• Categories
  • Archives
  • Meta
  • Tags
    Adam Africa angels authority Barack Obama church community disciples economics Empire eternity evangelicalism Eve faith fathers and sons generations God Good Samaritan hospitality Jerusalem Jesus journey king kingdom law love materialism monasticism money music New Monasticism Orthodox Paul politics poor president religion Rick Warren Sam Soleyn shadow spirit symbol symbolic interpretation time wisdom

    • Arbiter of the Kingdoms of This World?

    Posted in: Current Events by bill-o on August 16, 2008

    The Saddleback (Church) Civil Forum of the two major presidential candidates just occurred in the United States. The forum occurred inside of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. The forum was not a presidential debate. (For those of you outside of the U.S., face-to-face presidential debates are held in October and not in August.) Rather, this televised event consisted of two consecutive and separate interviews of Senator Barrack Obama and Senator John McCain by the popular pastor and author Rick Warren. Mr. Warren asked each senator the same series of questions, and each senator was interviewed for about one hour. Mr. Obama went first, while Mr. McCain waited offstage in some kind of closed area where he could not receive any advance knowledge of the upcoming questions. Because Senator McCain’s answers were shorter, Mr. Warren was able to ask him a few extra questions.

    I watched the entire forum from beginning to end. On the positive side, I do appreciate the way that Mr. Warren allowed both of the candidates to give fairly detailed answers to questions without interruption (something that is increasingly rare in the American political process). I also appreciated the contrast in responses to the same set of questions by each candidate. Mr. Warren also appreared to be non-partisan, not favoring one candidate over the other.

    On the more critical side, I didn’t like Mr. Warren’s last question to each candidate. Others may disagree, but this question was basically asking each candidate to publicly justify what Mr. Warren and his church were doing with this forum. Perhaps this is little harsh to say but I think that this is like inviting someone to a party and then asking him or her, at the end of it, to publicly state to the other guests why the host of the party is such a good host.

    And since Rick Warren brought it up via this final question, I would like to discuss here why I do not support this civil forum. Why?

    1.  Quite frankly, I don’t see such a forum as having any biblical basis. In the Bible, I do see prophets confronting evil leaders, apostles (“sent ones”) sharing their faith with rulers, and I also see capable advisers raised up to give advice to kings and even serve as high-ranking appointed leaders directly underneath those kings (like Daniel and Joseph, for example). I even see prophets ratifying (anointing) the selection of a king, as per God’s choice (like Samuel and Saul). But I do not see any biblical pattern for serving as arbiters, gatekeepers, or kingmakers regarding the selection of the kings of this earth.

    2.  Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world. Yes, as ambassadors of Christ, followers of Jesus should be prepared, as appropriate opportunities present themselves, to serve in love the rulers of this world, if they ask for the aid, assistance, and counsel of Christ’s followers. True disciples of Jesus are also very much interested in the causes of social justice and real care and concern for their surrounding communities. That said, the Bible clearly says that our citzenship is in heaven. The view of the gospels is to live in the kingdom of God here and now in the world and thus change the world around us with God’s love. In contrast, Jesus did not say to change the kingdoms of this world via manipulating the mechanisms of those kingdoms. (Rather, Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.)

    3.  Mr. Warren started his forum by saying that “faith is just a worldview”. Faith in Jesus Christ is anchored in eternity, and the word of God stands forever no matter what happens here in this world. Faith is an “eternal-view” and not simply a worldview.

    4.  If followers of Christ actively arbitrate the process of selecting the kings of this world, then the world will be resentful and angry with his followers when things go wrong, as they inevitably will to one extent or another. Even worse, if the selected kings make immoral or evil decisions, Christ’s disciples in the world will appear as being complicit or hypocritical. Followers of Christ should not seek to interfere with the processes of king-selection, just as followers of Christ do not want the world to interfere with their life and work in this world.

    What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?

    Post tags: , , , , , , , , ,

    17 Comments »

    1. Interesting post, and right on the heels of a little study I’ve been doing of the Coptic Church. One blurb from an online summary of the church’s history:

      “Despite persecution, the Coptic Church as a religious institution has never been controlled or allowed itself to control the governments in Egypt. This long-held position of the Church concerning the separation between State and Religion stems from the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, when he asked his followers to submit to their rulers: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” [Mathew 22:21]. The Coptic Church has never forcefully resisted authorities or invaders and was never allied with any powers, for the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are clear: “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Mathew 26:52). The miraculous survival of the Coptic Church till this day and age is a living proof of the validity and wisdom of these teachings.”

      By the way, I saw most of the forum, and I had the same reaction to the last question to each candidate.

      Comment by Peter — August 17, 2008 @ 2:50 am

    2. I’ve read about the Coptic church in the book “From the Holy Mountain”. The author visited Coptic Christians in Egypt and described their difficulties. I agree that they have reached some conclusions about relationships with the state that U.S. Christians need carefully to consider.

      I highly recommend “From the Holy Mountain”. It’s available at the following U.S-based web sites:

      http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Mountain-Journey-Christians-Middle/dp/0805061770
      http://search.barnesandnoble.com/From-the-Holy-Mountain/William-Dalrymple/e/9780805061772/?itm=1
      http://www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=0805061770

      Comment by bill-o — August 17, 2008 @ 5:57 am

    3. I read From the Holy Mountain several years ago and loved it. I remember that Dalrymple was impressed with at least one of the Coptic monasteries. It was fun reading his take on the Levant monasteries he visited. I was thinking about rereading it this summer.

      By the way, I went to a Coptic church in Fairfax yesterday. The service started at 6:30 A.M. and went until 9:10! It was a wonderful experience.

      Comment by Peter — August 18, 2008 @ 10:11 am

    4. That’s very interesting. I didn’t realize that there was a Coptic Orthodox church in northern Virginia.

      For those interested in this, here is the list of Coptic Orthodox churches in the United States:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_Orthodox_Churches_in_the_United_States

      Comment by bill-o — August 18, 2008 @ 7:42 pm

    5. I’ve been thinking about this post since I read it the other day. I too watched the forum, and also thought that last question was kind of weird, and judging from the way it was reported plus comments I read at news sites, so did many others.

      In terms of whether the forum was a good idea or not, I guess I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, as you pointed out the forum was pretty fair by asking the same questions to each candidate, and Warren gave them plenty of time to answer. On the other hand, I do think it’s a slippery slope. With what I saw, I would not say he had risen to the level of functioning as a “gatekeeper” to “selecting kings”, but that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t in the future.

      But your post brought up another issue, which is does the “no biblical basis” argument matter in this instance? Don’t get me wrong, I believe there are principles and patterns in the Word of God which when followed please God, and thus if we are followers of God we should seek to follow those patterns and principles. But does it follow that omission of something from the Bible is the same as prohibition? I don’t think so. The biblical writers did not live under democratic forms of government, so ways of interacting with their governments would certainly be different than ways we might interact.

      Still, I agree there is a biblical principle that applies here, which you touched on in another of your points. We are to seek FIRST God’s Kingdom and His righteousness (justice). To me that means that as a follower of Jesus every other area of my life should be subservient to the Kingdom of God – my reputation, my influence, my abilities, what I could accomplish in this life, my politics, etc. It doesn’t mean I cease to value these things, only that I am willing to lay them aside for the sake of a greater good. So, my main concern would be your point #4, the potential to cause resentment against the Body of Christ in those who do not follow Christ.

      I did read a lot of the posts on the CNN message boards on this story, and for the most part, people liked the forum – both Obama and McCain supporters. However, there was one post from someone who was concerned that “if this trend continues” it will be impossible for a non-Christian to get elected. Some Christians might find this a wonderful prospect, but my concern is that that message board poster not come to view Christianity as an oppressive political power of this world, but instead would see Jesus the suffering servant reflected in the Body of Christ.

      A pretty long comment I know, but I wanted to give a thoughtful answer.

      Comment by Maggie — August 19, 2008 @ 10:34 am

    6. I must admit that’s a good point about the no-biblical-basis argument. Having a couple of friends over one evening (Rick Warren called both senators his friends) to ask them a few questions in a comfortable setting would not be against the Bible. And in a democratic society, we have a right and a responsibility to participate in the political process. At the very least, we can stay informed and vote (for those of us who don’t live in countries where voting is not already required). And taking a chance to ask questions to political candidates in a respectful way is certainly not a problem biblically. There is always freedom in Christ to show genuine love and care to others. I certainly apologize if I implied otherwise.
      Like the one blogger you mentioned who sees a trend here, I do too. What I saw here was the appearance of someone (a well-known pastor) acting as a referee (arbiter) in the presidential process. I’m sure that both of the presidential candidates would not have come to the Saddleback Forum unless they both felt that they had to in order to be elected. In this way, there was a sense of compulsion about the forum for me. I thought that I saw this particularly on the questions at the beginning about their own personal spirituality. Thus, there was at least the appearance (if not the fact) that the road to the White House led through Rick Warren.
      I do think that the Bible sets out broad patterns for the lives of followers of Christ. I see the Bible as much more than a list of do’s and don’ts. Others may disagree, but I think that the important life-decisions of our lives should, generally speaking, come within the scope of these patterns. This keeps us from “making things up as we go along”. And living according to these patterns gives us confidence and credibility to be salt and light to the world around us. It’s in this sense of the term biblical-basis that I don’t see a broad pattern in the Bible for what Pastor Warren did at his forum. I definitely see biblical patterns of praying for, submitting ourselves to, and even, in some cases, confronting those in authority for serious errors.
      I would agree that my point #4 is the greatest concern here. As followers of Christ. we should present ourselves to the world as humble servants and not as those demanding to be served.
      I would contrast what Rick Warren did this past week with what a few members of the Amish community did in 2004 when President Bush was running for re-election. The Amish met with President Bush quietly and in private away from all media coverage (something that is very rare in American politics) to discuss their concerns with him. In this way, most people don’t even know that this meeting ever happened. The Amish vote (such as it is, because many Amish do not vote) was very much prized in 2004, since many Amish communities live in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. I, therefore, see the Amish as meeting the broad patterns of the Bible for dealing with rulers: they acted with humility and quietness and they did not in any way compel the king to come see them. And they most certainly avoided the appearance of being king-makers.

      Comment by bill-o — August 19, 2008 @ 7:27 pm

    7. Hey Bill,
      Interesting thoughts. I hope you know I’m not arguing, just thinking through the issues.

      I am in total agreement that there are broad patterns in the Bible, and that we should seek to the best of our ability and the wisdom given us to follow those patterns, and not just see the Bible as dos and donts, and I agree that there are broad patterns would apply here.

      On the other hand, having lived in a country that has a non-democratic form of government, I see many of the first century church patterns of behavior towards government are those carried by the general population (both Christian and non) in a country where people do not have much say in the political process. So lack of engagement might be a broad biblical pattern or it could be simply dealing with life the way it was then. That was my main point about the biblical-basis.

      As I said in my first comment, I do see another principle that applies, which is “seeking first the kingdom”, which means “just because I have the ability or influence to do something, doesn’t mean I should”. I need to consider the implications for the Kingdom of God first. Based on that principle alone, I share your concerns expressed in your point #4 (and also a great deal of point #2, which I think is related — are we “of this world” or “of the Kingdom of God”?)

      I didn’t mention point #3 earlier but I agree with that as well. Faith is not a worldview, although if it is genuine, it will inform our worldview.

      Good thoughts, Bill. And good discussion.

      Comment by Maggie — August 20, 2008 @ 11:07 pm

    8. Yep, good discussion. One thing I’ll say for Warren is that he didn’t take sides this year (though, in this year’s climate, he would be foolish to: someone would find something he said and hold it against his candidate and him). I’ve been uncomfortable for some time with televangelists who endorse a candidate — put their religious influence behind a candidate. (Though it’s safe to shorten the sentence: I’ve been uncomfortable for some time with televangelists.)

      I also liked the way his interviews seemed to breathe. He had no desire to interrupt candidates or to “steal the show” the way some of the professional press have done in this year’s primary debates.

      Comment by Peter — August 21, 2008 @ 1:30 am

    9. Maggie,
      I agree; this has been a good discussion. Not argumentative.
      I think that your point about the lack of engagement of followers of Christ in political life during the times of the New Testament is a really good one. I know in the U.S., there have been two completely different views on this issue: (1) Shane Claiborne and other Christian anarchists basically equate the U.S. with the Roman Empire and seem to favor almost complete disengagement from the U.S. government (especially from the military); on the other hand, (2) many conservative Christians favor deep engagement in the political process as a way of promoting good and restraining evil. So far, there are a lot more people in group #2 than in group #1, but that may change over time since there are a lot of young adults in the Christian anarchist movement. I don’t think that I have an answer here as to what the proper level of engagement is, but I hope that I’ve added something to the conversation, at least.

      Comment by bill-o — August 21, 2008 @ 4:41 am

    10. Peter,
      I, too, have grown uncomfortable with most televangelists. I must confess that, in my younger days (which weren’t that long ago), I watched a wide variety of televangelists on a regular basis: everyone from Pat Robertson to Herbert W. Armstrong and Robert Tilton. I even watched the PTL with the Bakkers some. (Now, once the preachers you’re watching start going to prison, then you know that something is not right.) Now, I hardly watch any religious programming. That was a phase that the church was going through in the U.S. back in the mid 80s to mid 90s. I’m glad that it’s passed us by now.

      Comment by bill-o — August 21, 2008 @ 4:51 am

    11. Peter & Bill,
      I’m with ya! I never was comfortable with televangelists for the most part. Coming from a completely “unchurched” background, they were a huge stumbling stone for me before I began following Jesus. I thought they were self-righteous people who pointed their finger at me, and told me I should repent and become self-righteous like them. While I’ve grown to have more sympathy for what the best of them are trying to accomplish — I still have never felt like televangelism was a great method of helping people to see Jesus.

      Funny story, some years ago a friend told me of asking another friend who she thought the great evangelists were. Immediately, I had 3-4 people come into my mind, then as we continued to discuss I realized how radically different I was thinking from most other people. I didn’t think Billy Graham, or other “big names”. The 3-4 people who came to my mind were all people I personally knew who just truly love and care for seekers. They didn’t always do it perfectly of course, but because their love was genuine seekers loved them back.

      Bill,
      I too have absolutely no idea what the proper level of engagement is. And maybe it’s different for different people. I personally tend to lean closer to anarchist camp, mainly because I don’t believe lasting societal change happens through governmental politics or institutions. It happens through grassroots love and caring, which is where I believe is the most effective place for Christians to be engaged. Still maybe some others are actually called to lean closer to the Conservative Christian camp. I don’t know. I’m just glad that the anarchist camp is arising to give a place for those who want to be the visible Body of Christ without being associated with Conservative Christian camp necessarily. Like the televangelists, the Conservative Christian camp is a pretty huge stumbling stone liberal friends of mine, many of whom have deep concerns for social justice that they feel the Conservative Christians ignore because it’s not part of the Republican platform. Not presenting a clear picture of what Jesus is really like in my view.

      Comment by Maggie — August 21, 2008 @ 12:42 pm

    12. P.S. disclaimer on televanglists: I’m not saying the best (and even the worst) of them have not been used by God at times. Once or twice, God may have even used one of them to speak to me ;-). Just that I believe there are more effective ways to helping people to know Jesus. Just wanted to add that disclaimer for anyone out there in cyberspace who may have been helped by the ministry of a televangelist.

      Comment by Maggie — August 21, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

    13. Yeah, I’m not a big fan of televangelism anymore. I’m sure that it still has its place for some, and I respect that.

      Comment by bill-o — August 22, 2008 @ 3:49 pm

    14. Connecting two different themes that I’m seeing here in the comments to this post: … BTW, I think that Shane Claiborne and the Christian anarchists are against even owning a television, let alone watching televangelists.

      Comment by bill-o — August 22, 2008 @ 4:10 pm

    15. Related to this discussion, Cameron Strang decided not to pray publicly at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver. Please see:

      http://cbs4denver.com/denver2008/convention.prayer.strang.2.801199.html

      Mr. Strang, publisher of Relevant magazine, didn’t want to be seen as taking political sides. He will participate at the convention behind the scenes.

      Comment by bill-o — August 23, 2008 @ 8:23 am

    16. Re: religion and politics in the United States, The Economist published this article about how more Americans are questioning links between religion and politics:

      http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11998481&source=features_box4

      Comment by bill-o — August 26, 2008 @ 8:27 pm

    17. Interesting links, Bill.

      Matt Pritchard also had some interesting things to say related to this topic in his prepared comments for the Jesus for President debriefing. Can be read here:

      http://www.atthemargins.com/2008/08/25/christian-political-action/

      I think his comments probably most accurately reflect my thoughts on the subject also. I hope to blog on this soon, but have to finish work on a long overdue blog entry on my other blog first.

      Interesting discussion. I’m so glad to see dialog about this at long last. IMHO this kind of open discussion is long overdue in Body of Christ.

      Comment by Maggie — August 27, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

    RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

    Leave a comment

    You must be logged in to post a comment.