The world’s greatest metropolis stood burning, ashen and shell shocked. The unthinkable happened; people with lesser technology, lesser training and lesser mastery of the world struck a swift, furious blow to the heart of an economic empire, causing the markets to quake in the aftermath. The metropolis was thought untouchable, but these barbarians touched the sacred city.
Some of the high profile citizens assigned blame for this national tragedy. Of course they blamed the barbarians, but they believed there must have been some higher, spiritual reason why evil was allowed to touch this Western, Christianized metropolis. God must be offended; after all, this metropolis had left their historical, traditional form of worship and religion, turning to a form of atheism. Maybe the city’s turn to a false “religion” was to blame, they speculated.
Thus was the reaction of the pagan, polytheists when Alaric sacked the Christianized Rome in 410 AD. They charged the new religion of the Empire, Christianity, with causing the gods to send the barbarians to punish them. The irony cannot be missed when comparing this historical situation with the comments made by a few prominent Christians after the events of 9/11. These American Christians assured themselves and the public that God was judging the immorality, apostasy and atheism of America, and they were certain that God would continue to “lift the veil of protection” if American did not repent, returning to their historic Christian roots.
The irony is that 21st century American evangelicals made the same argument the pagans made when Rome was sacked. The irony is deeper when considering the fact that the pagans of Rome made this argument as a polemic attack upon Christianity. Sadly, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do not appear to have truly appropriated a biblical view of the world, their nation and the history of both.
Rome was not a Christian Empire; it was not taking the privileged national place of Israel. Rome did not merit or have any biblical expectation to receive God’s protection, preserving national interests for eternity. The same is true for America. American evangelicals need to learn to separate the interests and future of the city of man from the city of God. Augustine took on this project almost 1600 years ago when he wrote The City of God, and the implementation of his project needs to continue today
.
Good thoughts. And I agree. I think so much of American evangelical thinking regarding eschatology has to bear on the errant thought that America is deserving of Israel's promises bc it "was founded on Christian principles". Not only that, it misses the point of grace--that we don't have to earn God's blessings bc Jesus paid for it already. Talk about taking an OT promise so far out of context. Augustine's "Confessions" and "City of God" are on my to-read list for several years now. I've downloaded them on my iPhone to read...just need to read them.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, it's interesting to me how much of the world's politics hinges on religious eschatology, whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian eschatology. So much conflict arises from religions trying to usher in their interpretation of end times.
Nice side note. Personally, I would read City of God first. It is a long but easy read; I enjoyed it. Confessions bored me to tears, and stopped in the middle. It is very, very repetitious.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your overall point, but feel you soft-petaled it with the references to Falwell and Robertson--two guys with the rep. of being hard core fanatics. I think this cliff that American Evangelicalism has jumped over is much more mainstream and has dominated the Evangelical movement for the past 20 years. I think this has been an enormous benefit to the Republican party but an enormous deficit for the Gospel in this country. I'm not saying Christians shouldn't vote or vote Republican, I'm just saying the presumption that they are the party that can keep God here or is the "Christian" party is absurd. I think it has had the unfortunate effect of keeping good people on the "other" side of the political aisle from considering Jesus because they assume they have to adopt Sarah Palin's worldview to do so. Yuck.
ReplyDeleteI know its a short blog entry, so I don't want to read too much into your mentions of Falwell and Robertson. Maybe they were just caricatures you referenced to make a broader point. But that is what struck me.
And Jennifer, I liked your comments. Made me think of this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theonion.com/video/christian-groups-biblical-armageddon-must-be-taugh,17491/
Jon - I would not use the word fanatic, but I would use the word flawed. BTW-I would use the words very flawed to describe myself. I disagree with some of their points of view, but I still believe them to be my brothers in Christ, as wrong as they may be on some things.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned them because they are recognizable figures, and most people probably remember their public comments just a day or two after 9/11. I agree that the Church should not equate true Christianity with the Republican cause. But I also fail to see the Bible's command to care for the widow and orphan as mandates for social security, medicare, medicaid and more Federal funding for education. I think that is Augustine's warning...don't confuse the city of God with the city of man. I could have him wrong, but that's my initial take.
Thanks for reading and posting...keep it coming, brother.
Jon/Ryan:
ReplyDeleteAlong the lines of an unbalanced view (where the religious right holds to moralism) and the religious left holds out for governmentally supplied "justice", here are two excellent podcasts (the first being from an African American professor):
http://stevebrownetc.com/2010/07/podcasts/steve-brown-etc/liberating-black-theology-dr-anthony-bradley-on-sbe-re-air/
http://stevebrownetc.com/2010/08/podcasts/steve-brown-etc/jesus-deficit-disorder-leonard-sweet-frank-viola-on-sbe/
BTW--that link was hilarious!!! I love the Onion...
ReplyDelete3 thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. Thanks for responding.
2. Agreed on the "flawed brothers" thing, even though sometimes I have to grit my teeth on it. I don't relish the idea of sharing heaven with Pat Robertson, but I view that more as my problem than his (yes, that sound is my grinding teeth).
But do you consider Bill Clinton a "flawed brother in Christ" too? Obama? Jim Wallace? I'm curious where your line begins and ends.
3. The Bible clearly does not prescribe a liberal agenda, but neither do I think the Bible clearly speaks against a concept like social security or medicare either. And some of the OT ideas set forth to maintain justice are pretty top-heavy rather than individual responsibility oriented. So I interpret that to mean that I have some freedom with where I land politically and God will still love me just fine. And further, it seems to me its better to be a loving liberal than a bitter conservative (and vice versa). That's where I go with the city of God/man problem.
Beginning and ending...good question. I have heard Jerry and Pat affirm the historic, orthodox core teachings, and they SEEM, albeit imperfectly, to attempt to live out the implications of that core teaching.
ReplyDeleteAs for Clinton...I have not heard him affirm the basics of the faith (Trinity, Atonement, authority of scripture, ect...). Certainly his public image is not one of a chaste individual. We all screw up, but he SEEMS to continue with a pattern. Bad patterns for any of us are a cause for concern.
As for Obama...I have not hear him affirm the faith either, but he has a problem in terms of the church of which he was a member for a number of years. I searched their web site for anything resembling doctrinal information, and I found none. Not necessary a problem, but I don't take that as a good sign. Moreover, Galatians speaks a very hard message for any group claiming Christ that divides over ethic bounds. I do also recall the former pastor using God's name in vain which is not such a good sign for a church.
I frankly don't know much about Jim Wallace.
You two have GOT to listen to that podcast about liberating black theology that I posted earlier! Fascinating stuff. Even touches on Obama's church.
ReplyDeleteRyan, Jim Wallis is an active Democrat who is also a Christian. He is sort of the left's religious voice along with Tony Campolo. He's written some very good books. I'm not sure that I agree with all his reasoning, but I am more centrist than most evangelicals I know. In fact they would call me downright liberal, but I tend to think the truth is somewhere between the two polar political extremes.
As for the bible and how the left and right see it: I think the left mistakes social justice for the main point of the bible and the right mistakes personal piety for the main point. The bible holds forth both. And I think that engaging in matters of social justice is often a sacrificial act that in turn leads to personal piety and that the cultivation of personal piety in turn leads to social justice. Sort of the political version of Christianity's grace and works dialogue/debate.
Jennifer: I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for helping me feel not so alone on the outskirts of Evangelicalism. I'll try to get to those podcasts when I get a chance.
ReplyDeleteJon,
ReplyDeleteGlad to find I have a compadre!