A Tale of Two Kingdoms
Pastor Ted, who talks to President George W. Bush or his advisers every Monday, is a handsome forty-eight-year-old Indianan, most comfortable in denim. He likes to say that his only disagreement with the President is automotive; Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas Pastor Ted loves his Chevy.
”Soldiers of Christ: Inside America’s Most Powerful Megachurch”
By Jeff Sharlet, Harper’s Magazine, May 2005
As president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that represents 45,000 churches and 30 million evangelical Christians (including my denomination and, I suppose, me), Pastor Ted Haggard’s voice is a significant one in the American church. While his claim of unqualified support for President Bush might be tongue-in-cheek, he wouldn’t voice it if the impression it creates weren’t important to him.
Pastor Ted is one of several prominent American evangelical leaders whose political clout has been in ascendancy since last November’s election. These representatives of a vast swath of American Christianity have claimed for themselves the roles of political advisers, of grassroots organizers, even of purported kingmakers in support of a political party that now controls the executive branch, both houses of congress, and has appointed a majority of judges on the federal bench. This relationship is so public and so strident that, to many, the term “evangelical” has become conflated with the Christian Right.
You think I’m overstating this?
Rod Parsley, pastor of World Harvest Church (pop. 12,000) in Columbus, Ohio, is one of the leaders of the Ohio Restoration Project. Just this month, they kicked off an effort to recruit 2,000 of Ohio’s pastors to join them as “Patriot Pastors.” With the help of these Patriot Pastors, the project hopes to assemble a mailing list of hundreds of thousands of Ohioan “Minutemen,” members of their congregations who can be called to political action at a moment’s notice. Appearing in advertisements for this Project is Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who is not only an elected leader but is the overseer of Ohio’s elections. And their intended speakers list is a veritable pantheon of the Christian Right: Dobson, Colson, Perkins, Falwell, Robertson.
People looking to gain or wield political power shouldn’t be able to use our churches in this way.
Let me say from the outset that I don’t write this because it involves the Republican Party in particular. It’s true that I rarely vote Republican and often disagree with much of their politics and policy. But I think this is bigger than Republican or Democrat. I think this is about the powers of this world and the kingdom of God.
One of the books I return to regularly is Philip Yancey’s The Jesus I Never Knew. In one of his later chapters, Yancey looks at the trial of Jesus and contrasts the power of two very different kings — Herod and Jesus.
Herod, with all the worldly trappings of royalty and the vast threat of the Roman Empire behind him, wielded his coercive power to suppress dissent, take his brother’s wife, and behead John the Baptist “as a party trick.” Jesus, who could have called on armies of angels, instead chose to use his power compassionately: to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and love the outcast.
Yancey continues:
Despite Jesus’ plain example, many of his followers have been unable to resist choosing the way of Herod over that of Jesus. [...] History shows that when the church uses the tools of the world’s kingdom, it becomes as ineffectual, or as tyrannical, as any other power structure. And whenever the church has intermingled with the state (the Holy Roman Empire, Cromwell’s England, Calvin’s Geneva), the appeal of faith suffers as well. Ironically, our respect in the world declines in proportion to how vigorously we attempt to force others to adopt our point of view.
The closer we get to the levers of worldly power, the easier it becomes to justify all measures of compromise to maintain that power. The more we rely on political institutions, on laws, and on the coercive power of the state, the more our light dims. Look no further than Tom DeLay for an example of someone who attends church, claims Christianity, and engages in strong-arm political tactics and questionable backroom shenanigans of the highest degree.
This isn’t the example the church is supposed to set. This wasn’t what Jesus taught.
Yancey again:
Sheep among wolves, a tiny seed in the garden, yeast in bread dough, salt in meat: Jesus’ own metaphors of the kingdom describe a kind of “secret force” that works from within. He said nothing of a triumphant church sharing power with the authorities. The kingdom of God appears to work best as a minority movement, in opposition to the kingdom of the world. When it grows beyond that, the kingdom subtly changes in nature.
The church should reflect a kingdom that is separate, that is “not of this world.” Its hallmark should be a different way of living in community, a different kind of self-donating love for each other and for the world around us. The divisive distinctions that the world wants to make — class, gender, race, and yes, even nation — should have no power in a rich community of grace.
Look, America is not a Christian nation. It has not been chosen by God. And the church should not — must not — reflexively embrace the cause of a nation or a government as if it is the cause of God.
In The Gospel According to America, David Dark writes:
When the church is the blind, uncritical endorser or “spiritual” chaplain of whatever the nation decides to do, it has largely renounced its vocation as the body of Christ. It is neither the salt of the earth nor a light to the nations. And it has traded its worship of a crucified Jew for a devastatingly tribal idolatry.
Think about that for a second. Then reread Pastor Ted’s jovial support of the American President at the top of this post. And reconsider the term “Patriot Pastor.”
The church is in trouble. Does this bother you as much as it bothers me?
Maybe it’s time for us to talk about this. Maybe it’s time for us to say, we’re Christians, and we can no longer be quiet.
13 Ripples from “A Tale of Two Kingdoms”
Renee says:
June 4, 2005 at 12:06 am
It’s bothered me for a long time, now it just scares me.
We can not keep silent any longer, so what if people think you are backslidden or a heretic, the religious leaders of the time weren’t to fond of Jesus. So speak up every chance you get and don’t stop.
zalm says:
June 4, 2005 at 3:06 am
Thanks for speaking up, Renee.
After I posted this piece, I discovered that the same “Patriot Pastor” strategy is also being pushed by the Texas Reconstruction Project (reg. req’d - use bugmenot.com). Only this time, it’s supported by the state’s Republican governor, who may be getting a pretty serious primary challenge in the next election.
Another story makes it clear that Rick Scarborough’s Vision America has been pushing this idea for a few years now.
I can’t say that any of this makes me feel any better.
Zossima says:
June 14, 2005 at 7:06 am
I have been influenced greatly by the great Old Testament theologian Walter Brueggemann in the past year. One of his contributions is the idea that when God becomes the “house God” of the nation, the nation has gone away from God. In other words, when Solomon builds the Temple right across the street from his bigger house and when the people make offerings but do not care for the poor, God is not being honored and will act in his freedom to demonstrate that he is entirely outside of our attempts to box him in.
We need someone like Yancey to stand against what is trending toward, dare I say it, a “fundamentalist fascism”. The Church is so blinded by its influence right now (influence which I believe is feigned by the GOP) that it is completely uncritical of this administration’s activities and clear lying. I’m mortified by it.
zalm says:
June 16, 2005 at 2:06 am
I’m making it through my reading pile very, very slowly, but I’d love to add some Brueggemann. Any suggestions, Z?
I’d be interested to read more about how Brueggemann lays out the idea you describe. I think I understand your point, but at the same time, it seems to me that God actually kinda was the “house God” of the Israelites. That is to say, God had a covenant with them in a way no other people group could claim. And that includes the US of the 21st century or any other century.
Yancey had more pointed words in that chapter for evangelicals who he worried were getting too close to the levers of worldly power. And that was in 1995. I’d be interested to hear his thoughts on the last few months. I just haven’t come across them in the usual places.
I think I share your anger, but I don’t feel comfortable pulling out the “f-word” yet. I’m frustrated by an administration and party that are willing to go to extreme lengths to consolidate and wield power. And I am indeed frightened by the loud Christian voices that want to conflate what is best for a particular political party with the will of God.
But I am still hopeful that these are extreme voices. I’m still hopeful that there is a large portion of the church in the US that is moderate or even moderately conservative and that is quietly uneasy about this. I am still hopeful that we can convince them, but I’m not sure that fear and extreme language is the way to do it, as much as those tactics may focus our anger in a way that makes us feel better.
Maybe that’s na�ve, but that’s where I am right now.
Zossima says:
June 16, 2005 at 4:06 pm
I’ve only read 2 Brueggemann books: Icabod Toward Home and The Prophetic Imagination. The latter just rocked me. The former is helping me to define my perspective toward OT texts in a way that wants to stand before them in humility and fear without “literally” interpreting them (which is a bogus concept, that denies the obvious cultural bias being brought to the interpretation).
Yes, in some sense Yahweh is the house god. But that is his choice, not theirs. He is the covenant-keeper. We see a “prosperity gospel” of sorts over and over in the OT in which the people (particularly the leaders) make of Yahweh a vending machine. This always has as a component the denial of the justice prescribed by the law (military conscription, slavery, poor people). When this happens, Yahweh-covenant-keeper acts unpredictably but always remaining covenant-keeper.
zalm says:
June 17, 2005 at 12:06 am
Well, that’s it then. If you, greg, and the McCartys are all recommending The Prophetic Imagination so highly, I suppose it’s something I should check out. Consider it ordered.
Thanks for clarifying the “house God” point. I think I see it now. And I look forward to reading how Brueggemann fleshes that out.
Pete Stofle says:
July 1, 2005 at 12:06 am
The Yancey quotes really got to me, especially,"Ironically, our respect in the world declines in proportion to how vigorously we attempt to force others to adopt our point of view.” Let us be vigorously humble, vigorously go after global poverty (which doesn’t have to exist).
I have been talking about our collective examples doing the talking, instead of our shouting. Sin is still sin, there is no backing down from what is wrong, but there is also a way to carry that out.
This is my first time to your site, keep up the good work...Pete
Pete Stofle says:
July 1, 2005 at 12:06 am
My question for everyone regarding the Patriot Pastors and the general politicization of the church in the US...What do we do? How do we handle so many groups of people that want to legalize things that we consider wrong? Do we let society deteriorate without anyone doing anything to fight for righteousness? Sure, it’s deteriorating anyway, whether legally or not, but where do you draw the line? I hate to state the obvious comparison, but Soddom wasn’t a happy place to be at certain times… ; )
zalm says:
July 1, 2005 at 4:07 pm
I’m glad you found your way to the site, Pete. Thanks for the encouragement.
I realize that my post pretty much leads right up to the “what do we do?” question without going much further than that. Part of my reason for that is because I’m still thinking all of this through. And I don’t claim to have all the answers.
But another reason I didn’t suggest much yet is because I think one of the first things we need to do is to talk about the problem itself. Solutions are essential, but if people see no danger in the church embracing the agenda of a particular political party, then solutions may not get very far.
I’d write more about this if I didn’t have guests coming into town for the next several days, but for now, I’ll offer a few brief suggestions off the top of my head:
First, I think we need to take a step back from the often acrimonious, seemingly zero-sum “team” aspect of American politics. I think Christians should be passionate about issues, but should be wary of identifying too strongly with a particular party.
Second, I think we need to have a dialog among Christians as to whether legislation and government programs or power are the most important tools for the church to use in transforming or healing the world around it. Are they even appropriate tools?
Third, if (as I would argue) political power isn’t how the church hopes to bring God’s redemptive healing to a broken world, then what are the other options? What does the “already but not yet” kingdom of God look like?
I’m sure I’m leaving out some important questions. And I certainly don’t have clear, well-thought-out answers for all the questions I listed. This has very much been a journey for me. But I look forward to reading more, writing more, and to further conversation.
One final point, and then I might not have time to post much for a while. I think we need to be open to the idea that, as individuals, we probably don’t have a corner on truth. We need to be open to humble, gracious conversations with people who disagree with us, even on issues that get us pretty fired up. This is how we challenge ourselves. This is how we grow. This is how we learn to love others better. And it’s the only way we’re going to find our way together.
Or something like that. I’m out. Talk amongst yourselves.....
Pete Stofle says:
July 1, 2005 at 6:07 pm
Here are some other thoughts that you hopefully get to think about prior to your guests arriving.
The one question that, IMHO, is at the core of it all: If the church truly exeplified the power of changed lives through the Holy Spirit, then there would be NO need to be involved in politics or fighting other political agendas.
We can get into the doctrinal issues of the Holy Spirit if you’d like, but what I’m trying to state is that if God were truly present in the collective church today, the way He appears at certain times (note: not all times) in the Old & New Testament, then there wouldn’t be a need for the political stuff.
If we go back to the 1st century church, MOST of the believers never actually saw Jesus, much less him crucified, so WHY were they committed to the point of families breaking up and to death? Power. Power of love. Power of God. Transformation beyond reason.
Do you see that in ABUNDANCE in your church or the church at large? I don’t, which is why the resort to politics.
zalm says:
July 3, 2005 at 10:07 pm
I’m just popping in briefly, so it may be that I haven’t read your comment carefully enough, Pete, but I’m not completely sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
It seems to me that you are suggesting that God is not working abundantly or powerfully in our churches today through the Holy Spirit, therefore we need to use political means to influence our country and the world. Is that accurate?
If so, I’ll respond when I have more time. I just don’t want to take the time now, in case I’m misunderstanding you.
Happy Fourth.
Pete Stofle says:
July 4, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Zalm, yes, it is a misunderstanding. We shouldn’t need to use political means for influence, that’s my point. We are resorting to it because we’re not (on the whole) what has been intended for our purpose. When there is transformation, people are drawn to that, independent of political affiliation.
Happy Fourth to you as well.
bmacwire says:
November 3, 2006 at 7:12 am
There are some interesting points here but I am deeply troubled by the theological revisionism in comments by Zossima regarding a book by Brueggemann.
Here’s the quote…
“One of his contributions is the idea that when God becomes the �house God� of the nation, the nation has gone away from God. In other words, when Solomon builds the Temple right across the street from his bigger house and when the people make offerings but do not care for the poor, God is not being honored and will act in his freedom to demonstrate that he is entirely outside of our attempts to box him in.”
Uh, pardon me, but Solomon acknowledged God can’t be “boxed in” during his prayer of dedication of the Temple… “heaven and earth cannot contain Thee”. But God’s acceptance of the Temple was clear…
2Ch 7:1 When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. 2Ch 7:2 The priests could not enter the temple of the Lord because the glory of the Lord filled it. 2Ch 7:3 When all the Israelites saw the fire coming down and the glory of the Lord above the temple, they knelt on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshiped and gave thanks to the Lord, saying, �He is good;
his love endures forever.� 2Ch 7:4 Then the king and all the people offered sacrifices before the Lord. 2Ch 7:5 And King Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty-two thousand head of cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep and goats. So the king and all the people dedicated the temple of God.
Nowhere do we see Scripture supporting a view that God was angered by Solomon’s riches which you imply with your “big house” comment. In fact it is clear that Solomon was blessed by God. As for the poor… the sacrifice of a stunning number of livestock was also God-ordained and blessed. In the revisionist theology I find being spouted here this amounted to a huge waste of resources that the poor certainly could have used. The Law contains many commands about care for the poor but to imply that it was the sole focal point of Jehovah’s relationship with Israel is not supported by Scripture.
But some other comments by “Zossima” are even more troubling…
“I�ve only read 2 Brueggemann books: Icabod Toward Home and The Prophetic Imagination. The latter just rocked me. The former is helping me to define my perspective toward OT texts in a way that wants to stand before them in humility and fear without �literally� interpreting them (which is a bogus concept, that denies the obvious cultural bias being brought to the interpretation).
Yes, in some sense Yahweh is the house god. But that is his choice, not theirs. He is the covenant-keeper. We see a �prosperity gospel� of sorts over and over in the OT in which the people (particularly the leaders) make of Yahweh a vending machine.”
Wow. How nice that the poster can sit before the texts in “humility and fear” while he/she refuses to interpret them literally. It all sounds so pious until one realizes the poster is basically saying they can’t take God’s Word literally because of “cultural bias”. Here is a little note to the writer… lay down your oh-so-clever cultural bias, throw out your “vending machine” anaologies, and let God speak for Himself. The covenants clearly were given by God with “blessings and cursings” and if that is the “vending machine” you are referring to then so be it.
2Ch 7:11 When Solomon had finished the temple of the Lord and the royal palace, and had succeeded in carrying out all he had in mind to do in the temple of the Lord and in his own palace, 2Ch 7:12 the Lord appeared to him at night and said: �I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices. 2Ch 7:13 �When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 2Ch 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2Ch 7:15 Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place. 2Ch 7:16 I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there.
2Ch 7:17 �As for you, if you walk before me as David your father did, and do all I command, and observe my decrees and laws, 2Ch 7:18 I will establish your royal throne, as I covenanted with David your father when I said, �You shall never fail to have a man to rule over Israel.� 2Ch 7:19 �But if you* turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you* and go off to serve other gods and worship them, 2Ch 7:20 then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples.
-----