The difference between American exceptionalism and "seeking the welfare of the city"

In the past decade or so I've more-or-less ended up trending towards an Anabaptist, Hauerwas-style ecclesiology in regards to the attitude of the church towards the state and society (though I've actually only read one book by Stanley Hauerwas; for the record, I much prefer his ecclesiology to his soteriology). I've become very suspicious of too much patriotism within a church setting, and I unapologetically did not vote for President Trump (with all due respect to my many, many beloved friends who did!), simply because "the lesser of two evils" is not, in my opinion, the best guide for Christian ethics (I did vote, just not for President Trump or Hillary Clinton).

So, on the one hand, although I am totally okay with July 4th celebrations outside of local church corporate worship setting, or singing "The Star Spangled Banner" with my hand over my heart at a ballgame or other non-ecclesiastical setting, I am very uncomfortable with the singing of patriotic songs or displaying the US flag within corporate worship, as I think that can lead to a very flawed ecclesiology that neglects the fact that we are foreigners on earth, but part of God's holy nation (1 Peter 2:9). In other words, it is not America, but the Church, that is the true "Christian nation," and we must always keep that clear. I have more in common with a Christian from Iraq than I do with an unbelieving US citizen living in Wisconsin--sometimes, if we're not careful, a church service can call that fact into question.

Having said that, it's important we don't through the baby out with the bathwater. I own and appreciate Bruce Winter's book Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens, which suggests that Jeremiah 29:7 is the backdrop for some of 1 Peter's ethics (I am less convinced by the rest of his thesis, which argues that 1 Peter has in mind "civic benefaction"; I believe this has been at least partially refuted by Travis Williams and Torrey Seland, though there is no doubt some truth to Winter's suggestion, since there were certainly at least a few rich Christians in Asia Minor who could at least contribute towards "civic benefaction"). Anyways, my point being, even if we Christians should consider ourselves as "in exile" (a very Hauwerwas-ian way of putting it, but one which I am fond of), we can still seek for ways to be a blessing to society at large, so long as this does not conflict with our allegiance to Jesus Christ or our Great Commission mandate.

Here's a positive example: my local church annually hosts a "Veteran's Day Banquet." This is not part of corporate worship, but rather an outreach event whereby we honor veterans in the US military (we even have some WW2 vets that come, and those are getting rarer!). After a free meal, good music by our college students, and an honor guard by active military members, we have a chaplain preach a Gospel message. This outreach event brings in lots of veterans (we pack out our "fellowship hall") and, I believe, has the effect of contributing to the welfare of society (a society were the veterans feel honored would be, I believe, more stable than one where veterans are disrespected).

Since our Veteran's Day Banquet is not part of our corporate worship, I do not believe it conflicts with biblical principles (in contrast to, say, a worship service that reverenced the flag on July 4th; I've seen some of those). To the contrary, it is simultaneously both an outreach event that annually sees veterans come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, and it has the benefit of "seeking the welfare of the city [i.e., the state]."

Other possibilities for a local church to "seek the welfare of the city" and thus be a "do-gooder" community that 1 Peter speaks of would be such things as: feeding the poor, picking up trash, helping pregnant unwed mothers, etc. Indeed, the argument should be made that it is individuals through the local church, not Christians apart from the local church, that should be doing these things (see the discussion in Scot McKnight's Kingdom Conspiracy--McKnight appropriately critiques those who think that a good deed done in isolation from the local church is "kingdom work").

This does not, however, mean that the church pursues a "social gospel" whereby seeking the physical/economical welfare of others in society becomes the primary goal of the church. To the contrary, Acts 2:41-47 and Matthew 28:18-20 (among other texts) represent key purposes of the church, purposes that can be subverted both by politics and the social gospel. However, properly performed, "seeking the welfare of the city" can simultaneously silence the naysayers and provide opportunities to proclaim the Gospel which, I believe, is a key point of 1 Peter 2:15 (Along those lines, see one of my favorite articles on 1 Peter, Torrey Seland, "Resident Aliens in Mission: Missional Practices in the Emerging Church of 1 Peter").

One final note: I would even acknowledge that informed voting equals "seeking the welfare of the city," and thus voting in elections is important for a Christian who is both a good steward of God's gift a democratic republic and somebody who cares about his country. However, the minute a Christian exalts a particular party to the level of theological dogma (as if unbelievers in the Republican [or Democratic] Party were somehow capable building the Kingdom of God!), or the minute that political issues (no matter how important) became the key to the expansion of the kingdom, then we have misunderstood how, exactly, God's Kingdom is truly built (and may I remind my dear readers that the church in Acts was built just fine, thank you, without the benefit of Ronald Reagan's conservative America?)

Free from the anxiety of politics: reflections on a practical aspect of 1 Peter 2:16

Like many evangelical Christians, I've come to the conclusion that this year's US presidential election offers basically the worst two choices in the history of the country. On the one hand

[warning: tongue in cheek comments to follow, but only slightly tongue in cheek], 

if Trump gets elected we'll be embroiled in a thermonuclear war within the year, and the whole country will go bankrupt (hey, if he can't keep a Casino with his name running, how can he keep the country afloat?); not to mention giving evangelical Christianity a bad testimony due to our traditional support of the Republican party (Jimmy Carter notwithstanding). On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton is elected, folks like me will probably be thrown in jail for not being "progressive" enough in our Christianity (i.e., for daring to suggest that God made only two genders!).

Fortunately, First Peter has the solution. Written to a group of (literal and spiritual) strangers, the Apostle articulates how, in Christ Jesus, we are all part of a "holy nation," a "royal priesthood," etc. (2:9). In other words, the Christian's first and foremost loyalty is to a different nation, not the United States, or New Zealand, or Japan, or anything else.

This theological social-spiritual identity (both "new nation" and "strangers"), then, becomes the basis for ethics in 1 Peter (2:11 through much of the rest of the epistle). Peter urges us to honor all humans, in the process not-so-subtly asserting (in both vv. 13 and 17) that the Emperor himself should be respected only as another human, not as a demi-god, the "savior of the kosmos" that some were heralded as (see Travis Williams, "The Divinity and Humanity of Caesar," ZNW, for further discussion).

I'd like to focus on one fascinating word here: "free" (2:16). I believe Friedrich Schroger, in his book Gemeinde im 1. Petrusbrief ("Church/Community in 1 Peter") absolute nails it with this quote (forgive my rough translation from the German):

"The Christian is 'free' because he expects nothing from Caesar or from the governor, but all from the Lord--not from 'Lord Caesar,' but from 'Lord Christ.' The criteria and requirement for what is here meant as 'freedom' is that one is free from the anxieties of his own salvation, he stands completely in the favor of God, and he is free from anxiety in his interaction with humankind" (pages 147-148).

My Christian friends, Peter's concept of "freedom" does not mean "freedom to vote." Rather, it means "freedom to continue on as God's child and emissary no matter who wins the stinking election!" I.e., we do not depend on any political outcome to keep us free or to ensure are mental well-being. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can threaten our freedom in Jesus Christ--so what's the point in worrying? Have we forgotten that Peter, Mary, Luke, not to mention Jesus himself, lived under a tyrannical empire that routinely crucified its enemies, exposed infants to die on the hilltop, and reveled in such lascivious excess it would make a night in Las Vegas resemble an episode of "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood"? Yet Peter, Mary, and the others remembered something that we've forgotten: it's not our responsibility to change the word [i.e., "America"]; rather, it's our responsibility to live and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ as emissaries of a different, much more sacred, nation! 

Now if, in the process of doing so, we can act as good stewards of our inherited democracy and so influence our nation in order to live "quiet and peaceable lives," so be it. Personally, I doubt either Trump or Clinton will help us achieve that goal, but whatever. The bottom line is, to paraphrase Schroger, no matter who wins, we are still "free" from anxiety; we owe nothing to any president, we still have a relationship to God through Jesus Christ, and we don't need to worry about how to relate to the world around us. Simply be a Christian, a child of the kingdom, and stop worrying about what happens to America. It's not really important in the grand scheme of things (the Lord said, "the nations are as a drop in the bucket," Isaiah 40:15) except to the extent that it helps or hinders the spread of the Gospel (and the Gospel might just as well spread better under more hostile circumstances). 

This also means, since I am "free" from worrying about the outcome of any political election, I am now free to vote my conscience. And contra a blog post I read recently, following my personal conscience means that if I know that my plumber or dentist or whatever was sexually harassing women and bragging about it, my personal conscience would not allow me to give them business no matter how good they were. How much more so with a president? [For the record, I won't judge anybody for voting for Trump! All I'm saying is vote your conscience, especially considering the issue of Christian testimony]

Cited sources:

Schroger, Friedrich. Gemeinde im. 1. Petrusbrief: Untersuchungen zum Selbstverstandnis einer christilichen Gemeinde and er Wende vom 1. zum 2. Jahrhundert. Katholische Theollgie 1. Passau: Passavia Univertatslag, 1981.

Williams, Travis B. "The Divinity and Humanity of Caesar in 1 Peter 2,13--Early Christian Resistance to the Emperor and His Cult." Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft vol. 104 (2014).

See also Paul A. Himes, Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter (Eugene, OR: Wipf&Stock, 2014) for further discussion of social-spiritual identity in 1 Peter (chs. 2 and 6). Click here.

Which candidate would make fulfilling the Great Commission easier (or harder)? (A very rare political post)

Slight update on 3/4/2016 for clarification

I very, very rarely post political material here; while my own views on church and state have definitely trended more Anabaptist-ic and Hauerwas-ian in recent years, I generally prefer to focus this blog into a resource for Bible students rather than a discussion of current affairs

I do wish, however, to raise a very important question in regards to politic candidates and the reasons a Christian should vote. We do have, of course, Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:2 that we should pray ". . . for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." I do believe that if the Apostle were alive today, he would apply that, to a certain degree, to voting.

However, I want to make a different point here: namely, what about the fulfillment of the Great Commission? The "End Game" of the spread of the Gospel is seen in Revelation 7:9-10, "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." We, as Christians, have the awesome privilege of participating in God's incredible plan that is even now creating a "holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9) made of up all races and nationalities. One blessed feature of America is that, as the "melting pot," one does not necessarily have to go overseas to take part in reaching all races and nationalities.

So, dear Christian, my question is this: will the candidate you vote for make it easier or harder to fulfill the Great Commission? You see, as citizens of heaven, our primary concerns should not be about "what makes America stronger" but rather, as a citizen of heaven first and foremost, what assists me in fulfilling my duties to the King of Kings? 

In other words, would a candidate that desires to keep Muslims from coming to America and build a wall to keep other people from coming north--would that type of candidate make it easier or harder to reach Muslims, etc.? Furthermore, would it help or harm evangelical Christians to be associated with a man who has a foul mouth and often speaks hateful comments?

There are, of course, other legitimate political issues, though abortion is the only one that I consider of primary importance, since actual beating hearts are in the balance. If I felt that a particular candidate would make it more difficult for at least late-term abortions to occur, I would vote for that candidate. If this is not a factor, however, then for the first time in my life, in a presidential election, I am seriously considering voting democrat instead of republican [clarification: I'm not voting for Mrs. Clinton!], because I am more concerned about possible repercussions for Christian testimony and ability to reach others with the Gospel than I am about economic policies! (More likely I will vote for a third party candidate--I have no problem "throwing my vote away" if it's the only way to avoid harming my conscience).

I may be wrong, and if anybody wishes to politely disagree with me, you are more than welcome to do so (limit your posts to a few paragraphs or I might not post them). Just answer this question: since Jesus Christ alone holds our ultimate allegiance, should we not be first and foremost concerned with how our vote could facilitate our service to Him over whether or not our vote benefits America?

Quotations from the King James translation unless otherwise  noted.

Some links and brief thoughts on patriotism in the church

     Although generally I intend to follow the sidebar entitled “forthcoming blog posts,” nevertheless once in a while somebody will post something on their blog that gets the hamsters in my head spinning on their wheels and forces me to write. Recently my academic advisor posted two fascinating links on his own blog that I would like to share with you (http://www.daveblackonline.com/blog.htm Thursday March 31^st, 4:05 PM).

The first link is http://arbevere.blogspot.com/2011/03/we-must-reject-christendom.html Allan R. Bevere has written a forthcoming book that I am immensely interested in, entitled The Politics of Witness (Areopagus Critical Christian Issues; Energion, forthcoming). He offers this provocative quote on his website: “Functionally, by the church's political engagements and by aligning themselves with the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans, Christians in actuality display the unacknowledged belief that it is the nations that are indeed running the show.”

         Secondly, I am excited to read, on Nathan Akin’s blog (http://www.baptisttwentyone.com/?p=5285), a “Letter from a Minister about Patriotism in Corporate Worship” by music minister Carl Stam. Stam makes three key points on why his church will de-emphasize political celebration within the worship service on Memorial Day and July 4^th. I heartily concur with him, and would like to quote something Stam states in his first point: “It is just too easy to confuse what it means to follow Christ with what it means to be a loyal U.S. citizen. Especially when hard-hitting emotional presentations are made with flags and uniforms and pledges, it is too easy to get mixed up about where our allegiance should be. However, we ARE quick to pray for our country and for our leaders and we are quick to thank God for the freedom of worship that we enjoy.”

         Let me expand on that in light of my own theological "paradigm shift" over the past 6 years. In John 18:36, in response to Pilate, Jesus clearly states, “my kingdom is not of this world” (ESV). In Peter 2:9, it is the church, rather than any nation-state, that in this dispensation is given the title “a holy nation.” In light of that, Christians must be extremely careful about mixing in the glorification of any nation-state in with the glorification God when it comes to corporate worship.

         Let me take this a step further. In light of 1 Peter 2:9, I believe it is a misnomer to label any nation-state a “Christian nation”; in fact, by very definition, I believe there will be no “Christian nation” (other than the church, see 1 Pet 2:9) until Jesus Christ himself sits on the throne of David and rules the world from Jerusalem during the Millennium.

         Clearly God has blessed the US, but He has blessed all other nations as well, and ultimately we are forced to confess with Isaiah that “all the nations are as nothing before him, they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.” (Isa 40:17, ESV).

         One quick word to my fellow dispensationalists (with apologies to any Reformed or historic pre-mil reading this post; please bear with me as I deal with an “internal” matter). If indeed (as I firmly believe), God has done a unique work in this dispensation by founding the church at Pentecost, and if the church is to be distinct from both Israel and all other social-political entities, and if indeed Christ will reign someday in the future on the throne of David from a literal Jerusalem, then should not we dispensationalists be the first to recognize the danger of mixing nationalistic patriotism with corporate worship? Yet unfortunately the opposite has been true; we dispensationalists have, for all practical purposes, elevated the US to the position of both Israel and the church in God’s plan, despite the lack of Biblical support for any such position. We do so by glorifying the US in songs in church (though I have absolutely no problem with patriotic music outside the church, and can sing along in good conscience), pledging “allegiance” to the US flag (which, in my opinion, demonstrates that we truly do not understand the meaning of “allegiance”), and treating the constitution as if it were Scripture and the founding fathers as if they were inspired Apostles (e.g. I once heard Proverbs 22:28 applied from the pulpit to the US constitution). If anything, we dispensationalists need to be the first to recognize the dangers of such practices and to emphasize that among national entities, only Israel can claim such a massive role in God’s plan (though Scripture indicates that God will bless other nations as well, e.g. Isaiah 19:25; indeed, check out the entire context of this chapter).

         One more point: to those that are concerned that such a position means that I or others are somehow opening the door to the liberal, left-wing political agenda, let me quote Douglas Harink from his thought-provoking Brazos commentary on 1 Peter. While critiquing the journal First Things’ tendency to “often display in its pages a hope and vision for Christian America,” where “virtually all of the scriptural attributes of the mission of Israel and the church in the world, and God’s particular providence through them, are appropriated to the American nation,” Harink argues, “to be critical of that vision is not to be, as [Stephen H.] Webb suggests, ‘leftist’ or ‘liberal’; it is simply to assert a catholic theological vision of the people of God that accords with the teaching of scripture about the purpose of Israel and the church. Indeed, the leftist, liberal agenda gets its own vision and champion of Christian American in the journal Sojourners and in Jim Wallis’s God’s Politics . . . Wallis no less than Webb appropriates the attributes and mission of Israel and the church to the American nation and calls the church to serve it” (Harink, 1&2 Peter [Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2009], 59 fn50). A middle-ground is needed that recognizes that both “left” and “right” politics are ultimately irrelevant to the Kingdom of God. Some issues, such as abortion, do indeed hold spiritual significance and should command our attention, but the Christian’s response is first and foremost to be that of a “do-gooder” (1 Peter 2:11-12) rather than a political revolutionary.

         So much for “brief thoughts!” I do hope to write more on this topic in the future. For now, I urge the reader to check out the above posts and to read Douglas Harink’s commentary on 1 Peter, especially on 1 Peter 1 and 2. While I don’t agree with all of what Harink writes, I am grateful that he is dealing with issues that most commentaries on 1 Peter do not.