Category Archives: Thinking God’s Thoughts

04/23/24

Corruption Caused by Indwelling Sin

Image by Klaus Hausmann from Pixabay

In chapter fifteen of Indwelling Sin, John Owen said he would now consider the many ways indwelling sin habitually corrodes grace and holiness in believers. At first, believers have many fresh springs and refreshing showers coming upon them, filling them up with a high rate of faith, love holiness, fruitfulness, and obedience. As it is with a flood, when these many streams run into a river, the river swells over its bounds, “and rolls on with more than ordinary fullness.” But if these springs are not kept open, if they don’t continue with an abundance of these showers, “they must needs decay and go backwards.”

One of these springs is a fresh, vigorous sense of pardoning mercy. Accordingly, when this is in a person’s soul, it results in the love and delight of God and leads to obedience to His will. “As, I say, is the sense of gospel-pardon, so will be the life of gospel-love.” Consider the sinful woman described in Luke 7:36 and following.

When a Pharisee had asked Jesus to eat with him, a woman who was known to be a sinner came and kissed his feet and anointed them with ointment. The Pharisee thought to himself, if Jesus were a true prophet, he would know what sort of woman is touching him, for she is a sinner. Knowing his thoughts, Jesus told him a parable about a moneylender and two debtors and asked which debtor loved him more. The Pharisee judged it was the one for whom the money lender cancelled the larger debt. Jesus confirmed he had judged rightly and then said to Simon:

Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little. (Luke 7:44-47)

So, when sinners are first converted, they are very sensible to their great forgiveness. Their recognition of the greatness of their sin greatly subdues their hearts and spirits to God, “and quickens them to all obedience.” Even cursed sinners as they were could be delivered and pardoned. “The love of God and of Christ, in their forgiveness, highly conquers and constrains them to make it their business to live to God.”

A second spring is the fresh taste they have of spiritual things that has such a savor and relish in their souls, that worldly pleasures are rendered sapless and undesirable. After tasting the wine of the gospel, they desire no other. When souls are first translated into the light of Christ, they see a new glory that defiled the desirableness of all earthly diversions. “They see a new guilt and filth in sin, that gives them an utter abhorrency of its old delights and pleasures.”

It’s as if a man that was kept a long time in a dungeon was brought forth suddenly into the sun light. He’d find so much pleasure and contentment in the beauties of the creation that he’d think he could never weary of it. Nor would he ever be content to be under darkness—for any reason—ever again. So it is with people when they are first translated into the marvelous light of Christ to behold the beauty of the new creation. “They see a new glory in him, that hath quite sullied the desirableness of all earthly diversions. And they see a new guilt and filth in sin, that gives them an utter abhorrency of its old delights and pleasures.”

The first way, then, that indwelling sin prepares individuals for decays and corruption in grace and obedience is it strives to stop or taint these springs by sloth or negligence. It prevails on the soul to forget or neglect thinking about the things that so powerfully influenced it to strict and fruitful obedience. If care is not taken, if the person is not diligent and watchful of the means appointed by God to maintain a living sense of them upon them, “they will dry up and decay.” And the obedience that should spring from them will as well.

Let the heart ever so little disuse itself to gracious, soul-affecting thoughts of the love of God, the cross of Christ, the greatness and excellency of gospel-mercy, the beauties of holiness; they will quickly be as much estranged to a man, as he can be to them.

Another way that indwelling sin works to taint these springs is to encourage formal, weary, powerless thoughts of those things which it should overcome in diligence thankful obedience. God said through Moses to Aaron he will be sanctified in all those who are near him (Leviticus 10:3). So are we to deal with the things of God whereby we have communion with him. When we begin to entertain them with slight and common thoughts, not using and improving them to the utmost, they lose all their beauty, and glory, and power towards them.

When we have anything to do, wherein faith, or love towards God is to be exercised, we must do it with all our hearts, with all our minds, strength, and souls, not slightly and carelessly, which God abhors; he does not only require that we bear his love and grace in remembrance, but that, as much as in us lies, we do it according to the worth and excellency of them.

So, when we consider gospel truths, we should strive to be changed into the same image or likeness (2 Corinthians 3:18). Otherwise, it will be like James tells us: “He is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like” (James 1:23-24). It makes no impression upon him because he does it only slightly. They talk of religion and spiritual things as much as they ever did in their lives, and perform duties with as much steadfastness as they ever did.

But yet have poor, lean, starving souls, as to any real and effectual communion with God. By the power and subtlety of indwelling sin, they have grown formal, and learned to deal about spiritual things in a careless manner, whereby they have lost all their life, vigour, savour, and efficacy towards them. Be always serious in spiritual things, if ever you intend to be bettered by them.

Indwelling sin will often stop these springs of gospel obedience by false and foolish opinions, corrupting the simplicity of the gospel. “False opinions are the works of the flesh.” They mostly come from the vanity and darkness of the minds of men with a mixture of corrupt affections. Owen said they have seen some who after they had received “a sweet taste of the love of God in Christ,” and walked with him for many years, despised all their own experiences and rejected the efficacy of truth. “We have innumerable instances hereof in the days wherin we live.”

Owen goes on in the chapter to describe how Satan is a diligent, watchful, and crafty adversary. “He will neglect no opportunity, no advantage that is offered to him.” Wherever our spiritual strength is impaired by sin, or however our lusts pressure, Satan falls in with that weakness, and presses towards that ruin.” He gives his readers a few cautions to keep them from this corruption.

First, there are a great number of hypocrites in the body of believers. For others, you don’t know what the present temptations they struggle against. There may be some secret lust in their heart that the soul contends against faintly. But it does not make thorough work, vigorously mortifying it by the strength and power of grace.

But where indwelling sin has provoked, irritated, and given strength to a special lust, it proves assuredly a principal means of a general declension. For as an infirmity and weakness in any one vital part, will make the whole body consumptive, so will the weakness in anyone grace, which a perplexing lust brings with it, make the soul. It every way weakens spiritual strength.

Yet there is hope. Owen said a great sin will certainly give a great turn to the life of a believer. If it is cured in the blood of Christ, with the humiliation that the gospel requires, “it often proves a means of more watchfulness, fruitfulness, humility, and contention, than ever the soul before obtained.” If neglected, it certainly hardens the heart and weakens spiritual strength, enfeebles the soul, and discourages all communion with God. But if like a broken bone which is well set, it leaves the person stronger than before. If otherwise, it makes the person a cripple all their days.

These are the corruptions caused by indwelling sin.

04/9/24

Kingdom Now: Bringing Heaven to Earth

Photo by KNXRT on Unsplash

Do you attend a church that believes God always wants to heal, that the miraculous and supernatural should be a normal part of life and worship? Is your church structured to be led by the offices of apostles and prophets? Is it striving to establish the Kingdom of God on earth? If so, you are in one that is striving to follow Kingdom Now Theology.

These beliefs, God always want to heal, churches should be governed by apostles and prophets, and what I’ve called Kingdom Now theology are foundational to the NAR—the New Apostolic Reformation. C. Peter Wagner, a former professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, is credited with coining the term, New Apostolic Reformation. In Apostles Today, he said it was a reformation, “because we are witnessing the most radical change in the way of ‘doing church’ since the Protestant Reformation. It is ‘apostolic’ because the recognition of the gift and office of apostle is the most radical of a whole list of changes from the old wineskin” (p. 9). Then in Dominion! Your Role In Bringing Heaven to Earth, Wagner said: “The practical theology that best builds a foundation under social transformation is dominion theology, sometimes called ‘kingdom now’” (p. 59).

This so-called movement, the New Apostolic Reformation, attempts to clothe itself in doctrinal and hermeneutical systems that sound like orthodox “Christianity,” but are actually heterodoxy and dangerously close to heresy. In turn, we will examine these beliefs particularly as they are taught by Bethel Church of Redding California and its apostle/prophet leadership pair, Bill Johnson and Kris Vallotton. The research and work of Holly Pivec and Doug Geivett in Reckless Christianity, will guide our discussion here.

Johnson teaches that God’s goodness means it is always His will to heal a person; and this “truth” is now being restored to the church. It is the Christian’s assignment is to “bring heaven to earth.” He calls this the “cornerstone” of the church’s theology. In The Supernatural Power, Johnson said what is free to operate in heaven, should be free to operate here on this planet. And what is not free to operate there should not be free to operate here. “We are out to destroy the works of the devil.” Pivec and Geivett said:

In other words, there’s no sin, or sickness, or disease, or depression, or poverty in heaven. So, for heaven to come to earth means that none of those things should be found on earth either. And it isn’t merely that sin and suffering should not, ideally, exist in the world today. Rather, Christians have been tasked to make earth’s reality as unqualified reflection of heaven. As Johnson has said, ‘My assignment isn’t to go to heaven; my assignment is to bring heaven. . . . We’ve been given a mission and that mission is to pull on the reality of that world until it manifests in this one.’

In When Heaven Invades Earth, Johnson re-interprets the Lord’s Prayer (“Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”) to mean if it exists in heaven, it is to be loosed on earth. He said this is the primary focus for all prayer. When the believer prays according to the revealed will of God, “faith is specific and focused. Faith grabs hold of that reality. Enduring faith doesn’t let go.” Supposedly this causes the circumstances here on earth to line up with heaven.

Conversely, if something does not exist in heaven, (death, sickness, poverty, addiction) it can be bound here through prayer, as we exercise the authority—the keys—given to us in Matthew 16:19. And yet his wife, Beni Johnson, died after a long battle with cancer. Despite the persistent exercise of that authority to release her healing.

Another one of the greater works that believers will bring back to earth is raising the dead. . .  except when they don’t. On December 14, 2019 a two-year-old girl named Olive stopped breathing and died in her sleep. Olive’s parents (her mother was a worship leader at Bethel), following the teaching of Bethel’s leaders, believed God would raise her from the dead. In Counterfeit Kingdom, Pivec and Geivett said: “Through social media, Bethel leaders urged Christians around the world to join the parents in ‘declaring’ a resurrection because they believed their spoken words, as children of God, had the power to bring Olive back.” After six days with no success, Bethel announced the family had begun to plan a memorial service.

Bill Johnson acknowledged that no one knows for sure how much of heaven God has purposed to become manifest here on earth—which would explain why his wife was not healed and why Olive was not raised from the dead. “But we do know through Church history that it’s more than we have now.” So, there is a Dead Raising Team that goes around to churches. Pivec and Geivett said this team has trained sixty other teams worldwide to go to the scenes of accidents, hospitals, and morgues to pray for resurrections. “They claim to have seen fifteen resurrections to date.” Even Kris Vallotton claimed there have been two “dead risings” reported by their online BSSM (Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry) school.

Bethel members also practice “grave soaking” or “grave sucking.” The purpose is to “soak” up a past miracle-worker’s anointing (i.e., Smith Wigglesworth, Kathryn Kuhlman). See this Grave Soaking – AG3 Teaser on Facebook or this video by a BSSM graduate and Bethel pastor at Smith Wigglesworth’s grave in England. Bethel leaders have denied they taught or encouraged the practice. Yet, Reckless Christianity and other easily obtained evidence, such as Facebook posts, photos and videos exist. “From an outsider’s perspective, Bethel responses to the allegations look like a coverup.”

Greater Works Than These

Bill Johnson and the NAR believe that the greater works promised to the disciples in John 14:12 are miracles. He said he looked forward to the day when the Church stands up and says, “Don’t believe us unless we are doing the works that Jesus did!” He said Jesus’ statement of us doing greater works than He did has stirred the church to look for some abstract meaning to a very simple statement. Greater means greater; and the works are signs and wonders. He then went on to say this understanding, was supported by the Greek of the verse.

In When Heaven Invades Earth Johnson said, “The word greater [in John 14:12] is mizon in the Greek. It is found 45 times in the New Testament. It is always used to describe ‘quality,’ not ‘quantity.’” But he misspelled meizon, as mizon. He doesn’t say where he got his information, but it seems he used an Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon to identify meizon:

3187 μείζων [meizon /mide·zone/] adj comparative. Irregular comparative of 3173; 45 occurrences; AV translates as “greater” 34 times, “greatest” nine times, “elder” once, and “more” once. 1 greater, larger, elder, stronger.

The standard Greek lexicon, BDAG, gives the meaning for the word translated “greater” in John 14:12 as: pertaining to being above standard in intensity, great.

Here is a link to Bible Hub for 3187, meizon: https://biblehub.com/greek/3187.htm

In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament discussion of μέγας (megas, great) in John 14:12, the author referred first to John 5:19-21. Jesus said he could not do His miracles independent of the Father. He does what he sees the Father doing; what the Father shows the Son. He said it showed the unity of purpose between the Father and the Son. “And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.”

The great works that His disciples will do, ones greater than the miracles done by Jesus, is ζωοποιεῖν, being made alive. “Going to the Father [in John 14:12] gives Him the possibility of greater efficacy exercised through the disciples.” In other words, the greater works is the salvation of all those who the Son will raise to life, just as the Father raised Him. This is a greater thing when compared to the miracles that Christ performed. D.A. Carson said the following in his commentary about John 14:12:

The ‘signs’ and ‘works’ Jesus performed during his ministry could not fully accomplish their true end until after Jesus had risen from the dead and been exalted. Only at that point could they be seen for what they were. By contrast, the works believers are given to do through the power of the eschatological Spirit, after Jesus’ glorification, will be set in the framework of Jesus’ death and triumph, and will therefore more immediately and truly reveal the Son. Thus greater things is constrained by salvation-historical realities. In consequence many more converts will be gathered into the messianic community, the nascent church, than were drawn in during Jesus’ ministry.

Bill Johnson, again, distorts the meaning of Scripture in an attempt to support his theology. Johnson and the NAR are systematically deconstructing the theology and structure of the modern church, claiming that the “authentic gospel” or the “gospel of the kingdom” is always associated with signs and wonders: heal the sick, raise the dead, preach the gospel. “God’s goodness” means it is always God’s will to heal a person; a “truth” now being restored to the church. This is a radical departure from Scripture and not just a logical extension of charismatic, continuist belief. NAR and Johnson/Bethel Church assert a theology of the supernatural—of bringing heaven to earth—that goes beyond what the church and Scripture can claim is our mission.

This article was heavily influenced by the research and thought of Holly Pivec and R. Douglas Geivett and their books, Reckless Christianity, A New Apostolic Reformation? and Counterfeit Kingdom. Look for further articles on other aspects of “Kingdom Now.”

03/26/24

What the Book of Job Does

John Walton opens Lecture 15 on Job by noting Job 19:25 is one of the most familiar verses in the book of Job. The NIV (the ESV is similar) says, “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.” This verse has inspired musicians from Handel to Nicole C. Mullen. It has been traditionally understood by Christians including Clement of Rome, Origen and Augustine to refer to the resurrection and Christ. In “Impatient Job,” James Zink observed that most commentators see in Job 19:25-27, “the height of trust in the justice of God and a great new insight into his redemptive nature.” And yet Walton provocatively asked, “So, how should we interpret this verse?”

Walton said we should remember that Hebrew doesn’t have capital letters, meaning that the capitalizing “Redeemer” in the NIV, ESV and other translations for Job 19:25 is interpretation. He goes on to say it needs to be understood in relationship to the Job’s many previous references to an advocate related to his legal case. “He’s looking for someone to represent him before God; someone who will take his case,” who will advocate for him. There are a number of words used by Job to refer to this position, but they all focus on the same kind of role as someone who will be his advocate before God. “Now we have to ask the question, ‘What sort of advocate does Job seek and who does he expect to fill that role?’”

The word translated as redeemer here in Job 19:25 is goʾel. Job desires an advocate or mediator to come to his aid. He wants a goʾel (redeemer) to demonstrate that he is innocent. He is convinced he has not done anything that deserves the treatment he has received. “He’s not looking for someone to save him from offenses;” that’s not what a goʾel does. “He wants it on record, that he did nothing to deserve his suffering.”

Walton observed this was not the redeemer role of Jesus. He added that no New Testament writer drew an association between Jesus and Job 19. In the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris said goʾel more accurately referred to the work of God “who as a friend and kinsman through faith will ultimately redeem Job from the dust of death.” If the author of Job intended to refer to the coming of Christ in his work of atonement, “This would be expressed more characteristically by the Hebrew word pādâ,” instead of goʾel in 19:25. Walton said of Job:

He feels like a wrong has been done to him. A goʾel does not work on behalf to right a wrong the person has committed. That’s what Jesus did, but that’s really not the role we find of a goʾel here. Job wants an advocate here, a goʾel and redeemer, who will demonstrate that he is innocent. He’s not looking for someone to save him from the offense he’s committed. He’s persuaded he has not committed anything that deserves the treatment he has gotten. He’s not looking for someone to save him from offenses.

Walton thought Job expects his goʾel to arrive and testify at his grave, in other words, after his death (19:26). He said there are three major theories for understanding when the goʾel will appear in relation to his death. The one traditionally seen in church history by Clement, Origen, Jerome and Luther was that God will raise him up from the grave. But this contradicts Job’s earlier affirmations of the permanency of the grave (See Job 14). Furthermore, according to Walton, resurrection was not part of Israelite doctrine throughout most of the Old Testament.

Others think Job expects a “posthumous vindication.” After he’s gone, somehow Job will be vindicated. But Walton tends to think Job believes there will be a last-minute reprieve. God will intervene and vindicate him before he dies. Where Job said: “after my skin has been destroyed” in verse 19:26, he was referring to scraping off his skin (Job 2:8), as he scraped himself with a potsherd. “Yet in my flesh I shall see God.”

Walton said this means Job believed he would be restored to God’s favor. Even if he scraped away all his skin (a hyperbole), “He will see God’s restoration in the flesh” before he dies. “Job has no hope of heaven. Seeing God refers to being restored to favor, and that he’ll no longer be a stranger, an outsider, out of favor.” He than gave this expanded paraphrase of Job 19:25-26:

I firmly believe that there is someone (perhaps from the divine council), somewhere, who will come and testify on my behalf right here on my dung heap at the end of all this. Despite my peeling skin, I expect to have enough left to come before God in my own flesh. I will be restored to his favor and no longer be treated as a stranger. This is my deepest desire!” (prosperity has nothing to do with it).

Walton said this was a significant affirmation on Job’s part. And you miss it entirely when you try to make Jesus the redeemer. “Jesus is our Redeemer, but he’s not the kind of redeemer Job is looking for here.” He wasn’t looking for someone who would take the punishment for his offenses and justify him. He was looking for vindication, not justification—which was not something Jesus provided. “Job is expecting someone to play a role that is the polar opposite of that which is played by Jesus.”

Viewing Jesus as the goʾel in Job is a distorting factor in the interpretation of the book and runs against the grain of Job’s hope and desire. Jesus is not the answer to the problems posed in the book of Job; though he is the answer to the larger problem of sin and the brokenness of the world. The death and resurrection of Jesus mediate for our sin, but do not provide the answer for why there is suffering in the world or how we should think about God when life goes wrong. That’s what the book of Job does.

01/23/24

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Christian Nationalism

Image by 1778011 from Pixabay

After reading Paul Miller’s book, The Religion of American Greatness, I became aware of the problems of thinking of America as a “Christian Nation.” Simply put, it is a political ideology with a Christian gloss. I was relatively unaware of Christian nationalism until then, but was persuaded by his arguments. He wrote an article for Christianity Today, “What Is Christian Nationalism” where he noted that many of the rioters on January 6th, 2021 had Christian signs, slogans or symbols. “But none of this should be confused with the Christian’s identity in the transnational family of God, and no national political agenda or ideal can take priority over God’s global mandate and mission for his people.” It takes the name of Christ as a fig leaf to cover its political program, “treating the message of Jesus as a tool of political propaganda and the church as the handmaiden and cheerleader of the state.”

As Miller noted in his article, the term “Christian Nationalism” is a relatively new term, one which it seems many Americans are not familiar with. Slate said the term was “in the air” after January 6th rioters came to the Capitol waving Christian symbols and banners. But it has been embraced by others, including Marjorie Taylor Greene. She even hocked a Proud Christian Nationalist tee shirt in her Official MTG Shop. She also posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that she was honored to meet Jake Chansley, the infamous QAnon shaman from January 6th.

The Pew Research Center also noted growing numbers of Americans were embracing the Christian Nationalist label, while others still saw it as a danger. Pew said their survey found most American adults believed the founding fathers intended the country to be a Christian nation (60%), with many affirming (45%) it should be a Christian nation today. When the survey’s respondents were separated into those who think the U.S. should be a Christian nation and those who did not, some interesting difference emerged. Among those who thought the U.S. should be a Christian nation, only 28% thought the country should openly declare it. Fifty-two percent thought no religion should be the official religion of the country.

Among those who thought the U.S. should not be a Christian nation, 1% thought the U.S should openly declare it, and 88% rejected the idea. Similar differences were found with whether the state should advocate for Christian religious values, or moral value shared by people of many faiths. And whether or not to enforce or stop enforcing the separation of church and state. See the Pew link for a graphic. Those who want the U.S. to be a Christian nation tended to want the Bible to have a great deal or some influence on U.S. laws (78%), while those opposed to the idea soundly rejected the idea (79%). See the chart below, found in the Pew article.

The Pew survey results disturbingly resonate with what Paul Schreiner called the “bad form” of Christian nationalism. This is a fusion of Christianity and civil life, where instead of persuasion, adherents seek to enact and enforce laws. This is attempting to bring about the kingdom of God by power and command, not by the Spirit of God. Schreiner acknowledged the distinctly Christian history of America, but noted how this sense of Christian nationalism goes against key features of the American experiment, namely pluralism and religious liberty.

Eliminating all dissent might sound attractive, and it certainly would allow governing authorities to get things done more quickly. But squashing dissent violates human liberty, equality, and the vision of the founding fathers. It requires coercion of and change from those who dissent. If taken to its logical conclusion, this Nationalism undermines the foundation of a free society. Should such a fusion dominate American civil life, it would divide the nation rather than unify it. Uniformity in some aspects of national life isn’t all bad, but that must always exist beside diversity.

See “What’s Wrong with Christian Nationalism?” or Paul Schreiner’s article, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Christian Nationalism” for a more through critique and discussion of this point.

Perhaps many of the Pew survey participants didn’t have a well-thought-out understanding of the nuances within so-called “Christian nationalism.” This seems to have been the case. Half of the Pew survey respondents were asked if they have heard the term “Christian nationalism.” Overall, 54% of Americans said they had never heard it. Non-Christians tended to be more familiar with the term (55%). But atheists (78%) and agnostics (63%) were most familiar. See the table below, found in the Pew article.

Schreiner warned that the “bad” form of Christian Nationalism becomes “ugly” when it “idealizes and advocates for a fusion of Christianity with American life and does so by dominion. This is the type of Christian Nationalism exhibited by some on January 6.” This conflates God and country, confusing the categories of Christian faith and nation-state and advocates for its goals by force or violence when deemed necessary. “No nation-state can be a Christian nation-state, because Christianity doesn’t work that way.” Here, the fig leaf referred to in the opening paragraph comes off and Christian nationalism is exposed as a political program of nationalism.

Jake Chansley, the infamous QAnon shaman from January 6th was sentenced and imprisoned for 27 months. At his parole hearing, he expressed remorse for his actions and said he no longer wanted to be known as the QAon Shaman, saying he was wrong to enter the Capitol . He was released into a Phoenix halfway house for ex-offenders. Seemingly unrepentant for his actions, he is now running for Congress in the state of Arizona as a Libertarian and has again embraced his role as the QAnon Shaman. Look at the link to “X” above where Marjorie Taylor Greene said she was honored to meet him. Also see his own Twitter feed.

In “What Is Christian Nationalism?” Paul Miller distinguished between Christian nationalism and nationalism. Miller said nationalism is the belief that humanity is divisible into mutually distinct culture group defined by shared language, religion, ethnicity, or culture. They should have their own governments; the governments should promote and protect a nation’s cultural identity. Sovereign national groups then provide meaning and purpose for human beings.

The problem is, humanity is not easily divisible into mutually distinct cultural groups. “Cultures overlap and their borders are fuzzy.” They make a poor fit as the foundation for political order. Whereas cultural identities are fluid and hard to draw boundaries around, political boundaries are hard and semipermanent. “Cultural pluralism is essentially inevitable in every nation.” Attempts to found political legitimacy on cultural likeness means the political order will consistently be felt to be illegitimate by some group.

In the absence of moral authority, nationalists can only hope to establish themselves by force. “Scholars are almost unanimous that nationalist governments tend to become authoritarian and oppressive in practice.” Miller observed that when Protestantism was a “quasi-official religion” in the U.S., “it did not respect true religious freedom.” Christianity was also used by the U.S. and many individual states to support slavery and segregation.

Miller thought Christian nationalism was the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity; and the government should take steps to keep it that way and continue to be so in the future—to promote a specific cultural template as the “official” culture of the country. There may be some who want an amendment to the Constitution to recognize America’s Christian heritage. They strive to enshrine a Christian nationalist interpretation of American history in school curricula; that America has a special relationship with God; that it was chosen by him to carry out a special mission on earth. Others advocate for immigration restrictions to prevent changes to American ethnic demographics or a change to American culture. Others want to empower the government to take stronger action against immoral behavior.

Christian nationalism tends to treat other Americans as second-class citizens. If it were fully implemented, it would not respect the full religious liberty of all Americans. Empowering the state through “morals legislation” to regulate conduct always carries the risk of overreaching, setting a bad precedent, and creating governing powers that could be used later be used against Christians. Additionally, Christian nationalism is an ideology held overwhelmingly by white Americans, and it thus tends to exacerbate racial and ethnic cleavages. In recent years, the movement has grown increasingly characterized by fear and by a belief that Christians are victims of persecution. Some are beginning to argue that American Christians need to prepare to fight, physically, to preserve America’s identity, an argument that played into the January 6 riot.

Christianity is a religion focused on the person and work of Jesus Christ as defined by the Christian Bible and the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. It is the gathering of people “from every nation and tribe and people and language,” who worship Jesus (Revelation 7:9), a faith that unites Jews and Greeks, Americans and non-Americans together. Christianity is political, in the sense that its adherents have always understood their faith to challenge, affect, and transcend their worldly loyalties—but there is no single view on what political implications flow from Christian faith other than that we should “fear God, honor the king” (1 Peter 2:17), pay our taxes, love our neighbors, and seek justice.

Miller said normal Christian political engagement is humble, loving and sacrificial. It rejects the idea that Christians are entitled to primacy of place in the public square or that Christians have a presumptive right to continue their historical predominance in American culture. Christians should seek to love their neighbors by pursuing justice in the public square, which includes working against abortion, promoting religious liberty, furthering racial justice, protecting the rule of law, and honoring constitutional processes. “That agenda is different from promoting Christian culture, Western heritage, or Anglo-Protestant values.”

There is a “good” sense of Christian Nationalism, meaning simply that “Christianity has influenced and should continue to influence the nation.” The Declaration of Independence affirmed that all men (and women) are created equal. They are endowed “by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Schreiner noted that such a principle was worthy of Christian advocacy alongside biblical views of marriage, sexuality, and abortion. “Our nation would be improved by affirming the goodness of natural law principles.”

In the best sense, this form of Christian Nationalism doesn’t attempt to dominate the political process or to make the nation completely Christian but seeks instead to bring change by persuasion. Rather than trying to overthrow the government, adherents advocate their cause by supporting laws, electing candidates, podcasting, writing, and developing think tanks. They won’t force their opinions, but they also won’t back down from arguing for them.

For further reflections on nationalism, see the link “Christian Nationalism” on this website.

01/2/24

When Nationalism Gets a Christian Gloss

Image by Q K from Pixabay

In The Religion of American Greatness, Paul Miller said his book was primarily an examination of the ideology of nationalism, particularly the kind of American nationalism that uses Christian symbols and rhetoric. He said nationalism has been increasing in its popularity around the world today. He said it is an “irresistible political tool” for leaders looking to stir up enthusiasm and support within their base. “Nationalism is almost always idolatrous in the sense of becoming a substitute religion.” When nationalism is given a Christian gloss, it conflicts with core American ideals of liberty and equality for all people and “amounts to the pursuit of Christian power at the expense of Christian ideals.”

Miller quoted Clifford Geertz’s definition of religion from Interpretation of Cultures and argued that nationalism fulfilled all the criteria of a religion. Geertz said religion was a system of symbols that acted to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence. These conceptions are clothed with such an aura of factuality that the “moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

Nationalism fulfills all the criteria of a religion. It is a set of symbols that establishes powerful moods that last for centuries. It describes a general order for life, an orienting framework with a standard of right and wrong, a sense of purpose and direction. And it roots this general order in an “aura of factuality,” a story about the nation’s ancient roots and primal existence which seems feasible because the nation preexists us and outlives us.

However, Miller didn’t originate the idea of a secular or civil “religion.” Robert Bellah wrote about it in “Civil Religion in America in 1967. Bellah attributed the phrase “civil religion” to Rousseau in The Social Contract. He acknowledged the phrase was not used by America’s founding fathers, but similar ideas were “to be found among the Americans.” Bellah said:

While some have argued that Christianity is the national faith, and others that church and synagogue celebrate only the generalized religion of “the American Way of life,” few have realized that there actually exists alongside of and rather clearly differentiated from the churches an elaborate and well-institutionalized civil religion in America. This article argues not only that there is such a thing, but also that this religion—or perhaps better, this religious dimension—has its own seriousness and integrity and requires the same care in understanding that any other religion does.

Nationalists say they want to preserve their nation’s heritage. They want to honor the past, to preserve what came before. They claim nationalism simply means being patriotic, the love of country. However, Miller said the word can mean much more than mere patriotism. He agreed that the love of country is generally a good thing, but we need to be on our guard “against some common temptations to ensure our love is rightly ordered.”

Miller then turned to C.S. Lewis in his book, The Four Loves, where Lewis looked at the love of one’s country. He commented that we all now know that love of country can become a demon when it becomes a god. Seemingly, Lewis here made a reference to Nazi Germany during the Second World War. He said when this kind of love becomes demonic, it will produce wicked acts. Demonic patriotism when it exists within the citizens of a nation, makes it easier for its rulers to act wickedly; healthy patriotism may make it harder.

When they are wicked, they may by propaganda encourage a demonic condition of our sentiments in order to secure our acquiescence in their wickedness. If they are good, they could do the opposite. This is one reason why we private persons should keep a wary eye on the health or disease of our own love for our country.

Lewis seems to agree with Miller that nationalism can become a substitute religion. But when it does, it should not be called “Christian” in any sense of the term.  He also said Christendom needed to make a full confession of the extent to which it contributed to the sum of human cruelty and treachery. Large areas of “the World” won’t listen to us until we have publicly disowned much of our past. “Why should they? We have shouted the name of Christ and enacted the service of Molech.”

Miller said nationalism is a totalistic political religion that is inconsistent with orthodox Christianity. It is “a false religion that places the nation in the place of the church and the leader in place of God.” He said the ideal type of Christian nationalism can’t fit with Christianity. “They are separate, rival, mutually exclusive religions.” Yes, Christians should be patriots, but true patriotism sometimes means rebuking your country for its sin; or even working against it, “as Bonhoeffer worked against the Nazi government of his German homeland.”

C.S. Lewis taught at Oxford throughout the Second World War and like others at the time, he reflected on ultimate issues such as life and death, good and evil, suffering and eternity, and the nature of reality. Among his writings of this time were “The Weight of Glory,” “Evil and God” and the initial series of talks on the BBC which later became part of his book Mere Christianity.

In his essay, “C. S. Lewis & Three Wars: 1941,” Joel Heck wrote there were some at the time who were advocating for the formulation of a Christian political party through letters to The Guardian, a British daily newspaper. In response to those letters, Lewis wrote “Meditation on the Third Commandment” for the January 10, 1941 edition of The Guardian. It is available in writing within God in the Dock. The title is a subtle allusion to the idolatry and consequences of which he wrote. The third commandment is: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”

Lewis said, “Nothing is so earnestly to be wished as a real assault by Christianity on the politics of the world.” He pointed out there were some problems with forming a Christian party or a Christian platform in politics. First, Christians were not united on the means to accomplish their various ends. Some saw democracy as a monster (fascism), while others saw it as the only hope, with still others saw the need for a revolution (communism).

The three types represented by these three Christians presumably come together to form a Christian party. Either a deadlock ensues and there the history of the Christian party ends; or else one of the three succeeds in floating a party and driving the other two with their followers out of its ranks. The new party, being probably a minority of the Christians, who are themselves a minority of the citizens, will be too small to be effective. In practice, it will have to attach itself to the unchristian party nearest to it in beliefs about means . . . It remains to ask how the resulting situation will differ from that in which Christians find themselves today.

Whatever the party calls itself, it will not represent Christendom, but only a part of Christendom. “The principle which divides it from its brethren and unites it to its political allies will not be theological. It will have no authority to speak for Christianity. It will have no more power than the political its members give it to control the behavior of its unbelieving allies.” Lewis said there will be a real and disastrous novelty because it will not be simply a part of Christendom, but a part claiming to be the whole.

By the mere act of calling itself the ‘Christian party,’ it implicitly accuses all Christians who do not join it of apostasy and betrayal. It will be exposed in an aggravated degree to that temptation which the devil spares none of us at any time—the temptation of claiming for our favorite opinions that kind of degree of certainty and authority which really belongs only to our faith. The danger of mistaking our merely natural, though perhaps legitimate, enthusiasms for holy zeal, is always great. Can any more expedient be devised for increasing it than that of dubbing a small band of fascists, communists, or democrats the Christian party? The demon inherent in every party is at all time ready enough to disguise himself as the Holy Ghost. The formation of a Christian party means handing over to him the most efficient makeup we can find. And when once the disguise has succeeded, his commands will presently be taken to abrogate all moral laws and to justify whatever the unbelieving allies of the Christian party wish to do. If ever Christian men can be brought to think treachery and murder the lawful means of establishing the regime they desire, and fake trials, religious persecution and organized hooliganism, the lawful means of maintaining it, it will surely be by just such a process as this. The history of the late medieval pseudo-Crusaders, of the Covenanters, of the Orangemen, should be remembered. On those who add, “thus said the Lord” to their merely human utterances, descends the doom of a conscience, which seems clearer and clearer the more it is loaded with sin. All this come from pretending that God has spoken when He has not spoken.

C.S. Lewis thought that by natural light God has shown us which means are lawful. To discover which one is efficacious, “He has given us brains. The rest he has left to us.”

Miller concludes “The Religion of American Greatness” by saying churches must take a role in challenging Christian nationalism. He said there was no more credible voice to confront an unhealthy Christian political witness than the healthy kind. Jesus gave his church the authority to proclaim his message and represent his name (Matthew 28:18-20). And when his name and message are misrepresented, “the church must be at the forefront of saying so and correcting the record.”

For further reflections on nationalism, see the link “Christian Nationalism” on this website.

12/12/23

The One and Only True Christian Nation

Photo by Debby Hudson on Unsplash

In “What Is Christian Nationalism?”, Paul Miller said Christian Nationalism was the belief that the American nation was defined by Christianity, and that the American government should take steps to keep it that way. “Christian nationalists want to define America as a Christian nation and they want the government to promote a specific cultural template as the official culture of the country.” Some want to amend the Constitution to acknowledge America’s Christian heritage. Others want the government to promote specific a cultural template and take stronger action to circumscribe immoral behavior. Still others believe America has a unique relationship with God and has been chosen by him to carry out a special mission on earth.

Christian Nationalists believe the American nation is defined by Christianity and the government should take active steps to preserve this cultural sense in the future. They believe America must remain a so-called “Christian nation” and appropriate the name of Christ for its worldly political agenda. Miller said when this happens, the name of Christ is used as a fig leaf to cover its political program. The message of Jesus becomes a tool of political propaganda and the church a cheerleader of the state. The movement commonly called Christian Nationalism is better understood as Religious Nationalism, a false religion that substitutes the nation for the church.

As citizens of the kingdom of God, Jesus is our Immanuel, the embodiment of the kingdom of God (See “So-Called ‘Christian’ Nationalism and the Kingdom of God”). This kingdom is associated with the church and cannot not be said to apply to any particular nation, making it difficult to be a Christian Nationalist if you believe you belong to Jesus. Herman Ridderbos said there is a connection between the kingdom of God and the church, but they are not identical. “The kingdom is the whole of God’s redeeming activity in Christ in this world; the church is the assembly of those who belong to Jesus Christ.” He suggested to think of the relationship between the church and the kingdom as two concentric circles, with the church as the smaller one and the kingdom of God as the larger, with Christ as the center of both.

The church, as the organ of the kingdom, is called to confess Jesus as the Christ, to the missionary task of preaching the gospel in the world; she is also the community of those who wait for the coming of the kingdom in glory, the servants who have received their Lord’s talents in prospect of his return. The church receives her whole constitution from the kingdom, on all sides she is beset and directed by the revelation, the progress, the future coming of the kingdom of God, without at any time being the kingdom herself or even being identified with it.

Richard Gaffin said the church alone has been entrusted with the ‘the keys of the kingdom’ (Matthew 16:18, 19) and has been commissioned to preach ‘the gospel of the kingdom’ (Matthew 24:14). Citizens of the kingdom of God are only found in the church, and are “those who by repentance and faith submit to the redemptive lordship of Christ.” All things, the entirety of creation, are subject to him (Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 2:8). The Father of glory, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, has put all things under his feet and gave him as “head over all things” for the church (Ephesians 1:22).

In contrast to this sense of the kingdom of God, Christian Nationalism adopts the name of Christ for a worldly political agenda and claims that its political program is the program for every true believer. In other words, if you belong to the kingdom of God, you should support a Christian Nationalist agenda. Paul Miller said this is wrong, regardless of what the agenda is, “because only the church is authorized to proclaim the name of Jesus and carry his standard in the world.” In his book, The Religion of America’s Greatness, Miller said when nationalists say they have a divine commission to accomplish God’s purpose in the world, “they are reading their secular polities into the biblical narrative, substituting their nation for God’s people, a frank admission that nationalism is a religion.”

Regrettably, Americans have long thought of themselves as a chosen people. Miller said in the 18th and 19th centuries Americans regularly referred to themselves as a “new Israel.” Today, many Americans will cite 2 Chronicles 7:14 in support of this: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” President Dwight Eisenhower took the oath of office on a Bible opened to this passage in 1953. Ronald Reagan once said his favorite verse was 2 Chronicles 7:14. Like Eisenhower he took the oath of office on Bibles opened to the verse in 1981 and 1985.

At least as far back as the civil war, there was a similar trend, using Psalm 33:12 in addition to 2 Chronicles 7:14: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” In 1864 a group of clergymen advocated amending the US Constitution to explicitly acknowledge Jesus Christ “and declare the nation’s Christian identity.” The group invoked Psalm 33:12, calling on those who loved their country to sign their petition and support the constitutional amendment.

The use of these verses in reference to the United States is part of a broader tendency among some American Christians to view the United States as a divinely chosen nation in a unique relationship with God to carry out his mission on earth. In this most extreme form, Christian nationalism treats loyalty to America as the national implication of Christian piety. It conflates American identity with Christian identity and treats the good of one as the good of the other. Past generations very clearly argued that our Christian identity gave America a unique moral status, or that the United States was specially privileged by God for a unique mission or destiny.

These two Scripture verses, Second Chronicles 7:14 and Psalm 33:12 are not about the United States or any other secular polity. The “nation whose God is the Lord,” and the people “who are called by my name” refer to Israel and in the new covenant, the church. According to Paul Miller, “To apply them to the United States is hermeneutically indefensible, theologically irresponsible, intellectually sloppy, politically dangerous, and borderline heretical.” The divine mission of God’s chosen people is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, not political liberty, national sovereignty, and capitalism. “The church is the one and only true Christian nation.”

The discussion of the kingdom of God here draws from the thought of Herman Ridderbos on “Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven” in the New Bible Dictionary; and the thought of Richard Gaffin on “Kingdom of God” in the New Dictionary of Theology.

For further reflections on nationalism, see the link “Christian Nationalism” on the website.

11/21/23

So-Called “Christian” Nationalism and the Kingdom of God

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

In The Religion of America’s Greatness: What’s Wrong with Christian Nationalism, Paul Miller said nationalism was often a fig leaf for authoritarian governments to hide behind. It is a form of cultural determinism, trivializing the ideals for which our founding fathers fought, sacrificed and died. “Independence was hardly necessary to preserve a Christian culture, which was not threatened by the Christian monarch of Protestant Britain.” They sought to gain independence for one Christian people (Americans) from another Christian nation (England) because they valued political liberty enough to fight and die for it. “Christian nationalism has the perverse implication of insulting the founders by minimizing the importance of the ideals for which they fought.”

Not only does it trivialize the ideals our founding fathers fought for, it is a false religion that places the nation in the place of the church and the authoritarian leader in the place of God. It misdirects the attention of Christians from where we should focus our attention—the kingdom of God—onto an idolatrous, false religion (See “What’s Wrong with Christian Nationalism?”). We are residents of the kingdom of God and should seek first that kingdom (Matthew 6:33), which is not of this world (John 18:36). This kingdom is associated with the church; not any particular nation—even modern-day Israel. The universal church alone contains citizens of the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven is the central theme of Jesus’ preaching in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The terms are interchangeable. Matthew alone speaks of the ‘kingdom of heaven’ because he was writing to a Jewish audience, who tended to avoid direct reference to God. Even in modern Judaism, the name of G-d is handled with caution and respect. Mark and Luke speak of the ‘kingdom of God’ because it was more intelligible to non-Jews. Neither phrase is found in the Old Testament and only the ‘kingdom of God’ is found in the New Testament outside of the gospel of Matthew.

Although the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ is not in the OT, the ideas of God as king and his kingly rule are inescapable. He is “the great king over all the earth” (Psalm 47:2)  and “his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19). It is an everlasting kingdom, ruling over past, present and future: “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations” (Psalm 145:13). This great future reign will be realized through the ministry of the Messiah (Isaiah 11, 49), and will mean salvation and blessing for Israel and all the nations (Isaiah 2:1-4; Micah 4:1-5). It is the fulfillment of the covenantal promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, where all people on earth will be blessed through him.

Herman Ridderbos said the coming of the kingdom was ardently expected by the Jews, “to restore his people’s fortunes and liberate them from the power of their enemies.” The coming of the Messiah was to pave the way for the kingdom of God. By the time of Jesus, this hope had a prominent cosmic and apocalyptic sense concerning both the restoration of David’s throne and the coming of God to renew the world. “Although the OT has nothing to say of the eschatological kingdom of heaven in so many words, yet in the Psalms and prophets the future manifestation of God’s royal sovereignty belongs to the most central concepts of OT faith and hope.”

The misinterpretation of God’s redemptive purpose, expressed in the Old Testament Scriptures, was a stumbling block to Jesus’ disciples, to John the Baptist, Nicodemus and other Jews at the time of Jesus’ ministry. Richard Gaffin captured this succinctly in his article on “The Kingdom of God” for the New Dictionary of Theology:

This covenantal kingship, in turn, gives rise to the hope which is at the heart of the prophetic expectation of the entire Old Testament. In the midst of national decline and even exile, the prophets announce the time when God will manifest himself as king, when in a climactic and unprecedented fashion, ‘the Sovereign  Lord comes with power, and his arm rules for him’ (Isaiah 40:10), and when for Zion the proclamation at last holds true in the eschatological sense: ‘Your God reigns’ (Isaiah 52:7; cf. Deuteronomy 2:44; 7:14, 27). This great future, realized through the ministry of the Messiah (e.g. Isaiah 11, 49), will mean salvation and blessing, not only for Israel but for all the nations (e.g. Isaiah 2:1–4; 49:7; Micah 4.1–5); it is the fulfilment of the primal covenantal promise made to Abraham: ‘and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you’ (Genesis 12:3).

In the New Testament, John the Baptist announced the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matthew 3:2) and Jesus began his preaching with the same message (Matthew 4:17). But they both gave it a sense that was at odds with the legalistic and nationalistic concerns in the apocalyptic and rabbinic materials of their time. In John’s preaching, the announcement of divine judgment was prominent. The axe was already laid to the root of the trees. Every tree that didn’t bear good fruit would be torn down and thrown into the fire.

Yet John said he was not the promised Messiah, who would come after him. The Messiah would hold the winnowing fork in his hand, and would baptize them with the Holy Spirit and fire. Therefore, the people must repent and submit to baptism for the washing away of their sins, in order to escape the coming wrath. God’s coming as King was above all else to purify, sift and judge and no one could evade this judgment. “The coming of the kingdom is the great perspective of the future, prepared by the coming of the Messiah, which paves the way for the kingdom of God.”

In view of his coming the people must repent and submit to baptism for the washing away of sins, so as to escape the coming wrath and participate in the salvation of the kingdom and the baptism with the Holy Spirit which will be poured out when it comes.

It seems from the beginning of his ministry, Jesus wasn’t acting like the Jews expected their Messiah would act. Remember, the kingdom was commonly thought to be the restoration of the Davidic kingdom and the (political?) liberation of the Jewish people from their enemies. After a while, even John the Baptist began question whether Jesus was the Messiah. So, John sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the one who is to come. Jesus told John’s disciples to tell John what they have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the poor have good news preached to them (Matthew 11:5; Luke 7:22).

With their own eyes they saw that God sent the Messiah. The kingdom of God was present in the words and deeds of Jesus, but the Jews did not believe. In John 10:24-26, the Jews confronted Jesus in the temple and demanded of him to plainly tell them if he was the Christ. “Jesus answered them, ‘I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.’”

This present aspect of the kingdom of God is seen more specifically when Jesus casts out demons. In Matthew 12, Jesus is accused by the Pharisees of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons. He replied if he casts out demons by Beelzebul, then by whom do their sons cast him out? “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28). When healing the demon-possessed, it is evident Jesus has entered the house of the ‘strong man’ and bound him fast.

The kingdom of heaven breaks into the domain of the evil one. The power of Satan is broken. Jesus sees him fall like lightning from heaven. He possesses and bestows power to trample on the dominion of the enemy. Nothing can be impossible for those who go forth into the world, invested with Jesus’ power, as witnesses of the kingdom (Luke. 10:18f.). The entirety of Jesus’ miraculous ministry is the proof of the coming of the kingdom.

Herman Ridderbos goes on to say in the Gospels how Jesus’ Messiahship is present in the here and now. Not only is he proclaimed as such on the Mount of Transfiguration, but he is also endowed with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16). He came to fulfill what the prophets foretold; to seek and save the lost; to serve others and give his life for a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). “The secret of belonging to the kingdom lies in belonging to him” (Matthew 7:23; 25:41).

At the same time the kingdom of God is in the here and now of the gospel, it is also future. The miracles and healings described above are a foretaste of what is to come. They are tokens of a future order of reality, not the present one.  It is not yet the time when demons will be delivered into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and all his ‘angels’ (Matthew 8:29; 25:41).

In the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13), Jesus told his disciples that before the end, to be aware there will be false christs and false prophets performing signs and wonders to attempt to lead astray the elect. But “in those days,” which was a reference to the last days (Jeremiah 3:16; Joel 3:1; Zechariah 8:23), they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. In the New Dictionary of Theology, Richard Gaffin said these present and future aspects of the kingdom of God are not two kingdoms, but one eschatological kingdom coming in successive stages: “a. the period of Jesus’ earthly ministry, b. the period from his exaltation to his return (the time of the church), and c. the period beyond his return.”  The kingdom of God is thoroughly messianic, “shaped by the unique demands of Christ’s work.” Jesus is therefore autobasileia, the kingdom in person.

Jesus is the Christ, the embodiment of the kingdom of God. He is Immanuel, God with us. His one entrance into space and time is evident in three successive stages: the time of his earthly ministry, the time of the church (between his exaltation and return), and the time after his triumphant return in space and time. We have the privilege of living out and provisionally manifesting the reality of that kingdom as the church, the body of Christ, until the time of his return.

As residents of the kingdom of God in the church age, we should seek first the kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33), which is not of this world (John 18:36). This kingdom has Christ as its head and the church as his body (Ephesians 5:23), and does not align with any particular nation. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said no one can serve two masters. You will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other (Matthew 6:24). If you truly belong to Jesus in the kingdom of God, you can’t be a Christian Nationalist.

The discussion of the kingdom of God here draws from the thought of Herman Ridderbos on “Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven” in the New Bible Dictionary; and the thought of Richard Gaffin on “Kingdom of God” in the New Dictionary of Theology.

For further reflections on nationalism, see the link “Christian Nationalism” on the website.

10/31/23

What’s Wrong with Christian Nationalism?

Image by SEspider from Pixabay

In a video for The Gospel Coalition—“Why America Is Not a Christian Nation”—Michael Horton said, “The misuse of Scripture for civil religion has plagued churches across the political spectrum for centuries. The problem isn’t new in our generation, but recent events remind us that Christians must speak clearly against the problematic concept of Christian Nationalism.” He was referring to the events of January 6, 2021. Horton referenced seeing a wooden cross “propped up outside the U.S. capitol, surrounded by a mob of people, hoisting up American flags” and not far from a platform and noose seemingly intended for the vice president. “The January 6th attack on the U.S. capitol, which included insurrectionists praying Christian prayers once they infiltrated the Senate chamber, has prompted a renewed conversation about what’s called ‘Christian Nationalism.’”

Horton is not the only Christian to raise concerns about this sense of Christian Nationalism. In “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Christian Nationalism,” Patrick Schreiner said Christian Nationalism has become a junk box into which everyone piles their own conceptions of what they think it means. Some, like Michael Horton, equate it with rioting at the U.S. capitol. Others see it as attempting to enforce God’s law in our country, while still others see it as advocating for Christian moral values on issues like abortion. “How you view the movement depends almost entirely on your circles.”

Schreiner went on to unpack his understanding of three forms of Christian Nationalism as Good, Bad and Ugly. The good form of Christian Nationalism meant that “Christianity has influenced and should continue to influence the nation.” This sense of Christian Nationalism doesn’t attempt to dictate the political process or make the nation completely Christian by force, “but seeks instead to bring change by persuasion.” The adherents don’t force their opinions, but advocate their views by supporting laws, electing candidates, writing, podcasting, etc. In other words, they seek to make known God’s will providentially (Romans 1:19-20). “But this isn’t what most people mean by Christian Nationalism.”

Like theonomy, the bad form of Christian Nationalism wants a fusion of Christianity with American civil life, meaning the “laws of the United States should be explicitly Christian.” Instead of persuading by the word of our testimony (Revelation 12:11), adherents seek to enact and enforce laws. For them, the kingdom of God is brought about by command and power, not by the Spirit. Failed efforts of bringing about the kingdom of God by power exist throughout history. Christian conversion must occur by the compelling of the Spirit, not by instituting human law.

We conquer not by fighting the culture war but by embodying Jesus’s cross-shaped victory. His blood declares him the King of the universe, and our blood speaks to our solidarity with him. We continue to speak of and demonstrate Jesus’s cross in our own lives and so remain faithful in a pagan society.

While America does have a distinctly Christian past, the bad sense of Christian Nationalism overlooks key features of the American experiment, religious liberty and pluralism. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Squashing dissent by law violates human liberty, and the vision of the founding fathers. It coerces those who dissent. In The Religion of American Greatness, Paul Miller said the First Amendment rightly protects religious freedom for all people, “including Muslims, atheists, and even progressives.”

If taken to its logical conclusion, this Nationalism undermines the foundation of a free society. Should such a fusion dominate American civil life, it would divide the nation rather than unify it. Uniformity in some aspects of national life isn’t all bad, but that must always exist beside diversity.

At this time in history, we live between Christ’s resurrection and his second coming. Making explicitly Christian laws perverts this distinction by our human attempts to institute Christ’s rule in the present age. In this age, religious freedom, diversity and pluralism are blessings to God’s people who want to live a peaceful and quiet life (1 Timothy 2:2). But we can’t codify or institute God’s law completely in this age. That is for Christ to do when he returns.  “As citizens of the kingdom of God, we point forward to the [coming] kingdom but never forget the age we inhabit.”

Some will argue that nationality is a biblical idea, and point to the table of nations in Genesis 10, where God separates humanity into distinct groups. They will cite Deuteronomy 32:8, where it says when God gave the nations their inheritance, he divided mankind, “he fixed the borders of the peoples.” But they neglect Genesis 11, where mankind sought to build a city and tower with its top in the heavens to make a name for themselves, not God. When God saw what they had done, he confused their language and dispersed them over the face of the earth.

When Christian Nationalism turns ugly, it becomes a cultural framework that idealizes and advocates for the fusion of Christianity and American civil life and pursues it by dominion—by force or violence when necessary. It is a conflation of God and country—as Michael Horton said—into a civil religion. “The misuse of Scripture for civil religion has plagued churches across the political spectrum for centuries. The problem isn’t new in our generation, but recent events remind us that Christians must speak clearly against the problematic concept of Christian Nationalism.”

Although Christianity played a role in American history, America can never be honestly described as a Christian nation. “No nation-state can be a Christian nation-state, because Christianity doesn’t work that way.” Christianity and nation-states are two very different entities and to claim America is a Christian nation confuses the categories and forms a civil religion. However, there is nothing wrong with Christians getting involved with politics and political advocacy. It’s okay for Christians to participate in nonreligious and nonviolent protests of public policies.

But none of this should be confused with the Christian’s identity in the transnational family of God, and no national political agenda or ideal can take priority over God’s global mandate and mission for his people. . . . The worldwide church is Christ’s Kingdom.

In an article for Christianity Today, “What Is Christian Nationalism?”, Paul Miller explained how Christian Nationalism differed from other forms of nationalism, patriotism, and Christianity. Patriotism is the love of country, where nationalism is an argument about how to define a country. “All of God’s creation is good and patriotism helps us appreciate our particular place in it.” We should love our country and work to improve it by holding it up for critique and work for justice when it errs. Here, Miller seems to echo what Schreiner called “good” Christian Nationalism.

Nationalism begins with a belief that humanity is divisible into mutually distinct, internally coherent cultural groups. These groups are defined by shared traits like language, religion, ethnicity, or culture. Nationalists believe these groups should have their own governments. These governments should then promote and protect the nations’ cultural identity. And sovereign national groups should provide meaning and purpose for human beings.

Christian Nationalism is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, “and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way.” Miller said this is not just an observation about American history, but an inflexible program for what America must do. They want the government to promote a specific cultural template for the country. This is a reflection of Schreiner’s “bad” Christian Nationalism.

Some have advocated for an amendment to the Constitution to recognize America’s Christian heritage, others to reinstitute prayer in public schools. Some work to enshrine a Christian nationalist interpretation of American history in school curricula, including that America has a special relationship with God or has been “chosen” by him to carry out a special mission on earth. Others advocate for immigration restrictions specifically to prevent a change to American religious and ethnic demographics or a change to American culture. Some want to empower the government to take stronger action to circumscribe immoral behavior.

Miller said this presumption that Christians are heirs of the true heritage of American culture tends to treat other Americans as second-class citizens.  If implemented, it would not respect the full religious freedom of all Americans. Empowering the state through so-called “morals legislation” to regulate conduct carries the risk of overreaching “and creating governing powers that could be used later against Christianity.” Now we reach Schreiner’s “ugly” Christian Nationalism.

Additionally, Christian Nationalism is an ideology held overwhelmingly by white Americans, and it thus tends to exacerbate racial and ethnic cleavages. In recent years, the movement has grown increasingly characterized by fear and by a belief that Christians are victims of persecution. Some are beginning to argue that American Christians need to prepare to fight, physically, to preserve America’s identity, an argument that played into the January 6 riot.

Christian nationalism misappropriates the name of Christ for a worldly political power (nationalism), when Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). It proclaims that its program is “the political program for every true believer.” In reality, it is a political ideology focused on the national identity of the United States. It includes a distorted understanding of American history and American government that is extrabiblical, while claiming to be biblical. While it generalizes from biblical ideas and principles, at its worst, it is contradictory to them.

In The Religion of America’s Greatness, Paul Miller said you can either be a Christian nationalist or a Christian; you can’t be both. Yes, Christians should be patriots, but true patriotism sometimes means rebuking our country for its sin, as we do when advocating for prolife. And it may mean working against it, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did against the Nazi government of his German homeland. Perhaps so-called Christian nationalism is better referred to as religious nationalism.

We should not be trying to “Make America Great Again.” We should be striving to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:33). Christian Nationalism in the extreme is “a totalistic political religion that is inconsistent with orthodox Christianity, a false religion that places the nation in the place of the church and the leader in the place of God.”

We are called to be residents of the kingdom of God, which is not of this world.

For further reflections on nationalism, see the link “Christian Nationalism” on the website.

10/3/23

Indwelling Sin Weakens Spiritual Strength

In chapter fourteen of Indwelling Sin in Believers, John Owen examined how of the power of Sin can flare-up. In chapter fifteen, he moved on to examine how this power could also be seen in the habitual decline from a state of communion with God. The ways and means by which this decline succeeds in the life of believers are many.

Photo by engin akyurt on Unsplash

When a person is converted, they usually have many refreshing showers of God’s grace bathing their souls. This is produces in them an elevated amount of faith, love, holiness, fruitfulness and obedience. Like a river with many streams running into it, when there is a heavy rain, it overflows its banks. If these streams are not fed continually by showers, “they must needs decay and go backwards.”

The newly converted has a strong sense of God’s pardoning mercy. They are sensible of great forgiveness as was Paul when he said: “of whom I am the foremost” (1 Timothy 1:15). This subdues their hearts to all in God and quickens them to all obedience—that such a poor and cursed sinner should be delivered and pardoned. “The love of God and of Christ, in their forgiveness, highly conquers and constrains them to make it their business to live for God.”

Secondly, the fresh taste of spiritual things has such a savor and relish in their souls, that worldly pleasures are sapless and disagreeable. Having tasted the wine of the gospel, they desire no other. They have such a savor and relish for the grace of Christ upon their souls, that they cannot think of rejecting it. They then see a new guilt and filth in sin that leads to an abhorrence of its old delights and pleasures.

Now, whilst these and the like springs are kept open in the souls of converted sinners, they constrain them to a vigorous active holiness. They can never do enough for God; so that, oftentimes, their zeal, as saints, suffers them not to escape without some blots on their prudence, as men; as might be instanced in many of the martyrs of old.

Indwelling sin attempts to stop or taint these springs. It grooms the individual for decline and decay in grace and obedience by works of sloth and negligence. It prevails the individual to neglect the things that influenced it to strict and fruitful obedience. If diligence and watchfulness are not used, the means appointed by God to keep a quick and living sense of this grace will dry up and decay. And the obedience that springs from this grace will also dry up. Prevailed upon by spiritual sloth, a decay grows insensibly upon the whole soul because of indwelling sin. Thus, God often complained that his people had forgotten him—that they had grown unmindful of his love and grace.

When people begin to become weary of the things of God, those things by which we have communion with him, they deceive themselves by becoming a hearer of the word and not a doer. They look intently at themselves in the mirror of the word, but go away and immediately forget what they were like (James 1:23-24). Owen said it does not make an impression on them; it begets no image of their likeness. They become content with slight and rare thoughts of the things of God. They talk of spiritual things, and perform their religious duties, yet they have poor, starving souls as to any real communion with God.

By the power and subtlety of indwelling sin, they have grown formal, and learned to deal about spiritual things in a careless manner, whereby they have lost all their life, vigour, savour and efficacy towards them. Be always serious in spiritual things, if ever you intent to be bettered by them.

Oftentimes, indwelling sin will stop the springs of gospel obedience by false and foolish opinions, by corrupting the simplicity of the gospel. “False opinions are the works of the flesh.” They proceed from the vanity and darkness in the minds of men, with a mixture of corrupt affections. The apostle Paul was afraid the Corinthians would be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3) by a decay in faith, love and obedience.

Owen said this is often what happens. He has seen some, who after receiving a sweet taste of the love of God in Christ, and having walked humbly with God for many years, being deceived by false and foolish opinions. They despised their own experiences and rejected all the efficacy of truth. There were innumerable instances then (and now). They put an unspeakable value on the pardon of sin in the blood of Christ and delighted in the gospel discoveries of spiritual things, and walked in obedience on account of them. But they were beguiled and turned aside from the truth in Jesus, to despise the springs of their former obedience.

And this is one way whereby indwelling sin produces this pernicious effect, of drawing men off from the power, purity, and fruitfulness attending their first conversion, and engagements to God, bringing them into habitual declension, at least as to degrees, of their holiness and grace. There is not a thing we ought to be more watchful against, if we intend effectually to deal with this powerful and subtle enemy.

Indwelling sin does this by catching people by surprise in their watch against the return of Satan, who left off from tempting Jesus only until there was a more opportune time (Luke 4:13). It is like this with believers as well. If the person does not stand continually on guard against him, Satan will quickly gain advantage, and disrupt their fruitfulness and obedience. He accomplishes this by having carnal lusts prevail over their convictions, making their soul fit to entertain returning devils.

Satan is a diligent, watchful and crafty adversary. He will not neglect any opportunity or advantage that is offered to him. Where ever our spiritual strength is impaired by sin, or where our lusts press us, Satan aligns with the weakness and presses towards its ruin. “All the actings of the law of sin are subservient to this end of Satan.”

Indwelling sin entangles the soul in the things of the world. And when he discovers that has happened to a person he has been cast out of, he is encouraged to pursue after them. He seeks by his temptations, to impel them by their own lusts. “And oftentimes by this advantage he gets so in upon the souls of men, that they are never free of him more wilst they live.”

“Believers come forth from the spring of new birth with some purity and cleanness.” Yet sometimes they associate with others whose profession may run towards heaven even as their does, but they are muddied with sin and the world. These are often corrupted and so decline from their first purity, faith and holiness. In other words, “in the body of believers, there is a great number of hypocrites.” We cannot say for certain who is or isn’t one, but know for certain there are some. So, take heed how you give yourself up in conformity to the professors you meet with.

Owen continues on with his reflections on how many professors are also sick and wounded. He said sin works by cherishing some secret particular lust. Where indwelling sin has provoked and given strength to a special lust, it proves to be a principal means of a general decline. Just as an infirmity and weakness in any vital part will make the whole body ill, so will the weakness caused by a perplexing lust do to the soul. “It every way weakens spiritual strength.”

It is so with men brought into spiritual decays by any secret perplexing corruptions. It may be they have had a vigorous principle of obedience and holiness; indwelling sin watching its opportunities, by some temptation or other, has kindled and inflamed some particular lust in them. For a while it may be they take notice of it, sometime they complain, but think they will do as in former times, until being insensibly weakened in their spiritual strength, they have work enough to do in keeping alive what remains and is ready to die.

A great sin will certainly give a great turn to the life of a believer. However, “if it be well cured in the blood of Christ, with that humiliation which the gospel requires, it often proves a means of more watchfulness, fruitfulness, humility, and contention, than ever the soul before obtained.” Like a broken bone, if it is well set, it leaves the limb stronger than before. But if not, it makes a man a cripple all his days. “These things we do but briefly name, and sundry other advantages of the like nature, that sin makes use of to produce this effect, might also be instanced in; but these may suffice to our present purpose.”

08/8/23

A Misbegotten Stepcousin of Christianity, Part 2

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Christian Smith with Melinda Lundquist Denton introduced the term ‘moralistic therapeutic deism’ (MTD) in their 2005 book, “Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers” to describe what they see as the common beliefs among American youths. Yet it seems to echo a distinction between religion and spirituality that can be traced back to the thought of William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience, which has been in print since 1902. In Part 1 of this article, I looked at the meaning of MTD and here will examine how it emerged from the sense of ‘spiritual not religious’ belief in Alcoholics Anonymous that grew out of James’ Gifford Lectures on the psychological study of individual religious and spiritual experience.

In “’Being Religious’ or ‘Being Spiritual’ in America,” Marler and Hadaway looked at five different surveys done between the late 1980s and 2000 that asked respondents whether they considered themselves to be “religious” or “spiritual.” Are Americans less religious and more spiritual? They concluded the studies could not give a definitive answer. “The most significant finding about the relationship between ‘being religious’ and ‘being spiritual’ is that most Americans see themselves as both.” When potential change can be traced by examining successive age groups, or by comparing more with less churched respondents, “the pattern is towards less religious and less spirituality.”

The net effect is that among less churched and younger Americans there is less agreement about religiousness and spirituality, and change is observed more in the decline of those Roof (2000) identifies as ‘strong believers,’ the religious and spiritual, and the increase in ‘secularists.’

Nevertheless, the Pew Research Center said “More Americans now say they’re spiritual but not religious.” In 2017, Pew noted that 27% of U.S. adults think of themselves as spiritual but not religious, an increase of 8% since 2012. This growth was broad-based, increasing among men and women; Republicans and Democrats; across race/ethnicity; and people of different ages and education levels. It seems to have come mainly at the expense of Americans who considered themselves to be spiritual and religious. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they are spiritual and religious fell by 11 points between 2012 and 2017. See the following graphic to the left taken from the Pew article.

While many of U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated, describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”, most actually do identify with a religious group. Many in the “spiritual but not religious” category have low levels of religious observance, saying they seldom or never attend religious services; and that religion is “not too” or “not at all” important in their lives. Yet others say they attend religious services weekly and 27% say religion is very important to them. See the following chart to the right taken from the Pew article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smith and Denton acknowledged the widespread sense of “spiritual seeking” by people who consider themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” They are people who have an interest in spiritual matters but are not devoted to one particular historical spiritual faith or denomination. They are reportedly exploring many faiths and spiritualities in order to find what works for them, that meets their needs. They are open to a multiplicity of truths, willing to mix and match traditionally distinct religious beliefs and practices. “And they are suspicious of a commitment to a single religious congregation.”

They operate, whether self-consciously or not, as religious and spiritual consumers by defining themselves as individual seekers, the authoritative judges of truth and relevance in faith according to how things subjectively feel to them. Such consuming seekers are not religiously rooted or settled but are spiritual nomads on a perpetual quest for greater insight and more authentic and fulfilling experiences.

When Smith and Denton looked at whether American teenagers consider themselves to be spiritual but not religious, only 8 percent said it was very true of them. Forty-six percent said it was somewhat true and 43% said it is not true at all. They also presented data that broke this down further by religious tradition. In the following chart, CP stands for conservative Protestant, MP for mainline Protestant, BP for Black Protestant, RC for Catholic, J for Jewish, LDS for Ladder Day Saints/Mormons, OR for other religions, and NR for not religious.

Smith and Denton would likely explain the difference between their research with teenagers and that from the Pew Center with adults as a product of the teens not understanding the meaning of “spiritual but not religious.” The majority of the teens they interviewed for their study said they had never heard the term before. And if they had heard of the term, they had no clue what it meant. “Although the slogan ‘spiritual but not religious’ can be seen on many bookshelves, read in many newspapers, and heard on many talk shows, very few American teenagers have heard of it, much less learned to what beliefs and lifestyles it refers.” So, they coined the term ‘moralistic therapeutic deism’ to capture what they saw as the basics of teen-centered belief system and suggested it operated as a distinct level within American Religion.

While they acknowledged how the thought of Robert Bellah was incorporated into their level of American Civil Religion, they failed to note the correspondence of their levels of Organizational Religion and Individual Religion to William James’ distinction between institutional and personal religion. See the chart for Figure 2 in Part 1.

In VRE, James said worship, sacrifice, ritual, theology, ceremony and ecclesiastical organization were the essentials of institutional religion. He defined personal religion as “the feelings, acts, and experiences of [the] individual . . . in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.” James’ sense of institutional religion fits with Smith’s and Denton’s sense of organizational religion (as formal religious institutions and organizations), as his sense of personal religion fits with their sense of individual religion (as the idiosyncratic, eclectic, “lived” beliefs and practices of individuals).

James said that if someone thought the word ‘religion’ should be reserved for the fully organized system of feeling, thought, and institution typically called the church, he invited them to refer to what he called personal religion whatever they wanted. Alcoholics Anonymous began calling it spirituality, where Smith and Denton referred to it as moralistic therapeutic deism.

We live at a time when religious belief in America, particularly Christian religious belief, has been increasingly questioned and challenged as too rigid or doctrinaire. This is especially true for conservative Christians, who are attempting to live by and apply what they see as the teachings of Scripture to their lives during this turbulent time. In “Religious Alcoholics; Anonymous Spirituality” I suggested that the Jamesean distinction of religion and spirituality fails to separate a Christian expression of religion from a non-Christian one, and a biblical sense of spirituality from a nonbiblical one. A richer and nuanced distinction would be between true spirituality and mere spirituality and true religion and mere religion, remembering that “true religion always contains true spirituality.”

In True Spirituality, Francis Schaeffer rejected the possibility that true spirituality could be devoid of biblical content. There cannot be a leap-in-the-dark faith for a Christian; there is no “faith in faith” encounter with the divine. Schaeffer said, “It is believing the specific promises of God, no longer turning our backs on them, no longer calling God a liar, but raising empty hands of faith and accepting that finished work of Christ as it was fulfilled in history on the cross.”

As Smith and Denton said with regard to moralistic therapeutic deism, under the influence of mere religion and mere spirituality, Christianity is degenerating into a pathetic, misbegotten stepcousin of itself. Or worse, it is being displaced by a different religious faith.

I’ve previously described how the sense of ‘spiritual not religious’ found in Alcoholics Anonymous emerged from The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James in several other articles on this website. Search for ‘spiritual not religious,’ on this website. You can start with three related articles, beginning with “What Does Religious Mean?” There are links to the remaining two articles at the end of the article.