is president bush this country's David, or is he our Saul? In the book of Samuel in the Old Testament, Israel asked God for a king - and the Lord delivered...but it didn't exactly turn out the way Israel thought it would. saul was a man who appeared to be just what Israel needed at the time. but in the end, he led Israel away from her God. then the Lord replaced him with a man after his own heart - David.
i've heard a lot in the media lately about how the church got bush elected. so i'm wondering - will it turn out the way we hope it will? or will God maybe give us what we've asked for, only for us to realize we have no idea what we've really asked for?
Andrew Jones asks Is God up to something in USA? the ensuing discussion is great. certainly i don't agree with everything that's been posted, but people raise some great questions. i especially resonate with the post that connects the church's calling with God's call to Adam to fill the earth and subdue it. in Jesus, our true existence as humans is restored. we take our place as God's representative rulers - his "vice-gerents" as my seminary profs used to call it. this is what it means for the Kingdom of God to come.
what's all this mean for the USA? i'd love to read your thoughts
6 comments:
I'm not so sure about the extended biblical allusion (or was it more like a simile?), but I do know that my parents went to a Unitarian church for the first time this sunday. The priest (by default we're Catholic) was making too many right-wing political allusions (and I'm pretty sure they were just allusions in this case), so my parents bolted. And this after my dad went through a two-year process to convert from prodestentism (sp?) to good-old no-nonsense (or is that good-old all-nonsense?) Catholisism. So the politicization of religious life is having a real effect in my parents life. What's it look like inside the church?
Charles Michael Fulton
Interested Athiest
I don't think he's either one. I think you are on to something though in the sense that the church puts too much faith in the country's leaders, thinking that he will somehow lead us into the new heavens and the new earth. Jesus said our allegiance should be to God alone, not our country - we belong to a new kingdom and our king calls us to be neither on the left or the right. That's not to say we should be anarchists either, but we can't put our faith in a president whether he claims to be a Christian or not.
In response to Charles, I'd say that there is a big problem in the church in that I think it is very divided. There are also a lot of politically liberal voters in the church as well as righty's. Unfortunately, most people equate the right with Christianity, but it simply isn't true. There is a lot about the Rebuplican ticket that reeks - and is not biblical. However, the same is true of the lefty's. Jesus calls people in both camps to think about a different kind of kingdom altogether. You should check out what Jesus says about his kingdom some time...it is quite amazing and very counter-cultural.
By the way Dan - congrats on London, we'll be sad to see you go, but very excited about the cultural revolution you are being called to lead!
Ryan
Someone needs to start a "Liberal Christian" movement and reclaim the word "Christian." Do you guys know anyone who makes those bumperstickers?
Oh yeah, and here is a progressive Christian's take on the "Christian Right," biblical allusions (what word should I be using here, references? Yeah, I guess so.) . . .okay, biblical references and all.
Dan Here
Michael, I'm assuming you're the one who gave the link to the progressive christian site - very interesting. i think she's got some very good critiques of the "religious right". one of the things she says is that issues are more complex than many are willing to admit. in some ways, I think that's why Bush won the election - Kerry understands the complexities and wants to talk about them, but Bush sees everything in black and white. unfortunately, the faceless masses don't have time for complexities.
i spent six weeks in Spain this summer, and it was very interesting that the majority of evangelical christians (i'm using that to refer to people for whom Jesus is a real person to whom they relate and who's life and death and resurrection have a very real and immediate impact on their lives) were glad that the socialist (read "liberal" or "left-wing") government won the last elections there.
I'm interested in what you said about your parents - did they walk out b/c the guy was talking politics in general, or because he was espousing "conservative" politics in particular? I think it's interesting that in many parts of the world (e.g. the entire muslim world, along with parts of Africa and Latin America) religion and politics are not clearly separated. most americans have this innate sense that religion and politics should be separated, but many other places in the world don't have the same strong reaction about it.
finally, appologies about the confusing biblical allusion or whatever you want to call it. i think i was trying to say that just because "the church in the USA" has asked for bush as our leader (if that's indeed what happened) and just because god gave bush to be our president for another four years, doesn't necessarily mean that it was right for the church to ask for him, or that everything bush does is right. people make the faulty assumption: if god put bush in power, he must approve of what bush does (or at least approve of bush as a person). that's where i see the analogy to saul and israel - god gave israel a king (though he didn't approve of their motives for asking for one) and he made saul that king (though saul loved himself and trusted himself more than god). god often rebuked saul for his lack of faith, and even sent an evil spirit to torment him, but even then he left saul as king of his people for a time.
Michael asked "what's it look like inside the church?" re: the politicization of religion (or is it the religification of politics?) at my local church, it looks like flaming liberals (who voted for Nader in the last election and were thinking of staying out of this one entirely b/c Kerry was too run of the mill boring ass centrist) getting together with neo-conservative bushies who wish bush would move (god forbid) further to the right in a second term. not denying the differences, but realizing god has chosen to weave together different people with different perspectives into the tapestry of his people.
it also looks like nobody daring to mention political views from the pulpit for fear of getting heckled by half the congregation.
Jim, i'm not entirely sure how to answer your question. i suppose much of what constitutes "the civil sphere" would fall out as issues of wisdom. that is, living life in submission to God in the role God has given us according to the way he has made the world. Since Jesus is the wisdom of God, I'd say governing wisely would be the Christian way to govern. probably that doesn't answer your question.
Another way to look at it would be to see "a Christian way of governing" as being an approach to government that sees Christ as central. central to life, and central to history. everything would be done in government in response to God's pursuit & restoration of humanity in Jesus. how would that look in the specifics? see my first answer.
2 final thoughts:
1. As a christian, I don't think I would necessarily want a Christian in government office. I think I'd vote for a 'pagan' who was thoughtful and listened to others before i voted for a christian who refused to listen to the perspectives of others - see proverbs 18:13
2. I saw Barack Obama do a book-signing at B&N in NY (o.k., I'll admit it, sometimes I watch C-SPAN). He was asked a question about religion, and he had a very insightful answer. He said religion by its nature is absolute - if I believe Allah is God, then Allah is God, and not Jesus. If I believe Jesus is the savior, then Jesus saves, and not anyone else. But the fact that we live in a pluralistic society with a political system that allows for conflicting agendas is in tension with religious absolutism. He said that he lives in the tension by bringing a sort of self-skepticism to his reading of scripture...acknowledging that he may be wrong in his interpretation. this skepticism then allows him to enter the political dialogue without preemptively shutting down opposing points of view. i think i like that answer.
Post a Comment