An Unholy Alliance

NT Wright and Michael Bird continue their discussion on Christian political witness by focusing on some history of the early church and its relationship with Roman power. Here are some things they do in chapter two of Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies.

They highlight the obvious difference between a church living on the margins of power and a church that becomes “a powerful player in the halls of imperial power.”

They point out how the challenges for the church changed when Christianity became the imperial religion. In their words, “The early church had to negotiate empire, resist empire, flee from the empire, suffer under the empire, offer apologies for itself to the empire . . . until the Church became one with the empire.”

They discussed how colonialism is different than evangelism. At worst, the church became little more than an errand boy for the empire. They tell us, “with a few exceptions, it was empire rather than evangelism that made Christianity a global religion… Did Christ defeat Caesar or did we merely turn Christ into Caesar?”

They state the clear biblical position that gospel spreads faithfully through the cross not the sword. When we pray for kingdom come, we pray for a kingdom that comes through crucifixion and resurrection instead of the coercive and violent strategies utilized by the kingdoms of earth.

They insist that the church will speak to power. Religion cannot stay out of politics and vice versa. They say it like this, “keeping out of politics is impossible. We must be political in some sense because the kingdom of God has political implications for proclamation and poverty, for justice and judgement, for Congress and Church, for love and liberty… Religion is going to be part of the political conversation whether everyone likes it or not.”

They acknowledge that the church has struggled with navigating what it looks like to follow Jesus and accommodate the powers simultaneously. History and experience tell us it can be an unholy alliance.

Christian Political Witness

NT Wright and Michael Bird have done us a favor with the forthcoming Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies. Here are some things, just from chapter one, that make this book worthwhile.

They take the biblical narrative seriously. We cannot over emphasize the importance of taking the biblical narrative seriously. When we fail to do this, we too easily wind up in some unrecognizable para-biblical land emphasizing things the Bible is less interested in.

They articulate the complexities of the people of God and their relationships with the God of Israel and the surrounding empires. This is helpful, not only on a historical level, but because we still find ourselves navigating these complex relationships.

They acknowledge that for most of the biblical storyline, the people of God experience worldly empires as threats. The people often find themselves as victims. This has less to do with the power of the local empire and more to do with Israel’s faithlessness.

They highlight that, despite Israel’s penchant for imitating idolatrous nations, God’s mercy is always greater than their disobedience. And that, Israel’s God is always more powerful than even the most powerful empires.

By the time we enter the New Testament, Rome is the known powerful empire. Wright and Bird point out how Jesus stirs things up by announcing “God’s Empire is near.” (This announcement still stirs things up). In their words, Jesus was not “offering people four spiritual laws or a road to heavenly bliss.” Rather, “God was coming and coming as king.”

They point out that the New Testament does not call for “a palace coup” or to “make Christianity legal” or “to promote it to a privileged position in the empire.” Rather the New Testament declares that the world “rightfully belonged, not to the son of Augustus, but to the Son of David.”

They point out that unlike our biblical ancestors, the people of God have now found themselves residing in the empire as privileged guests. This dynamic has brought with it new problems and complications. Problems we obviously have yet to figure out.

Preston Sprinkle and Theology of Marriage

I recently had the opportunity to attend a viewing of the “Faith, Spirituality, and Gender” Conference. Thank you to the Brethren in Christ for the invite! This is an important and timely conversation for the church to be having at this time. A big thank you to Preston Sprinkle for making sure these conversations are taking place!

He began the conference with a “Theology of Marriage and Same Sex Relations.” An appropriate place to start, his main theological point is influenced by N. T. Wright. What follows is an attempt to summarize this position.

The Bible begins and ends with heaven and earth coming together. We find this in Genesis 1-2 and in Revelation 21-22. This is not accidental and it is not unimportant. In fact, N. T. Wright insists, heaven and earth are supposed to work together. This may not sound like anything new, but you may be surprised to know that Wright goes on to suggest this has everything to do with the human relationship of male and female.

That heaven and earth are supposed to work together is evident from the start. As Genesis 1 unfolds, we find not only heaven and earth as complementaries, but also night and day, sea and dry land, plants and animals, and as the story reaches a climax, with the creation of human beings, male and female. Just as heaven and earth are supposed to be the “twin interlocking pieces of God’s good creation” (credit to Wright for this phrase), male and female are designed to go together, work together as “twin interlocking pieces of God’s good creation.” Wright calls this a profound reality that is at the heart of the creation story. Sprinkle suggests it is “baked” into creation.

Therefore, he goes on, we should not be surprised when we discover how Revelation concludes the story. From heaven, the New Jerusalem, like a bride, comes down to meet the bridegroom. Heaven and earth were always meant for one another. Revelation concludes in a way where the story that began in Genesis will reach its proper conclusion. This, says Wright, is the way it was intended to be. Male plus female marriage is a signpost about the goodness of God’s original creation and for the eventual coming together of a new heaven and new earth. This suggests that marriage has greater significance than a social-sexual arrangement.

Are We Listening?

A quote to remind us the gospels were written with a purpose in mind;

“One can imagine a conversation between the four evangelists who wrote the gospels and a group of ‘evangelists’ in our modern sense who are used to preaching sermons week by week that explain exactly how the cross deals with problems of ‘sin’ and ‘hell.’ The four ancient writers are shaking their heads and trying to retell the story they all wrote: of how Jesus launched the kingdom of God on earth as in heaven and how his execution was actually the key, decisive moment in that accomplishment. The modern evangelists come right back with their theories, diagrams, and homely illustrations. The ancient writers eventually explode: ‘You’re just not listening!’ ‘Yes, we are,’ reply the modern preachers… ‘but you guys just aren’t saying the right stuff!’” (N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began, p. 197)

How Should We Preach about Sin and Evil?

For a long time we have treated personal sin and larger pictures of evil as different discussions. We have responded by preaching atonement theories that addressed the forgiving of personal sin so we might get to heaven. All other evil became part of “the problem of evil.” This category of evil need not be addressed by the cross but by philosophical and political debate.

Such thinking, according to N. T. Wright, is “not only politically naive and disastrous, not only philisophically shallow: it was also theologically naive or even… heretical. It was trying to ‘deal with evil’ all by itself, with no reference to any belief that this might be God’s job.” Wright goes on to say “it is God who deals with evil, and he does this on the cross. Any other ‘dealing with evil’ must be seen in the light of that.”

What is your response?