Are God and Country Reconcilable?

: )

This is an important discussion, one that I have been engaged in with friends for the last few years. Is it possible to apply on a national scale the nonviolent principles advocated by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and modeled so completely in his life, especially on the cross?

I recommend Glen Stassen's book "Just Peacemaking," which tries to chart a course somewhere between pacifism and "just war theory." His thesis is that the criteria for "just war" are almost never met because we have never tried to achieve a "just peace." He identifies seven "transforming initiatives" originating from the Sermon on the Mount and then confirmed in Romans.

These transforming initiatives are:

1. Acknowledge your alientation and God's grace realistically.
2. Go, talk, welcome one another, and seek to be reconciled.
3. Don't resist revengefully, but take transofrming initiatives.
4. Invest in "delivering justice."
5. Love your enemies; affirm their valid interests.
6. Pray for your enemies, and persevere in prayer.
7. Don't judge, but repent and forgive.
8. Do peacemaking in a church or a group of disciples.

In a second book, a collection of essays editied by Stassen and also (confusingly) called "Just Peacemaking", the eight transforming initiatives are brought down to a practical level for individuals, groups, the church, and nations.

I also want to clarify that Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" when someone strikes you, is not a command to be submissive and let people (or terrorists) walk all over you. It was, in fact, a transforming initiative. Stassen points out (and Walter Wink describes this in more detail in "The Powers That Be") that in the first century, when someone gave you a slap on the right cheek, it was meant to be an insult by a superior who was taking you as inferior:

"To turn the other cheek was to stand up and affirm your own dignity as an equal human person, but without violence. It seized the initiative. In the custom then, the insulter would either have to recognize your dignity as an equal person by striking you on the left cheek or would have to back off. This was not a strategy of passivity but an initiative that asserted your dignity and confronted the other person nonviolently with his or her antihuman behavior."

Stassen and Wink point out that the other commands in that passage - to give up your coat and walk the second mile - are also transforming initiatives.

These principles would be difficult to work out on a national level, but not impossible. It will take humility and creativity. And it starts with having conversations like this one. I hope - Caleb, Ben, and Jordan - that you keep up the dialogue.

Bravo, boys. Already this conversation feels more fruitful than the initial strand spawned by Caleb's article. I appreciate the redirection. Thank you.

I'd like to toss a few other things into the discussion (with humility, hardly creativity).

Again, I really appreciate this. Counterpoint is productive if not paralyzing. Thanks to the BWC folks who keep it in the realm of productive.

At the time of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin surfaced with differences less significant in doctrine and more so in practice, specifically in relation to how the Church participated in God's redemptive work in this world.

Luther implied God's Kingdom was manifested primarily through individuals being reconciled to God, and local communities of those individuals meeting the needs of those less fortunate in their midst and within their reach (whether a part of the church or not). Redemption was brought by Christ to the Church and to the world by the Church through the works of the Church. Posture towards earthly kingdoms was one of simultaneous submission and suspicion.

Calvin agreed with this but suggested also that God's Kingdom could be advanced through the institutions of education and government. God's people were to engage and harness these institutions for the cause of the Kingdom. Redemption was brought by Christ to the Church and by the Church through society's institutions. Posture towards earthly kingdoms was one of subversion and implementation, wielding the power of earthly kingdoms for the benefit of the heavenly one.

Luther says, "Johnny, you've gone too far."

Calvin says, "Marty, you haven't gone far enough."

Greg Boyd (whose teachings on several other issues I wouldn't give a glance), in "Myth of A Christian Nation," offers several distinctive characteristics of what he calls "the Two Kingdoms." (By the way, if you find the book unbearable to read for any reason - not to say that I did - download the messages that became content for the book from the Woodland Hills website from the spring of 2004. Like Cliff's Notes.) I've found this to be very helpful in these conversations (I paraphrase here):

The Kingdoms of this World operate with "power over" coercion. The Kingdom of God operates through "power under" inspiration. One is the Power of the Sword, the other the Power of the Cross. One aims at controlling behaviors, the other aims at changing hearts and lives.

Boyd further demonstrates (as Ben and John have previously) that either one forfeits its influence and identity if it adopts the power strategy of the other (i.e. A nation can't govern it's own people, much less survive in the world, if it does not initiate consequences for actions that are harmful for it's citizens. And the Church can't bring genuine Christ-exalting life-transformation to an individual or a community (or a culture or nation, for that matter) by insisting that Her way of life be accepted by all by waving a sword or an Uzi or legislation or any other power-over consequence of coercion.) (Forgive the parenthetical parentheses, please.)

So, that said, where are we? We can see Luther's approach embraced by many churches today (most missional, most emergent, hardly Lutheran), and we can see Calvin's approach championed by para-church and political groups on both sides of the aisle. And I can understand why an entire generation, tired of the political atmosphere, would divorce itself from the debate in the political arena (or get excited by someone who seeks to change the atmosphere). Especially when there are local churches rising up all throughout the country seeking to bring change via Luther's approach, recognizing the applicability of Boyd's distinctions.

But the tension remains. For we live in a form of the earthly kingdom that allows us - even asks us, or obligates us - to participate in the governing of this nation (if by our opinions only) in which we abide. So there are Christians who are gifted in leadership and peacemaking and oratory who run for public office, and there are the rest of us who are invited to vote and contribute to public discourse regarding political issues.

The question here, I don't think, is "What should the Church be in the world?" but "As citizens first of the Heavenly Kingdom, can we participate in the social responsibilities of citizenship in an Earthly Kingdom, and if so, how can we do so as to best represent Christ?"

I'm done now. I'm glad this discussion doesn't disappear. We need this.

Blog on.

(Go Obama.) (-;

My view of things may not be real popular here, but I will say that hte discussion I have seen have been more cival here than any other place. In fact I never leave comments on most sites because I all I ever get is called homophobic, warmonger, etc. etc. You get the picture. But here, I can say that I have never been treated with such hate. So thank you.
Now, as for who to support in the upcoming presidential election. I can say for sure that this is the first election I have ever seen where I don't know who to support. Quite frankly, I don't like my choices so far.
As a Conservative Christian who votes sertain values, I don't see a candidate I like, in either party.
2 issues that matter a lot to me, Abortion and Gay marriage, no one seems to really voice my opinion. Mr. Obama doesn't and that is ceratin. In fact, his and Guliani are similar. Both say they don't like aboortion. Both say they wish it didn't exist. Both don't think a person should have one. But both also won't outlaw it. My problem with that is if its wrong, its worng. If its murcer, then it should be outlawed. If you say something is wrong but you want it to continue, I call that hypocracy. Obama says that he is against Gay marriage, yet voted against the ban. Sounds like typical political double speak. Don't get me wrong, there are republicans doing the same thing. Saying one thing to one group and the opposite to another group. Kinda makes me sick of the whole process. I would venture to guess that if you vote for Obama, and he gets elected, then he will disipoint you just like everyone else.
Wow, I sound like a real cynic. Sorry to sound so down. I just caution you to not put any hope in a politician. They are human after all. Perhaps you and I are both guilty of the same thing, trying to claim our candidate is the only "true" Christian choice. I bet we are both wrong.
As for the whole "war is evil" vs "just war" thing, be careful. We can run so far in one direction that we become the thing we say we hate. Some seem to say "conservatives" have tried to make voting republican the only "Christian" option can easily become, Progressives claim Obama is the only "Christian" choice. It is easy to become the thing you hate. AS someone once said, God is not a Democrat or a Republican. God is supreme, He will not share His Glory with another.

Tex Sample has been noted to say in many and various ways "I love my country. My nation-state scares the h*ll out of me." or something to that effect. Most of the time I've heard this either before or after a rather harsh criticism of our foreign or domestic policy from his faith perspective. I like the distinction he makes. It helps make sense of supporting our troops in Iraq while working to bring them home.