Fragments, Fallout, and Freedom--Part 7
Here I Stand
I always begin the posts in this series with a mixture of anticipation and apprehension. I feel anticipation because I never begin until I have a clear sense that God is directing me to write, and I'm eager to see what he intends to do with this writing. The apprehension comes from not knowing exactly what I'm supposed to write or what the fallout might be from writing. Often, I begin with little more clarity than having identified a starting point. In other words, I spy one fragment on top of the pile of "papers" that have been stuffed into my soul over the past handful of years, and I see that this is the fragment to pick up now for further examination. This is not fast, happy, or comfortable writing. Yet I find great freedom in letting the Lord set the pace and direct the content.
I hope to clarify today one reason why I believe that Christians do well to avoid investing heavily in political activism or in developing political loyalties. The words of a commentary I read this morning nicely sum up my main idea: "What . . . we should learn . . . is not to confuse the gospel's liberation with political revolution. The Lord Jesus and his kingdom present a more radical challenge than that." I might choose a different word than "revolution," but I absolutely believe that political involvement is at best a second-rate approach to bringing about positive societal change. For that, what is called for is regeneration (i.e. the gospel's liberation)--not revolution or even redirection of political loyalties, activism, or participation. At its worst, I believe that political involvement actually compromises the work of building the kingdom of God. When it seems to me that Christian friends have lost sight of this, I feel compelled to speak up.
The way that the political world and the Christian world have become entangled--I would say inappropriately entangled--elevates the urgency of bringing truth to bear on political discussions. First of all, that truth should be a positive declaration of what we learn from Scripture, from other godly people, and from the guidance of the Holy Spirit within. Secondly, it should involve an effort to get at the truth of what is happening right now, and to respond appropriately to it. These are my aims.
Unfortunately, people are far more likely to have opinions on what is happening right now than to be interested in positive declarations of truth from others--even when those "others" might be trustworthy people like John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, Michael Sattler, David L. Miller, and others. On getting at the truth of what is happening now, the odds of convincing others of any specific "truth" are formidable, especially when presented by someone like me who has no positional authority.
Confirmation bias* is rampant on social media, and other media venues facilitate staying securely inside a nearly-impenetrable bubble of make-believe. So why try to get at or speak truth--against formidable odds? Back to the commentary for another quote: "What would cause him [Paul] to want to address a crowd that had slandered him . . . ? It is a total commitment to his Lord and his calling. . . . This perspective gives the gospel its integrity. It's a stance we must all adopt." Commitment to the Lord requires obedience to Him. Embracing that truth is foundational to living with integrity.
Many of us have heard this: "Christ is Lord of All, or He is not Lord at all." None of my Christian friends would argue with this, at least when applied personally. We all know that the fundamental change from being "lost" to being "saved" occurs when one lays aside his or her right to rule one's own life, in favor of accepting Christ's right to rule. Hiromi describes his coming to Christ in exactly these terms. "I knew that this guy [Jesus] wants to be the boss of my life. Stubborn Hiromi didn't want to let him do that." Very soon, however, Hiromi's interest in Christianity shifted from curiosity about religion to a life-changing commitment to let Jesus be Lord.
My sense is that the implications of letting Jesus be Lord in how we individually and collectively relate to civil government and political affairs have too often not been tried and found wanting, but have been found wanting and left untried. (Credit for idea to G. K. Chesterton?) In other words, among Christians the shallowest of pleasant-sounding, wealth-generating, and conveniently-untainted-by-sacrifice-and-suffering Christian values are too often being zealously pursued in the name of "civic duty," "virtuous" activity and family values. This can happen utterly without regard to prioritizing the building of a heavenly kingdom over gaining power through earthly-kingdom means. While some caveats are in order here, in general, when earthly-kingdom building becomes the priority, Jesus is not being honored as Lord of All. I see too much of this in evangelical, fundamentalist, and Anabaptist Christian circles.
This morning I've just come from studying Acts 21:27-40, since that's the passage the adult Sunday School classes will be based on tomorrow. These studies in the book of Acts have been a key element in keeping me grounded, encouraged, and enlightened during the past number of months.
The InterVarsity Press Commentary (to which I've referred several times in this post) can be consulted free of charge online at the Bible Gateway site. This commentary has been enormously helpful in bridging the gap between the account of first century Christianity and twenty-first century Christianity. While I recognize that the narrative in Acts is not necessarily prescriptive, the story of Christianity's establishment after Jesus went back to heaven is profoundly instructive. Key areas I've taken special notice of are these: 1. The activity of the Holy Spirit 2. Women in the early church 3. Effective prophetic ministry 4. Embracing both unity and diversity in the church 5. Christianity "invading" both religious and secular settings 6. Christians and civil government. 7. Christianity as societal change agent 8. Controversy within a Christian brotherhood 8. Willingness to suffer
Since January 1, I've been following a plan for reading the New Testament in three months. Zonya Gingrich created the plan. I'm using the alternate plan, which features at least one of the gospels at the beginning of each month. This concentrated Bible reading has been a pleasure.
These readings in Matthew and Luke (the gospels I've read so far) show Jesus literally ushering in a new kingdom. He describes it ("My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight."). He shows mercy, kindness, and love while establishing it (usually extending these to those whom society has rejected, or those who have no other recourse--e. g. making water into wine, healing the sick and handicapped, raising the dead), He shows firmness to those who are unjust or greedy or dishonest (driving out the merchants at the temple with whips and overturning their tables). He shows meekness before his accusers (at the trial leading to his death sentence). Jesus teaches big crowds (the Sermon on the Mount), provides nurture and instruction for a select group of 12 disciples, and gives private and specific instruction (to Nicodemus). Finally, he suffers an unimaginably cruel death to bring others into the kingdom He is establishing.
John the Baptist boldly called out Herod for his immorality in putting away his wife and appropriating the wife of his brother Philip. Herod apparently took the message with more grace than did his wife Herodias. After Herod had made an effort to appease her by imprisoning John the Baptist (whom Herod actually admired), Herodias got the last word when Herod made a foolish promise to his daughter--a promise to give her anything she asked. Upon her mother's advice, she asked for John the Baptist's severed head to be presented on a large platter at Herod's birthday party.
John the Baptist is often spoken of as the "prophet-bridge" between the Old and New Testaments. His act of speaking truth to power both echoed the manner and motivation of the Old Testament prophets and fore-shadowed the prophetic activity of both Jesus and Paul, as well as others. While I don't believe that I necessarily have a charge to do the same as John the Baptist did, and I certainly hope to avoid his fate, I see his courage and how Jesus himself honored him, and know from this that speaking up when a monarch does wrong is acceptable with God, and can even be orchestrated by God.
The Apostle Paul is the central human character in the second half of the book of Acts. After weeks of reading and studying about events surrounding his life, I stand in awe of this man. Over and over he walked a narrow and treacherous line between competing loyalties and truths, and he "nailed it" masterfully every time. He persevered in the face of certain suffering ahead. He knew about the suffering because the Holy Spirit had revealed it to him directly, and many others had confirmed it by also having heard it directly from the Holy Spirit. One more commentary quote will illustrate something I admire about Paul: "Paul is committed at one and the same time to the unity of all through their identity in Christ, no matter racial and ethnic background, and to the respect of cultural diversity in the body of Christ. Any Christian who insists on standing in such a tension will probably be similarly misunderstood as both too free in associations and too strict in ethnic loyalties."
On a number of occasions, Paul was able to speak directly to rulers. He did not appear before them as a colleague or as a diplomat. Conditions varied, but, almost always, he was a prisoner, usually brought into a courtroom for trial. Repeatedly, Paul used these imprisonment and trial opportunities to proclaim truth to his audience, whether it consisted of a mob or a monarch or a prison guard. Sometimes he was taken into protective custody by Roman authorities to keep a Jewish mob from killing him, so his relationship to rulers was not always adversarial. He finally reached Rome, courtesy of the Roman army that guarded him and transported him. A great many of Paul's life experiences demonstrate that out-sized influence can originate, not in people with positional or political power, but in those who live faithfully and courageously in humble and even painful circumstances. Seeing this gives me hope.
I'm still working at understanding exactly how building the kingdom of Christ happens. So far, the best way I know to think of it is for Christians to live as Christ lived, always in tune with the will of the Heavenly Father. In short, "Jesus is Lord" will not be a cliched expression, but will be expressed in our lives with all the variety and winsomeness that Jesus himself demonstrated. For that, all of us need--not civic power, but regenerational power, obedience to the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit within, and the blessing of God.
*********************
*Confirmation bias: the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories
Note: This was begun on a Saturday and finished on a Sunday, so some of the references to time might seem confusing.
I always begin the posts in this series with a mixture of anticipation and apprehension. I feel anticipation because I never begin until I have a clear sense that God is directing me to write, and I'm eager to see what he intends to do with this writing. The apprehension comes from not knowing exactly what I'm supposed to write or what the fallout might be from writing. Often, I begin with little more clarity than having identified a starting point. In other words, I spy one fragment on top of the pile of "papers" that have been stuffed into my soul over the past handful of years, and I see that this is the fragment to pick up now for further examination. This is not fast, happy, or comfortable writing. Yet I find great freedom in letting the Lord set the pace and direct the content.
I hope to clarify today one reason why I believe that Christians do well to avoid investing heavily in political activism or in developing political loyalties. The words of a commentary I read this morning nicely sum up my main idea: "What . . . we should learn . . . is not to confuse the gospel's liberation with political revolution. The Lord Jesus and his kingdom present a more radical challenge than that." I might choose a different word than "revolution," but I absolutely believe that political involvement is at best a second-rate approach to bringing about positive societal change. For that, what is called for is regeneration (i.e. the gospel's liberation)--not revolution or even redirection of political loyalties, activism, or participation. At its worst, I believe that political involvement actually compromises the work of building the kingdom of God. When it seems to me that Christian friends have lost sight of this, I feel compelled to speak up.
The way that the political world and the Christian world have become entangled--I would say inappropriately entangled--elevates the urgency of bringing truth to bear on political discussions. First of all, that truth should be a positive declaration of what we learn from Scripture, from other godly people, and from the guidance of the Holy Spirit within. Secondly, it should involve an effort to get at the truth of what is happening right now, and to respond appropriately to it. These are my aims.
Unfortunately, people are far more likely to have opinions on what is happening right now than to be interested in positive declarations of truth from others--even when those "others" might be trustworthy people like John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, Michael Sattler, David L. Miller, and others. On getting at the truth of what is happening now, the odds of convincing others of any specific "truth" are formidable, especially when presented by someone like me who has no positional authority.
Confirmation bias* is rampant on social media, and other media venues facilitate staying securely inside a nearly-impenetrable bubble of make-believe. So why try to get at or speak truth--against formidable odds? Back to the commentary for another quote: "What would cause him [Paul] to want to address a crowd that had slandered him . . . ? It is a total commitment to his Lord and his calling. . . . This perspective gives the gospel its integrity. It's a stance we must all adopt." Commitment to the Lord requires obedience to Him. Embracing that truth is foundational to living with integrity.
Many of us have heard this: "Christ is Lord of All, or He is not Lord at all." None of my Christian friends would argue with this, at least when applied personally. We all know that the fundamental change from being "lost" to being "saved" occurs when one lays aside his or her right to rule one's own life, in favor of accepting Christ's right to rule. Hiromi describes his coming to Christ in exactly these terms. "I knew that this guy [Jesus] wants to be the boss of my life. Stubborn Hiromi didn't want to let him do that." Very soon, however, Hiromi's interest in Christianity shifted from curiosity about religion to a life-changing commitment to let Jesus be Lord.
My sense is that the implications of letting Jesus be Lord in how we individually and collectively relate to civil government and political affairs have too often not been tried and found wanting, but have been found wanting and left untried. (Credit for idea to G. K. Chesterton?) In other words, among Christians the shallowest of pleasant-sounding, wealth-generating, and conveniently-untainted-by-sacrifice-and-suffering Christian values are too often being zealously pursued in the name of "civic duty," "virtuous" activity and family values. This can happen utterly without regard to prioritizing the building of a heavenly kingdom over gaining power through earthly-kingdom means. While some caveats are in order here, in general, when earthly-kingdom building becomes the priority, Jesus is not being honored as Lord of All. I see too much of this in evangelical, fundamentalist, and Anabaptist Christian circles.
The InterVarsity Press Commentary (to which I've referred several times in this post) can be consulted free of charge online at the Bible Gateway site. This commentary has been enormously helpful in bridging the gap between the account of first century Christianity and twenty-first century Christianity. While I recognize that the narrative in Acts is not necessarily prescriptive, the story of Christianity's establishment after Jesus went back to heaven is profoundly instructive. Key areas I've taken special notice of are these: 1. The activity of the Holy Spirit 2. Women in the early church 3. Effective prophetic ministry 4. Embracing both unity and diversity in the church 5. Christianity "invading" both religious and secular settings 6. Christians and civil government. 7. Christianity as societal change agent 8. Controversy within a Christian brotherhood 8. Willingness to suffer
Since January 1, I've been following a plan for reading the New Testament in three months. Zonya Gingrich created the plan. I'm using the alternate plan, which features at least one of the gospels at the beginning of each month. This concentrated Bible reading has been a pleasure.
These readings in Matthew and Luke (the gospels I've read so far) show Jesus literally ushering in a new kingdom. He describes it ("My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight."). He shows mercy, kindness, and love while establishing it (usually extending these to those whom society has rejected, or those who have no other recourse--e. g. making water into wine, healing the sick and handicapped, raising the dead), He shows firmness to those who are unjust or greedy or dishonest (driving out the merchants at the temple with whips and overturning their tables). He shows meekness before his accusers (at the trial leading to his death sentence). Jesus teaches big crowds (the Sermon on the Mount), provides nurture and instruction for a select group of 12 disciples, and gives private and specific instruction (to Nicodemus). Finally, he suffers an unimaginably cruel death to bring others into the kingdom He is establishing.
John the Baptist boldly called out Herod for his immorality in putting away his wife and appropriating the wife of his brother Philip. Herod apparently took the message with more grace than did his wife Herodias. After Herod had made an effort to appease her by imprisoning John the Baptist (whom Herod actually admired), Herodias got the last word when Herod made a foolish promise to his daughter--a promise to give her anything she asked. Upon her mother's advice, she asked for John the Baptist's severed head to be presented on a large platter at Herod's birthday party.
John the Baptist is often spoken of as the "prophet-bridge" between the Old and New Testaments. His act of speaking truth to power both echoed the manner and motivation of the Old Testament prophets and fore-shadowed the prophetic activity of both Jesus and Paul, as well as others. While I don't believe that I necessarily have a charge to do the same as John the Baptist did, and I certainly hope to avoid his fate, I see his courage and how Jesus himself honored him, and know from this that speaking up when a monarch does wrong is acceptable with God, and can even be orchestrated by God.
The Apostle Paul is the central human character in the second half of the book of Acts. After weeks of reading and studying about events surrounding his life, I stand in awe of this man. Over and over he walked a narrow and treacherous line between competing loyalties and truths, and he "nailed it" masterfully every time. He persevered in the face of certain suffering ahead. He knew about the suffering because the Holy Spirit had revealed it to him directly, and many others had confirmed it by also having heard it directly from the Holy Spirit. One more commentary quote will illustrate something I admire about Paul: "Paul is committed at one and the same time to the unity of all through their identity in Christ, no matter racial and ethnic background, and to the respect of cultural diversity in the body of Christ. Any Christian who insists on standing in such a tension will probably be similarly misunderstood as both too free in associations and too strict in ethnic loyalties."
On a number of occasions, Paul was able to speak directly to rulers. He did not appear before them as a colleague or as a diplomat. Conditions varied, but, almost always, he was a prisoner, usually brought into a courtroom for trial. Repeatedly, Paul used these imprisonment and trial opportunities to proclaim truth to his audience, whether it consisted of a mob or a monarch or a prison guard. Sometimes he was taken into protective custody by Roman authorities to keep a Jewish mob from killing him, so his relationship to rulers was not always adversarial. He finally reached Rome, courtesy of the Roman army that guarded him and transported him. A great many of Paul's life experiences demonstrate that out-sized influence can originate, not in people with positional or political power, but in those who live faithfully and courageously in humble and even painful circumstances. Seeing this gives me hope.
I'm still working at understanding exactly how building the kingdom of Christ happens. So far, the best way I know to think of it is for Christians to live as Christ lived, always in tune with the will of the Heavenly Father. In short, "Jesus is Lord" will not be a cliched expression, but will be expressed in our lives with all the variety and winsomeness that Jesus himself demonstrated. For that, all of us need--not civic power, but regenerational power, obedience to the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit within, and the blessing of God.
*********************
*Confirmation bias: the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories
Note: This was begun on a Saturday and finished on a Sunday, so some of the references to time might seem confusing.
posted by Miriam Iwashige at
5:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home