There are, of course, many difficult metaphysical and ethical questions to consider. When does the fetus become a full person? When does it acquire a soul and take on the image of God?7 Your answer to these questions will affect, and be affected by, your views on a host of other ethical questions. For example, do you believe that the morning-after pill is as bad as partial-birth abortions? Would your ideal society punish women who use the morning-after pill as severely as people who murder infants or adults? How should we weigh the rights of the unborn at various stages of development against the rights of the woman whose body it now inhabits? And to what extent do you believe government should legislate the answer to these questions as opposed to leaving the answer up to the woman and others involved in the pregnancy?
Related to these questions are a host of other complex considerations that will affect how you vote. For example, how does the party or candidate that most closely reflects your view on abortion fare on other issues you deem important: concern for the poor, economics, foreign affairs, war, the environment, and so on? How much weight do you put on each of these convictions? Also, what do you deem attainable at the present time in our culture? Is it more efficient to work to outlaw abortion outright, or is it better to minimize abortion by, say, voting for the candidate and party you think will best help the poor, since there is a demonstrable link between the rate of poverty and the rate of abortion in the U.S.? Even more fundamentally, do you think it more efficient to hold an uncompromising stance on this issue, or is it better for the unborn, and for society as a whole, for you to work with people who have different beliefs than yours to overcome our present polarization and find a middle ground? What do you believe is the best way to create a culture in which abortions are as unnecessary and rare as possible?
How one answers all these difficult and important questions affects how they vote. But kingdom people need to understand that none of these questions are distinctly kingdom questions. The polarized way the issue is framed in contemporary politics is largely a function of various groups trying to gain power over each other for what they believe to be the good of the whole, and while we as Americans have to consider these questions before we can give an informed opinion (a vote) when asked, there’s no reason we—as kingdom-of-God participants—should allow this political way of framing the issue to define our approach. Jesus never allowed himself to be defined by the political conflicts of his day, and neither should we.
The distinctly kingdom question is not, How should we vote? The distinctly kingdom question is, How should we live? How can we individually and collectively come under women struggling with unwanted pregnancies and come under the unborn babies who are unwanted? How can we who are worse sinners than any woman with an unwanted pregnancy—and thus have no right to stand over them in judgment—sacrifice our time, energy, and resources to ascribe unsurpassable worth to them and their unborn children? How can we act in such a way that we communicate our agreement with Jesus that these women and their unborn children are worth dying for? How can we individually and collectively sacrifice for and serve women and their unwanted children so that it becomes feasible for the mother to go to full term? How can we individually and collectively bleed for pregnant women and for unborn babies in a way that maximizes life and minimizes violence?
We answer these distinctly kingdom questions not with our votes but with our lives. And, note, we don’t need to answer any of the world’s difficult political and metaphysical questions to do it. The unique kingdom approach to abortion isn’t dependent on convincing ourselves and others that we have “God’s knowledge” about highly ambiguous questions. It’s based on our call to love as Jesus loved. There’s a scared woman; there’s a growing life inside her, which, however it got there and whatever speculations one holds about its metaphysical status, is a miraculous creation of God. And the only relevant question kingdom people need to answer is, Are we willing to bleed for both?
Voting and picketing costs us little. The kingdom approach costs us much. But it is precisely the costliness of the kingdom approach—which looks like Jesus dying on Calvary for those who crucified him—that makes it a unique kingdom approach. And because it manifests the beauty of Jesus, it glorifies God and has a power to change the world in a way that kingdom-of-the-world strategies never could.
BEING PRO-LIFE—KINGDOM STYLE
Here’s an example. An unmarried eighteen-year-old woman, whom I’ll call Becky, became pregnant.8 She was afraid to tell her strict Christian parents because she was convinced they would disown her in disgrace and make her move out of the house. This in turn would jeopardize her plans to attend college and fulfill her dream of becoming a veterinarian. Consequently, she planned to have an abortion.
Becky confided in a friend of the family, whom I’ll call Dorothy, a middle-aged, divorced woman who over the years had developed a special relationship with Becky. When Becky told Dorothy of her plan, Dorothy didn’t give her a moralistic speech or perform a moral interrogation. She offered to help. If Becky chose to have an abortion, Dorothy offered to help her in the postabortion recovery. But, believing that it was in everyone’s best interest to refrain from a violent solution and to rather go full term with this child, Dorothy lovingly encouraged Becky to think seriously about her planned course of action. Even more importantly, she offered to do whatever it took to make going full term feasible.
If Becky’s parents kicked her out of the house (which they actually did), Dorothy offered her basement as a place to stay. It wasn’t much, but it was something. Whatever financial and emotional support Becky needed throughout her pregnancy, Dorothy would provide as best as she was able. She ended up taking out a second mortgage on her house. If Becky wanted to give the baby up for adoption, Dorothy would help her with this. If Becky wanted to keep the child (which she ended up doing), Dorothy would help her with this as well. She became the godmother. And on top of this, Dorothy promised to work with Becky to help make it financially possible to pursue her dream of becoming a veterinarian. As a result, Becky went through with the pregnancy, moved in with Dorothy, and pursued her dream part-time, while both she and Dorothy raised her adorable daughter.
This, I believe, is an example of being pro-life kingdom style. Dorothy was willing to bleed to ascribe worth to Becky and her unborn child. It was her way of saying, “You and your baby are worth this much to me.” Dorothy’s decision wasn’t rooted in any of the complex, ambiguous issues that pro-life and pro-choice groups argue over. She frankly didn’t claim to know what the metaphysical status of the unborn child was at a given state in its development. Like most Americans, Dorothy had a sense that the use of the morning-after pill wasn’t quite as tragic as partial-birth abortions or infant killing—but she couldn’t articulate exactly why she felt this or say when the magic moment that made the fetus a full human person happened. But in terms of her relationship with Becky, this didn’t matter. She only believed it is better to affirm life whenever possible rather than terminate it, and she was willing to communicate this conviction in any way she could—by paying a price.
The price Dorothy paid is much greater than the price of a vote, carrying a picket sign, or signing a petition. But this is why Dorothy’s way of being pro-life is a distinctly kingdom way of being pro-life. It has nothing to do with her opinions about which limited, ambiguous, kingdom-of-the-world option is right, and it has everything to do with replicating Jesus’ Calvary-quality love for others. It may be worth noting that, for a variety of complex reasons, Dorothy tended to vote pro-choice. Yet I would suggest that Dorothy was far more pro-life than many who profess to being pro-life on the grounds that they vote a certain way.
Dorothy’s sacrifices not only allowed a child to be born and a young woman to be spared the emotional scars that usually accompany abortion; Dorothy’s Calvary-quality action had a transforming effect on Becky, who felt a love she had unfortunately not experienced before. She experienced her worth as a person, despite her poor decisions.
And whatever you think about abortion laws, the love Becky experienced from Dorothy had a power to transform her in a way that a law prohibiting her from having the abortion never could. It is the uniquely beautiful quality of “power under,” and that is the power of the kingdom of God, the power that comes from bleeding for others. It is the power that looks like Calvary and that flows from Calvary.
The church is called to be a church of Dorothys, not just on the abortion issue, but on every issue. Rather than buying into and then fighting over the limited, divisive options of the kingdom of the world, we need to be the one tribe on the planet who thinks “outside the box.” We need to be a peculiar people who live in the otherwise unasked question—what can we do to bleed as a means of manifesting life? While others posture and holler, we are to be a holy people who, knowing we are the worst of sinners, simply live in the question—how can we bleed for others? How can we sacrifice for and serve the gay, lesbian, and transgender community in a way that communicates to them their unsurpassable worth? How can we individually and collectively bleed in service to the homeless, the poor, and the racially oppressed? What does “power under” service look like to drug addicts, battered women, pregnant women, children in sexual bondage, and confused, needy people such as Janet Jackson?
The distinct kingdom question is not, How do you vote? The distinct kingdom question is, How do you bleed?
CHAPTER 8
ONE NATION UNDER GOD?
Jesus refused to accept conventional wisdom…. His model of kingship, and his vision of the kingdom of God, was not to “make the world safe for democracy” by the exercise of sheer force, was not to effect a “balance of power” through the threat of nuclear holocaust, was not to “rid the world of evil” through a never-ending crusade of “war against terror.” He would not rule by a sword, but by a towel.
LEE CAMP1
WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE MYTH OF THE CHRISTIAN NATION HARMS LOCAL and global missions, influences us to trust “power over” rather than “power under,” and leads many Christians to the mistaken conclusion that their job is to protect and advance civil religion and morality rather than simply serve people. In this chapter I will discuss a fifth negative consequence: it inclines kingdom people to view America as a theocracy, like Old Testament Israel. As we will see, this perspective damages the advancement of the kingdom of God.
First, consider the oft-cited, theocratic-sounding slogan that America is “one nation under God”…
THE PARADIGM OF ISRAEL
As a rallying slogan for our civil religion, the proclamation that we are “one nation under God” arguably serves a useful social function, for it gives many Americans a sense of shared values and vision. But it is not a slogan kingdom people in America should take too seriously. We must always remember that, while some nations serve law and order better than others, the powers that govern all nations are to a significant extent corrupted by the polluting influence of Satan. We should know that part of this influence is manifested in a violent, nationalistic pride, often buttressed by a nationalistic religion. We are to live in such a way that we manifest the radical difference between the kingdom of God and every version of the kingdom of the world. Our job, in other words, is to manifest the holiness of the kingdom of God, and that is how we are to be a light of hope to the world.
When the theocratic-sounding slogan “one nation under God” is taken too seriously, it makes people think of America along the lines of Israel and the Old Testament rather than Jesus and the New Testament.2 Just as God gave the Promised Land to Israel while vanquishing and enslaving opponents, so too, many believe, God gave America to white Europeans—while vanquishing all who resisted this takeover and enslaving others to build the nation. For obvious reasons, this baseless and racist theological interpretation of American history helps explain why the church remains the most segregated institution in America.
Just as God led Israel in the past, or so some believe, God leads America today. When America goes to war, therefore, God is on our side, just as he was on the side of Israel. For obvious reasons, this understanding does not endear this Christian warrior-God of America to all who are or have been the enemies of America or feel oppressed by America.
There are at least two conceptual problems with the Israel-theocratic paradigm, and two further negative consequences that result from it that we need to discuss. First, the conceptual problems.
IS AMERICA, OR WAS IT EVER, A THEOCRACY?
The first conceptual problem is that there is no reason to believe America ever was a theocracy. Unlike Israel, we have no biblical or empirical reason to believe God ever intended to be king over America in any unique sense. True, some of those who were part of the original European conquest of this continent claimed this, but why believe they were right?
Undoubtedly, part of the reason evangelicals accept this claim is the fact that fallen humans have always tended to fuse religious and nationalistic and tribal interests. We want to believe that God is on our side, supports our causes, protects our interests, and ensures our victories—which, in one form or another, is precisely what most of our nationalistic enemies also believe. So it has been for most people throughout history.
Related to this, fallen humans have a strong tendency to divinize our own values, especially those most dear to us. Feuerbach was at least partly correct: we tend to make God in our own image.3 If something is important to us, we reason, then it must be important to God. Hence, we must in some sense be special to God for agreeing with him! Since political freedom is dear to American evangelicals, it seems obvious to them that it must also be dear to God. Indeed, it seems clear to many that God uniquely established America and leads America for the express purpose of promoting this supreme value around the globe.4
Now, we may (or may not) grant that it’s “self-evident” that political freedom is the most precious thing a government can give its people. We may (or may not) think it would be good if every version of the kingdom of the world espoused this value. But on what basis can a follower of Jesus claim this is obviously a supreme value for God? Political freedom certainly wasn’t a value emphasized by Jesus, for he never addressed the topic. He and various New Testament authors speak about freedom from sin, fear, and the Devil, but show no interest in political freedom.
In fact, until very recently, political freedom wasn’t a value ever espoused by the church. To the contrary, most branches of the church resisted the idea that people can govern themselves when it first began to be espoused in the Enlightenment period. Yet now, quite suddenly, it’s supposedly a preeminent Christian value—to the point of justifying the view that America is uniquely established and led by God because it emphasizes this value! And this many contemporary evangelicals regard as obvious!
This is an amazing and significant new twist on the Christian religion. Indeed, it arguably constitutes a new nationalistic religion—what we might call “the religion of American democracy.” Like all religions, this religion has its own distinctive, theologized, revisionist history (for instance, the “manifest destiny” doctrine whereby God destined Europeans to conquer the land). It has its own distinctive message of salvation (political freedom), its own “set apart” people group (America and its allies), its own creed (“we hold these truths to be self-evident”), its own distinctive enemies (all who resist freedom and who are against America), its own distinctive symbol (the flag), and its own distinctive god (the national deity we are “under,” who favors our causes and helps us win our battles).5 This nationalistic religion co-opts Christian rhetoric, but it in fact has nothing to do with real Christianity, for it has nothing to do with the kingdom of God.
Not only is the supreme value of this new nationalistic religion (political freedom) not espoused in Scripture, as we’ve said, but the Calvary-quality love that is the supreme value espoused by the New Testament is impossible to live out consistently if one is also aligned with this nationalistic religion. Among other things, the nationalistic re
ligion is founded on individual self-interest—the “right” to political freedom—whereas the kingdom of God is centered on self-sacrifice, replicating Calvary to all people at all times. Moreover, because it is a nationalistic religion, the religion of political freedom must use “power over” to protect and advance itself. As we have seen, however, the kingdom of God planted by and modeled by Jesus uses only “power under” to advance itself, and it does not protect itself by force. It is impossible to imitate Jesus, dying on the cross for those who crucified him, while at the same time killing people on the grounds that they are against political freedom. It is impossible to love your enemies and bless those who persecute you, while at the same time defending your right to political freedom by killing those who threaten you.
Now, I want to be clear: none of this detracts from the important kingdom-of-the-world value of political freedom. Nor is it meant to minimize the tremendous sacrifice many have made, and continue to make, to defend our freedom. It is only meant to highlight the fact that, however much one cherishes political freedom, a kingdom-of-God citizen must never elevate this to the status of a kingdom-of-God value. We must always preserve the holiness and beauty of the kingdom of God by not letting it get co-opted by a nationalistic religion—even, and especially, when we agree that the central value of the nationalistic religion is very important. We must never allow cultural sentiments to compromise our calling to be radically set apart from the masses by our willingness and capacity to love those nationalistic enemies that others despise.
The Myth of a Christian Nation Page 15
