Jesus is President," how would that go over? I checked the definition of "president" at Merriam Webster online and the first couple of definitions seem to work for the appointed role that Jesus holds as part of the Trinity.

Just as the early proclamation "Jesus is Lord" was both a theological and political statement for the church, it is perhaps time to help Christians reclaim that radical faith statement.

Jesus is Lord
God is my Fuhrer (leader)
Jesus is my President

God is Fuhrer // Jesus is President

In preparation for a Sunday School class I was watching a documentary on the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. (I will be leading a book study of his brilliant work "The Cost of Discipleship" in January)

Part of the documentary focused on the Confessing Churches and the courage of its leaders, one of whom was Martin Niemoller. Niemoller was at first a strong supporter of German patriotism and an early supporter of Hitler but quickly grew to see the evil of the Nazi machine and broke away from it.

He preached a sermon in which he declared, "God is my fuhrer" and it almost cost him his life as a bomb was thrown into his parsonage by members of the Hitler youth. This got me thinking... Hmmm....

We live in a culture that doesn't have Lords and Kings so perhaps its easy for us to say that "Jesus is Lord" because it poses no imminent threat to the earthly powers around us. Our civil religion can continue untainted. But what if the church started proclaiming, "Jesus is President," how would that go over? I checked the definition of "president" at Merriam Webster online and the first couple of definitions seem to work for the appointed role that Jesus holds as part of the Trinity.

Just as the early proclamation "Jesus is Lord" was both a theological and political statement for the church, it is perhaps time to help Christians reclaim that radical faith statement.

Jesus is Lord
God is my Fuhrer (leader)
Jesus is my President

The Second Greatest Christmas Story

It may be the greatest Christmas story, next to the original. The story of the Christmas truce of 1914. No one is quite sure how it all started but start it did and it spread up and down the front lines of battle as soldiers came out of their trenches and walked into "no man's land" to shake hands with the "enemy," bury their dead, exchange gifts and, in a couple of instances played a game of soccer.

When fighting did finally resume the guns were fired, not at the "enemy" but over their heads. It was only after the troops on the front were relieved of duty that the fighting began again in earnest and continued for four more bloody years.

Stanley Weintraub has written a masterful book, "Silent Night" in which he recounts the story of Christmas 1914. It will appeal to both the soldier and the pacifist alike. It is a moving story of humanity caught in the worst imaginable situation. You can read an interview Weintraub did with the National Review here. You can buy the book here.

John McCutcheon wrote a song about it.

Flags and Fires

On July 11 every year the Protestant community in Northern Ireland begins its celebration of the Battle of the Boyne by lighting huge bonfires. It is a time of flag waving patriotism, celebrating the victory of the Protestant William of Orange over the Roman Catholic king James. The great irony is that it never was an Irish war and the Pope actually supported William in the conflict because James was backed by the French king Louis and the Pope was concerned about the political leverage of Louis. Of course the people of Ireland are the ones who are now stuck with it.

This time of year the flags are flown high to remind you who's who. It doesn't take long to figure out if you are in an area where you would be welcomed or rejected. Many of the bonfires are topped with an Irish flag that will be burned as a reminder that the Protestant community has no interest in a united Ireland.

Flags in Ireland, and everywhere else too, are used to distinguish boundaries, they become statements of identity and that should make all Christians very cautious about flag flying of all kinds. It's not that flags should never be flown but as Christians we must make it clear to all that our identity is with the kingdom of God and that kingdom is not of this world, it flies no particular flag and at the same time can wave them all.

Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Seminary notes on the flag question...

Strictly speaking, there is nothing wrong with having a national flag in a place of worship. As a reminder of our national “place” and as a stimulus to reflect seriously on what it means to be Christian citizens, a flag can be a rather innocent symbol.

But it is difficult to assess this issue properly without also reckoning with the constant danger of nationalistic pride. We are often asked to offer to our nations the kind of allegiance that we should direct only to God. A national flag seldom serves as a mere reminder of the fact that we are citizens of a specific nation. It is a powerful symbol—even a seductive one—that can evoke feelings of loyalty and pride that are not proper for Christians. And when a national flag stands alongside the so-called Christian flag, we can easily be led to think that God and Caesar have equal importance in our lives. (read the rest here)

As you can see in the photo these are not small bonfires, you can get a sense of scale if you look at the two people standing at the bottom right of the fire.

I found it fascinating examining my response to seeing all these flags flying, there was hardly any emotional response to it. Even though it has been 17 years since I was in Ireland for the July 12 "celebrations" I still just saw it as being the way things are. It reminded me once again of Leslie Newbigin's point that we need to listen to voices from other cultures to point out the errors that we can't see in our own.

Civil Religion: Part 2

So what does civil religion look like in a culture? How is it used to solidify a national identity and how does biblical faith challenge civil religion?

What does it look like? It varies from culture to culture. In many western cultures it has taken on many of the tenets of Christianity but not all of them, for to do so would prevent it from being a civil religion whose primary concern is maintaining cohesion in the state.

The first person to adopt a Christian form of civil religion was the emperor Constantine who tried to use Christianity to solidify his control over the Roman Empire and bring unity to the people. To illustrate how this form of Christianity was not a full biblical version there is an incident recorded of the baptism of a large group of soldiers who were fully immersed in the waters of baptism with the exception of one part of their bodies. That part was their sword hand, they could not give that to Christ, that still belonged to the state.

In England there are several aspects of the civil religion that are clear for all to see. When the monarch is crowned the coronation service is an elaborate religious ceremony in which the monarch is declared to be protector of the faith and head of the Church of England. This is not exactly the type of thing we find being endorsed in the scriptures. The English system also has all bishops in the C of E being approved by the Prime Minister and there are seats reserved in the House of Lords for the bishops to be voting members of that house. A very strange blend of God and country.

It is exactly these types of civil religion and the unquestioning (or minimally questioning) approach of the people that allowed so-called "Christian" nations to wage war against one another, the church had become little more than a crutch for the establishment.

With revolutions in France and the United States the idea of the a secular government (one that didn't support a particular religious tradition) there came the need to establish a new form of civil religion. A new way to hold the nation together. Over time the dominant symbol of the civil religion in America became the flag, the focus of the national anthem of the nation and the object that allegiance is first pledged to in the Pledge of Allegiance. Should anyone doubt the religious nature of the flag just think of the language that is used about it, the most recent "Flag Desecration Amendment" failed to pass by only one vote in 2006, only a sacred object can be desecrated.

This is not an attempt to pass judgment on any brand of civil religion but perhaps I pass judgment on them all by saying that none of them are Christian, in that the focus is always on national interest and never on the gospel of Jesus Christ. The challenge for us as Christians is how to balance our civic responsibilities without worshiping at the altar of civil religion? I'll let you think about how you can best do that.

Civil Religion

I’ve been thinking a lot about Civil Religion recently. This has become an almost annual ritual for me that starts somewhere around Memorial day and usually runs just past July 4. This year will be a little different as those thoughts will continue to be fueled by July 12 celebrations in Northern Ireland of the Battle of the Boyne and the victory of William of Orange over King James. Flags will be waved high proclaiming that God was and is on the side of the Protestants and the “kick-the-pope” bands will remind everyone how terrible a Catholic Ireland would be.

While Civil Religion is a part of all cultures the term itself finds its first use in the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, where he titles the eighth chapter of Book IV of “The Social Contract” Civil Religion.

Rousseau suggests that the public religion of a State should be simple and serve the interests of the state as a means to maintain social cohesion. So what does he say should be the focus of the civil religion?

“The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent, and beneficent divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the law: these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected.”

So how does this civil religion work and where would Christian evangelism fit into it? Rousseau states,

“Now that there is and can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: “Outside the Church is no salvation,” ought to be driven from the State, unless the State is the Church, and the prince the pontiff. Such a dogma is good only in theocratic government; in any other, it is fatal.”

Now that’s a tough statement by Rousseau, yet it is one that has time and time again proven to be true as followers of Jesus have proclaimed the gospel and found themselves driven from the State. Indeed I believe an overview of history would show that only nations in which the church has allowed the gospel to be co-opted into the civil religion of the nation has the church been left relatively unscathed. 

Leslie Newbigin talking about the work of W.E. Gladstone says,

“Gladstone was surely right when he pointed out that the Roman Empire could give equal tolerance to all religions just because it could be quite adamant about something much more important than religion, something required to keep society from disintegrating, namely, the veneration of the emperor. On that there could be no compromise.”

I wonder what elements in our culture are we expected to consider “much more important that religion”? Is there anyone or anything that we are all expected to venerate (revere, honor, worship)? Certainly in the early church it was the refusal to venerate the Emperor of Rome that caused many followers of Jesus to be martyred.

How important is it for Christians to listen to their brothers and sisters from outside their culture and be open to transforming the ways in which the church has bought into civil religion?

Newbigin continues,

“No state can be completely secular in the sense that those who exercise power have no beliefs about what is true and no commitments to what they believe to be right. It is the duty of the church to ask what those beliefs and commitments are and to expose them to the light of the gospel. There is no genuinely missionary encounter of the gospel with our culture unless this happens. Here we must face frankly the distortion of the gospel that is perpetrated in a great deal that passes for missionary encounter.”

We need to be aware of the power of civil religion to suck us in and dilute the gospel message that is good new for all nations.