The Myth Of A Christian Nation Part 3

Of course our political views will be influenced by our Christian faith. We may even believe that our views, if they are implemented, will help facilitate the advancement of the kingdom. But we must also recognize that people who have diametrically opposing views may believe they too they too are advancing the kingdom, which is all well and good so long as we don't christen our views as are advancing the kingdom, which is all well and good so long as we don't christen our views as the the Christian view. As people whose citizenship is in heaven before it is in any nation (Phil. 3:20), and whose kingdom ident.i.ty is rooted in Jesus rather than in a political agenda, we must never forget that the only way we individually and collectively represent the kingdom of G.o.d is through loving, Christlike, sacrificial acts of service to others. Anything and everything else, however good and n.o.ble, lies outside the kingdom of G.o.d. Christian view. As people whose citizenship is in heaven before it is in any nation (Phil. 3:20), and whose kingdom ident.i.ty is rooted in Jesus rather than in a political agenda, we must never forget that the only way we individually and collectively represent the kingdom of G.o.d is through loving, Christlike, sacrificial acts of service to others. Anything and everything else, however good and n.o.ble, lies outside the kingdom of G.o.d.

A PLAUSIBLE TEMPTATION.

Some will insist that the only reason that neither Jesus nor anyone else in the first several centuries of the church tried to dominate the political system of their day was because they were simply unable to do so. After all, the earliest Christians were a small minority of people living in a nondemocratic and hostile environment. By contrast, the argument goes, American Christians are a sizable group living in a rather friendly, democratic (if not Christian) land, and we are are able to at least vastly improve, if not someday dominate, our government and culture. And since to whom much is given much is required (Luke 12:48), do we not have a spiritual and moral obligation to use this opportunity to the full advantage of the kingdom of G.o.d? In this light, the argument concludes, to shirk the opportunity to rule because we are afraid of compromising our kingdom calling is irresponsible, pharisaical, and cowardly. The argument seems to make so much sense-and therein lies the temptation. able to at least vastly improve, if not someday dominate, our government and culture. And since to whom much is given much is required (Luke 12:48), do we not have a spiritual and moral obligation to use this opportunity to the full advantage of the kingdom of G.o.d? In this light, the argument concludes, to shirk the opportunity to rule because we are afraid of compromising our kingdom calling is irresponsible, pharisaical, and cowardly. The argument seems to make so much sense-and therein lies the temptation.

Recall that the Constantinian church explained away the self-sacrificial love and humility of Jesus and the early church in just this fashion. Instead of const.i.tuting the essence of the kingdom of G.o.d, the self-sacrificial and humble example of Jesus and the early church was understood to be merely a provisional inconvenience. Now that G.o.d had supposedly given the church power to rule, they reasoned, it just made sense to use it. For they, being the people who knew the truth, obviously knew best how to rule others.

Yet what did this line of reasoning accomplish? It produced centuries of barbaric bloodshed-in Jesus' name. Beyond the tragedy of millions of people being brutally murdered, the fact that this was done under the banner of the cross has harmed global missions for centuries. What is more, wherever this line of reasoning was carried out, it inevitably damaged the church.

Can you find any region where Christians once ruled where the church has prospered over the long run? Scan the whole of Europe: England, Sweden, Denmark, and so on. Could anyone dispute that these countries are today on the whole more more secular and secular and less less open to the gospel than regions that have had little or no contact with the gospel? And while there are pockets of vibrant kingdom gatherings in these countries, don't the mostly empty, large church buildings in these countries testify to the long-term damaging effect that Christian rule has had on the church? open to the gospel than regions that have had little or no contact with the gospel? And while there are pockets of vibrant kingdom gatherings in these countries, don't the mostly empty, large church buildings in these countries testify to the long-term damaging effect that Christian rule has had on the church?

What does this tell us? It teaches us that whenever Christians have gotten what so many American evangelicals today are trying to get-namely, the power to enforce their righteous will on others-it eventually harms the church as well as the culture. The lesson of history, a lesson the Devil has known all along, is this: The best way to defeat the kingdom of G.o.d is to empower the church to rule the kingdom of the world - - for then it for then it becomes becomes the kingdom of the world! The best way to get people to lay down the cross is to hand them the sword! the kingdom of the world! The best way to get people to lay down the cross is to hand them the sword!

While this conclusion may seem paradoxical to the Constantinian kingdom-of-the-world mindset, it makes perfect sense within a kingdom-of-G.o.d mindset. For the kingdom of G.o.d is not about coercive "power over," but influential "power under." Its essence is found in the power to transform lives from the inside out through love and service.

When kingdom-of-G.o.d citizens aspire to acquire Caesar's authority to accomplish "the good," we sell our kingdom birthright for a bowl of worldly porridge (Gen. 25:2934). To the extent that we pick up the sword, we put down the cross. When our goal as kingdom people becomes centered on effectively running a better (let alone Christian) version of the kingdom of the world, we compromise our calling to be faithful to the kingdom of G.o.d.

John Howard Yoder eloquently makes the point when he writes: The vision of ultimate good being determined by faithfulness and not by results is the point where we moderns get off. We confuse the kind of "triumph of the good," whose sole guarantee is the resurrection and the premise of the eternal glory of the Lamb, with an immediately accessible triumph which can be manipulated, just past the next social action campaign, by getting hold of society as a whole at the top. What in the Middle Ages was done by Roman Christianity or Islam is now being attempted by Marxism and by democratic nationalism....We may well prefer a democratically controlled oligarchy to some other kind. We may well have a choice between Marxist and Islamic and other statements of the vision of the good society. But what our contemporaries find themselves practically incapable of challenging is that the social problem can be solved by determining which aristocrats are morally justified, by virtue of their better ideology, to use the power of society from the top so as to lead the whole system in their direction.8 The unchallenged a.s.sumption is that society's problems can be solved by getting the right version of the kingdom of the world-the right aristocrats-in power at the top of the society, and that if only the right people acquire the power to lead society in the right direction, then all will be well. This "power over" kingdom-of-the-world a.s.sumption has dominated much Christian and Islamic thought throughout history, with catastrophic consequences, and it obviously continues to influence the thinking of many Christians and non-Christians today. If only Matthew's conservative program or Simon's radical program can win, then we will fix the world and G.o.d will be glorified.

It is understandable that secularists would accept this a.s.sumption, for they can conceive of no other solution to society's problems, but kingdom-of-G.o.d citizens are empowered to have keener vision. Indeed, the a.s.sumption that society's problems can be solved by empowering the right ideology, whether this be a democratic, Marxist, Islamic, or Christian ideology, const.i.tutes a fundamental denial of the lordship of Christ. As such, it const.i.tutes a rejection of the reality of the kingdom of G.o.d and the distinctive call of the disciple of Christ to manifest this reality.

This kingdom-of-the-world a.s.sumption-to conquer the world for the glory of G.o.d-is in essence the very thing the Devil tempted Jesus with. What makes the a.s.sumption so tempting is that it makes so much sense. How could society fail to be better off if we who know the truth are empowered to get our way in society?

The point is so obvious, it seems, that we might be inclined to accept Christendom's traditional rationalization that the only reason Jesus and the early church didn't try to gain power over others was because they couldn't. Yet as plausible as this way of thinking may be from within the world's "power over" paradigm, it is utterly absurd when we view it from within G.o.d's "power under" paradigm.

Think about it. The Son of G.o.d couldn't exercise "power over"?! He certainly could have, for this is precisely what the Devil offered him! Even apart from this, Jesus had legions of angels at his beck and call and the power of G.o.d Almighty at his disposal. Had he wanted to, Jesus could easily have become a victorious Caesar rather than a crucified Savior.

Jesus refused to call on these angels not because he and his disciples hadn't yet acquired enough power from Caesar, such as Augustine had in the fourth and fifth centuries, but because doing so would have violated the heart of the kingdom he came to establish. To reveal the holiness of G.o.d's kingdom, Jesus voluntarily "emptied himself," "humbled himself," and took on the form of a servant, allowing himself to be crucified for the sake of others and for the glory of G.o.d (Phil. 2:68). In doing so, writes Yoder, "Christ renounced the claim to govern history," choosing instead to win the world through sacrificial, loving submission.9 This is the heart of G.o.d's kingdom, and this is the mind of Christ that all who claim to follow Christ are commanded to have (Phil. 2:5). Thus, to the disciple of Christ, the power of the sword must be forever viewed as a demonic temptation, not a viable, let alone Christian, solution.

The age-old temptation to seize "power over" is exacerbated for American Christians by virtue of the fact that our government invites us to partic.i.p.ate in running our version of the kingdom of the world. Christians living in communist or totalitarian regimes don't have this option or this temptation. In my opinion, the ability to partic.i.p.ate in the running of a country is a wonderful kingdom-of-the-world privilege-arguably the best privilege any version of the kingdom of the world can give its subjects. But as valuable as it is, kingdom-of-G.o.d citizens must consistently resist the temptation to identify our ability to influence government by voting or serving in a governmental office as our distinct authority as kingdom people. We are kingdom people who happen to live in a context where we may exercise some authority, but the governmental authority we may exercise is not our distinct authority as kingdom people.

To be clear, a kingdom person may be called by G.o.d to serve in a certain governmental capacity, and in this sense their individual calling may be manifested in how they carry out their office. But their unique authority as a kingdom person cannot be equated with their governmental authority, just as it cannot be equated with our ability to vote. Rather, our unique kingdom-of-G.o.d authority resides exclusively in our ability and willingness to come under people in sacrificial love, a unique authority that cannot be given by Caesar and cannot be taken by Caesar.10 Our unique kingdom authority and calling is given by G.o.d, and it looks the same whether we are a governor or a plumber, whether we live in America, North Korea, Iran, or Sweden. It may take a million different forms, but it always looks like Jesus Christ, dying in love for the people who crucified him.

TAKING "BACK" AMERICA FOR G.o.d?

The first question we needed to address in response to the popular "Take America Back for G.o.d" slogan concerned the precedent of Jesus, and in this light we must judge that the slogan can lead us into temptation. The second concerns the meaning of the slogan itself. I, for one, confess to being utterly mystified by the phrase. If we are to take America back back for G.o.d, it must have once belonged to G.o.d, but it's not at all clear when this golden Christian age was. for G.o.d, it must have once belonged to G.o.d, but it's not at all clear when this golden Christian age was.

Were these G.o.d-glorifying years before, during, or after Europeans "discovered" America and carried out the doctrine of "manifest destiny"-the belief that G.o.d (or, for some, nature) had destined white Christians to conquer the native inhabitants and steal their land? Were the G.o.d-glorifying years the ones in which whites ma.s.sacred these natives by the millions, broke just about every covenant they ever made with them, and then forced survivors onto isolated reservations? Was the golden age before, during, or after white Christians loaded five to six million Africans on cargo ships to bring them to their newfound country, enslaving the three million or so who actually survived the brutal trip? Was it during the two centuries when Americans acquired remarkable wealth by the sweat and blood of their slaves? Was this the time when we were truly "one nation under G.o.d," the blessed time that so many evangelicals seem to want to take our nation back back to? to?11 Maybe someone would suggest that the golden age occurred after the Civil War, when blacks were finally freed. That doesn't quite work either, however, for the virtual apartheid that followed under Jim Crow laws-along with the ongoing violence, injustices, and dishonesty toward Native Americans and other nonwhites up into the early twentieth century-was hardly "G.o.d-glorifying." (In this light, it should come as no surprise to find that few Christian Native Americans, African-Americans, or other nonwhites join in the chorus that we need to "Take America Back for G.o.d.") If we look at historical reality rather than pious verbiage, it's obvious that America never really "belonged to G.o.d."12 As we've said, when the kingdom of G.o.d is manifested, it's obvious. It looks like Jesus. But America as a nation has clearly never looked remotely like Jesus. There was nothing distinctively Christlike about the way America was "discovered," conquered, or governed in the early years. To the contrary, the way this nation was "discovered," conquered, and governed was a rather typical, barbaric, violent, kingdom-of-the-world affair. The immoral barbarism displayed in the early (and subsequent) years of this country was, sadly, pretty typical by kingdom-of-the-world standards. The fact that it was largely done under the banner of Christ doesn't make it more Christian, any more than any other b.l.o.o.d.y conquest done in Jesus' name throughout history (such as the Crusades and the Inquisition) qualifies them as Christlike. As we've said, when the kingdom of G.o.d is manifested, it's obvious. It looks like Jesus. But America as a nation has clearly never looked remotely like Jesus. There was nothing distinctively Christlike about the way America was "discovered," conquered, or governed in the early years. To the contrary, the way this nation was "discovered," conquered, and governed was a rather typical, barbaric, violent, kingdom-of-the-world affair. The immoral barbarism displayed in the early (and subsequent) years of this country was, sadly, pretty typical by kingdom-of-the-world standards. The fact that it was largely done under the banner of Christ doesn't make it more Christian, any more than any other b.l.o.o.d.y conquest done in Jesus' name throughout history (such as the Crusades and the Inquisition) qualifies them as Christlike.

In fact, we should view the fact that Europeans conquered under the banner of Christ to be just another typical kingdom-of-the-world behavior. As noted in chapter 1, kingdom-of-the-world armies have usually fought under the banner of their nationalist religion and invoked their tribal deities as they fought. Indeed, most kingdom-of-the-world warriors have believed they were killing or dying for a "manifest destiny." They believed G.o.d, or particular G.o.ds, were on their side and would give them victory. Most conquests have had a religious dimension, if only because it's hard to motivate one group to kill another and be willing to be killed by others without convincing them that there's a religious dimension to their tribal cause.

The European conquering of America was simply another all-too-typical version of this kingdom-of-the-world behavior. From the kingdom-of-G.o.d perspective, the fact that Christ happened to be the national warrior deity invoked to carry out whites' "manifest destiny"-inspiring them to kill, cheat, marginalize, and enslave native Americans and Africans (as well as other nonwhite groups)-simply means that this particular kingdom-of-the-world episode was more damaging to the cause of the kingdom of G.o.d than others.

This, of course, is not what most American Christians (especially most white white Americans) who love their country want to hear. I completely understand this. Yet if we simply stick to the truth that only what looks like Jesus qualifies as kingdom-of-G.o.d activity, there is no way to avoid this conclusion. Slaughtering, enslaving, cheating, conquering, and dominating are not the sort of activities Jesus engaged in! Americans) who love their country want to hear. I completely understand this. Yet if we simply stick to the truth that only what looks like Jesus qualifies as kingdom-of-G.o.d activity, there is no way to avoid this conclusion. Slaughtering, enslaving, cheating, conquering, and dominating are not the sort of activities Jesus engaged in!

ONE NATION UNDER G.o.d.

Those who want to enlist the power of Caesar to "take America back for G.o.d" usually appeal to the alleged fact that the founding fathers were stalwart Christians who established America as "one nation under G.o.d." The notion is that the founders intended America to be a Christian nation, established on Christian laws and exemplifying Christian morality. This This is what many want to take America back to. is what many want to take America back to.

There has been a great deal of debate about the extent to which the founding fathers were Christian in any historic orthodox sense of the term. My own research inclines me to conclude that most were more deistic than Christian, and that they collectively had no intention of founding an explicitly Christian nation.13 At the very least, it's significant that the Declaration of Independence proclaims truths that the founding fathers thought to be "self-evident" to At the very least, it's significant that the Declaration of Independence proclaims truths that the founding fathers thought to be "self-evident" to natural reason natural reason (a very deistic idea), not truths that are (a very deistic idea), not truths that are scriptural scriptural. Also, our country's Const.i.tution is based on reason, not the Bible. It is, in my estimation, a truly amazing doc.u.ment, yet it owes more to John Locke than it does to the Bible.

But the issue of what various founding fathers personally believed is really irrelevant to the issue at hand. For even if they believed they were in some sense establishing a Christian nation, as some maintain, it remains perfectly clear that it never has actually looked like Christ. We have only to listen to the voices of nonwhites throughout our history to appreciate this fact.

Just listen to Frederick Dougla.s.s, a nineteenth-century slave who taught himself how to read and write, as he expresses his view of how Christian America was: Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference-so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt and wicked.... I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity.14 When we suggest that this nation was once Christian, we partic.i.p.ate in the racist and demonic deceit that Dougla.s.s poignantly exposes. To avoid this deceit, it is also helpful to remember that most of the violence and dishonesty carried out against the native Americans occurred after after America was founded as a nation "under G.o.d." Likewise, the Supreme Court's decision that blacks were only three-fifths human came long after America was purportedly established as a Christian nation. The list of ways that early America didn't look remotely look like the domain in which G.o.d is king-indeed, the ways America has often looked the opposite-could be expanded indefinitely. America was founded as a nation "under G.o.d." Likewise, the Supreme Court's decision that blacks were only three-fifths human came long after America was purportedly established as a Christian nation. The list of ways that early America didn't look remotely look like the domain in which G.o.d is king-indeed, the ways America has often looked the opposite-could be expanded indefinitely.

But even the un-Christlike behavior of America as a nation is not the most fundamental issue. The foundational issue is whether any any "power over" kingdom could ever be Christian-even if it wanted to. We have argued that being Christlike is not, and cannot be, an ideal to which any version of the kingdom of the world can aspire, let alone claim for itself. As much as G.o.d wants governments to operate justly, Jesus didn't come to establish a perfect worldly government. He came to establish the kingdom of G.o.d as a radical alternative to all versions of the kingdom of the world, whether they declare themselves to be "under G.o.d" or not. "power over" kingdom could ever be Christian-even if it wanted to. We have argued that being Christlike is not, and cannot be, an ideal to which any version of the kingdom of the world can aspire, let alone claim for itself. As much as G.o.d wants governments to operate justly, Jesus didn't come to establish a perfect worldly government. He came to establish the kingdom of G.o.d as a radical alternative to all versions of the kingdom of the world, whether they declare themselves to be "under G.o.d" or not.

When we misguidedly loop Christian talk into American kingdom-of-the-world talk, we do great harm to the work of the kingdom of G.o.d. Among other things, we leverage the credibility of G.o.d's kingdom on someone believing that it was G.o.d's will-"manifest destiny"-for whites to carry out the barbarism they carried out toward Native Americans, Africans, and a host of other nonwhites in the course of American history. We compromise the purity and beauty-the holiness holiness-of the kingdom of G.o.d by a.s.sociating it with the typical "power over" injustices that this country has largely been built on. And we encourage the sort of "power over" behavior among religious people that we see today as they attempt to "take America back for G.o.d" by political means. Allegiance to the kingdom of G.o.d is confused with allegiance to America, and lives that are called to be spent serving others are spent trying to gain power over others.

THE GOOD AND THE BEAUTIFUL.

When we clearly and consistently separate the kingdom of G.o.d from all versions of the kingdom of the world, we are in a position to affirm the good as well as the bad of American history without having to defend it as Christian. For example, insofar as one could argue that it served justice, one could argue it was better that America won independence from England, despite the ma.s.sive bloodshed the fight for independence required. But neither the outcome nor the b.l.o.o.d.y process that led to it were Christlike. It didn't manifest the kingdom of G.o.d, for Jesus never killed people to acquire political freedom for himself or others. Hence, July Fourth is not-or at least should not be-a Christian holiday, however meaningful it may be to some Americans.

Still, a citizen of the kingdom of G.o.d need not deny the positive outcomes that have resulted from Europeans discovering and conquering America. Yes, the process was largely immoral and extremely b.l.o.o.d.y, as it typically is when versions of the kingdom of the world collide. But the b.l.o.o.d.y injustices don't negate the fact that America has arguably now become, by historic and global standards, a relatively good version of the kingdom of the world. Still, we must never confuse the positive things that America does with the kingdom of G.o.d, for the kingdom of G.o.d is not centered on being morally, politically, or socially positive relative relative to other versions of the kingdom of the world. Rather, the kingdom of G.o.d is centered on being to other versions of the kingdom of the world. Rather, the kingdom of G.o.d is centered on being beautiful beautiful, as defined by Jesus Christ dying on a cross for those who crucified him.

To promote law, order, and justice is good, and we certainly should do all we can to support this. But to love enemies, forgive transgressors, bless persecutors, serve sinners, accept social rejects, abolish racist walls, share resources with the poor, bear the burden of neighbors, suffer with the oppressed-all the while making no claims to promote oneself-this is beautiful; is beautiful; this this is Christlike. Only this, therefore, is distinct kingdom-of-G.o.d activity. is Christlike. Only this, therefore, is distinct kingdom-of-G.o.d activity.

WINNING BACK THE WORLD.

I should end this chapter by saying that, as misleading and dangerous as the slogan "Take America Back for G.o.d" is, there is a profound element of truth in it. For as citizens of the kingdom of G.o.d, we are are called to win back America for Jesus Christ-as well as Europe, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, and the rest of the world. But everything hangs upon called to win back America for Jesus Christ-as well as Europe, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, and the rest of the world. But everything hangs upon how how we believe we are to do this. What power do we trust? we believe we are to do this. What power do we trust?

If we think for a moment that we are fulfilling the commission to take the world back for G.o.d by acquiring the ability to control behavior through the power of the sword, we are deceived. If we suppose that America, Europe, or any nation is closer to the kingdom of G.o.d because certain Christian ideals dominate the political landscape, it is evidence that we have bought into the temptation to trust the sword rather than the cross. If we think we can tweak any version of the kingdom of the world to make it into the kingdom of G.o.d, we thereby reveal that our thinking has been co-opted by the kingdom of the world. Again, the only way the world can be won for Jesus Christ is by people being transformed from the inside out through the power of Christ's love expressed through the Calvary-quality service of his followers.

The question that wins the world is not, how can we get our "morally superior" way enforced in the world? The question that wins the world, and the question that must define the individual and collective life of kingdom-of-G.o.d citizens is, how do we take up the cross for the world? How do we best communicate to others their unsurpa.s.sable worth before G.o.d? How do we serve and wash the feet of the oppressed and despised?

We conquer not by the power of the sword but "by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of [our] testimony." We conquer by not clinging "to life even in the face of death" (Rev. 12:11); we conquer by refusing to place our trust in the violent "power over" kingdom of the world, while instead making it our sole task, moment by moment, to manifest the unique righteousness of the kingdom of G.o.d (Matt. 6:33). G.o.d in principle won the world through the Lamb's loving sacrifice, and he's in the process of manifesting this victory throughout the world through us as we replicate the Lamb's loving sacrifice in our lives. This is the kingdom of G.o.d; this is how the kingdom of G.o.d advances. And this is how the kingdom of the world will ultimately become the kingdom of the Lamb (Rev. 11:15).

If your response is that this "power under" approach is impractical, if not morally irresponsible, perhaps this too reveals that you have been conformed to the pattern of the world (Rom. 12:2) and have allowed yourself to trust "power over" rather than "power under." Perhaps it reveals that you have placed more faith in worldly "common sense" than in the resurrection. Perhaps it reveals that worldly effectiveness has replaced kingdom faithfulness as your primary concern.

When Jesus was crucified, it looked looked as if he were losing. More often than not, when the kingdom of G.o.d is being authentically carried out, it looks that way, at least initially. The cross didn't look effective on Good Friday, but G.o.d raised up Jesus on the third day. And our task is to believe that, however much it looks like we may be losing, G.o.d will use our Calvary-quality acts of service to redeem the world and build his kingdom. However much we lose-even if it's our own life-we are to believe in the resurrection. Ultimately G.o.d wins, and each one of our acts of loving self-denial will eventually be shown to have played a role in this victory. as if he were losing. More often than not, when the kingdom of G.o.d is being authentically carried out, it looks that way, at least initially. The cross didn't look effective on Good Friday, but G.o.d raised up Jesus on the third day. And our task is to believe that, however much it looks like we may be losing, G.o.d will use our Calvary-quality acts of service to redeem the world and build his kingdom. However much we lose-even if it's our own life-we are to believe in the resurrection. Ultimately G.o.d wins, and each one of our acts of loving self-denial will eventually be shown to have played a role in this victory.

This is faith in the resurrection. This is the kingdom of G.o.d.

CHAPTER 6.

THE MYTH OF A CHRISTIAN NATION.

The words and acts of the founding fathers, especially the first few presidents, shaped the form and tone of the civil religion as it has been maintained ever since. Though much is selectively derived from Christianity, this religion is clearly not itself Christianity.

ROBERT BELLAH1.

AS WE HAVE NOTED, MANY CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT AMERICA IS, OR AT least once was, a Christian nation. We have argued that this notion is inaccurate for the simple reason that Christian Christian means "Christlike," and there never was a time when America as a nation has acted Christlike. Indeed, we have argued that it's impossible for any version of the kingdom of the world to be Christlike for the simple reason that they partic.i.p.ate in a system of domination that necessarily places its trust in the power of the sword. It may use this power in just or unjust ways-and we should certainly do all we can do to influence the former and resist the latter-but in neither case can it be said to be acting like Christ. The kingdom of G.o.d, which always looks like Jesus, is not simply an improved version of the kingdom of the world, for a version of the kingdom of the world may be relatively good, but it cannot be beautiful. means "Christlike," and there never was a time when America as a nation has acted Christlike. Indeed, we have argued that it's impossible for any version of the kingdom of the world to be Christlike for the simple reason that they partic.i.p.ate in a system of domination that necessarily places its trust in the power of the sword. It may use this power in just or unjust ways-and we should certainly do all we can do to influence the former and resist the latter-but in neither case can it be said to be acting like Christ. The kingdom of G.o.d, which always looks like Jesus, is not simply an improved version of the kingdom of the world, for a version of the kingdom of the world may be relatively good, but it cannot be beautiful.

In my opinion, nothing has been more damaging to the advancement of the beautiful kingdom in America, and to a significant degree around the globe, than this myth that America is a Christian nation. In this and the following two chapters I shall discuss five negative consequences that have resulted from this myth.

FOR G.o.d AND COUNTRY.

First, the myth of a Christian nation harms global missions, and a little background will help explain this.

Since the time of Constantine, Christianity has largely been the obedient servant of the kingdom of the world, while the cross has often been reduced to the pole upon which a national flag waves. When leaders of so-called Christian nations felt the need to go to war to protect or expand the interests of their nation, they could often count on the church to call on G.o.d to bless its violent campaign and use its authority to motivate warriors to fight for their cause "in Jesus' name." However much leaders were driven by power or economic concerns, their cause could be made "holy" by convincing Christian subjects that G.o.d was involved. Hence, when any group had to be vanquished in the interest of the Christian nation, it has often been carried out under the banner of Christ-even when the enemy was other professing Christians. "For G.o.d and country" has been the battle cry of Christians, as it has in one form or another for almost every other army, whatever the particular religion or nation.

When America was founded as a British colony, this traditional Constantinian "G.o.d and country" sentiment reigned, and when America broke from England, it continued to reign. Though America is now largely secularized, this Constantinian perspective continues to reign, though in a more secularized, subdued form. Many still believe we fight "for G.o.d and country," and leaders continue to use this faith to their full advantage whenever possible.

AMERICA AS THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.

A stunningly clear example of this was (and as of this writing, still is) the heavy use of religious rhetoric to support the invasion of Iraq and the ongoing fight against terrorism. Instead of simply arguing that it was in America's national interest to go to war-a claim that some would accept and others reject-many religious leaders and some politicians invoked G.o.d's name in support of this cause, just as the extremist Muslims did. As in the medieval Crusades, "Abba" has once again been pitted against "Allah." Many even argued that supporting the war against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein was a "Christian duty."

This Christianization of military force was strongly reinforced when President George W. Bush depicted America as being on a holy "crusade" against "evildoers." Elsewhere he said that America is the "light of the world," which the "darkness" (that is, our national enemies) could not extinguish.2 He was of course quoting Scripture in making his point-Scripture that refers to Jesus (John 1:15). The fact that evangelicals as a whole were not shocked by this idolatrous a.s.sociation is, in my opinion, evidence of how thoroughly we have accepted the Americanized, Constantinian paradigm. In this paradigm, what applies to Jesus ("the light of the world") can be applied to our country, and what applies to Satan ("the darkness") can be applied to whomever resists our country. He was of course quoting Scripture in making his point-Scripture that refers to Jesus (John 1:15). The fact that evangelicals as a whole were not shocked by this idolatrous a.s.sociation is, in my opinion, evidence of how thoroughly we have accepted the Americanized, Constantinian paradigm. In this paradigm, what applies to Jesus ("the light of the world") can be applied to our country, and what applies to Satan ("the darkness") can be applied to whomever resists our country. We We are of G.o.d; are of G.o.d; they they are of the Devil. are of the Devil. We We are the light; are the light; they they are the darkness. Our wars are therefore "holy" wars. are the darkness. Our wars are therefore "holy" wars.3 With all due respect, this is blatant idolatry. With all due respect, this is blatant idolatry.

That a political leader would use religious rhetoric to rally people around a military cause is not surprising. This is typical in all versions of the kingdom of the world. What is surprising, and cause for great concern, is that many evangelicals were not only not not disturbed by this-they disturbed by this-they applauded applauded it. it.

THE HARM TO GLOBAL MISSIONS.

While history proves that it's usually in a nation's self-interest to use religion and religious rhetoric to advance its causes, kingdom-of-G.o.d citizens need to see how harmful it is to the advancement of the kingdom of G.o.d. Among other things, when we a.s.sociate Jesus with America, even in the most remote ways, we legitimize the widespread global perception that the Christian faith can be judged on the basis of what America has done in the past or continues to do in the present.

Now, this isn't all bad. America has done and continues to do good things around the world, for which we should be thankful. But it's also done some bad things-or at least things perceived by some to be bad. Though many Americans, including President George W. Bush, seem unable to appreciate it, there are reasons why a significant percentage of people around the globe despise us.4 Not only does America represent greed, violence, and s.e.xual immorality to them, but they view America as exploitive and opportunistic. To their way of thinking, for example, the 2002 invasion of Iraq, largely in defiance of the United Nations, on the later disproven grounds that Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent threat" because he was building "weapons of ma.s.s destruction," simply confirms a long history of U.S. aggression under the guise of "spreading freedom." When President Bush repeatedly says that America has a responsibility to spread freedom throughout the world, what some people around the globe hear is that American imperialism is alive and well and that we are planning on aggressively bringing other governments under our control for self-serving purposes. Not only does America represent greed, violence, and s.e.xual immorality to them, but they view America as exploitive and opportunistic. To their way of thinking, for example, the 2002 invasion of Iraq, largely in defiance of the United Nations, on the later disproven grounds that Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent threat" because he was building "weapons of ma.s.s destruction," simply confirms a long history of U.S. aggression under the guise of "spreading freedom." When President Bush repeatedly says that America has a responsibility to spread freedom throughout the world, what some people around the globe hear is that American imperialism is alive and well and that we are planning on aggressively bringing other governments under our control for self-serving purposes.

Now, whether this perception is justified or not is not my immediate concern. What is a concern-and should be the primary concern for all kingdom-of-G.o.d people-is that this disdain gets a.s.sociated with Christ when America is identified as a Christian nation. The tragic irony is that those who should be most vehemently denying the a.s.sociation for the purpose of preserving the beautiful holiness of the kingdom of G.o.d-in contrast to what America represents to many people-are the primary ones insisting on the identification! The result is that it has become humanly impossible for many around the globe to hear the good news as good good. Instead, because of its kingdom-of-the-world a.s.sociations, they hear the gospel as bad bad news, as news, as American American news, news, exploitive capitalistic exploitive capitalistic news, news, greedy greedy news, news, violent violent news, and news, and morally decadent morally decadent news. They can't see the beauty of the cross because everything the American flag represents to them is in the way. news. They can't see the beauty of the cross because everything the American flag represents to them is in the way.

As a result, global missions have been tremendously harmed by American nationalism. And we who seek first the kingdom of G.o.d (Matt. 6:33) must accept responsibility for this. We have not placed the preservation of the holiness-the radical distinctness-of the kingdom of G.o.d as our top priority. We have rather allowed the cross to become a.s.sociated with the sword of Constantine. We have allowed the unblemished beauty of Calvary to get wrapped up in the typical ugliness of our version of the kingdom of the world. We have allowed our allegiance to the kingdom of G.o.d to be compromised by allegiance to our nation. We have far too often placed our worldly citizenship before our heavenly citizenship (Phil. 3:20) and allowed the flag to smother the cross.

The time to turn completely from this Constantinian idolatry is long overdue. For G.o.d's sake-literally-we who profess allegiance to Jesus Christ must commit ourselves to proclaiming in action and word the truth that the kingdom of G.o.d always always looks like him. Since our ultimate allegiance is not to our nation or inst.i.tution, we should be on the front lines proclaiming that the history and activity of our nation has nothing to do with the kingdom of G.o.d. Far from invoking G.o.d's name to justify the behavior of our nation (for example, to "blow [people] away in the name of the Lord"), we should in G.o.d's name lead the charge in prophetically critiquing our nation. Indeed, following the example of Jesus (which is, after all, our sole calling), we should publicly side with all who have been or continue to be harmed by our nation. looks like him. Since our ultimate allegiance is not to our nation or inst.i.tution, we should be on the front lines proclaiming that the history and activity of our nation has nothing to do with the kingdom of G.o.d. Far from invoking G.o.d's name to justify the behavior of our nation (for example, to "blow [people] away in the name of the Lord"), we should in G.o.d's name lead the charge in prophetically critiquing our nation. Indeed, following the example of Jesus (which is, after all, our sole calling), we should publicly side with all who have been or continue to be harmed by our nation.

CIVIL RELIGION AND THE KINGDOM OF G.o.d.

Not only are foreign missions harmed by the pervasive myth of a Christian nation, missionary work inside our own country has been harmed, for this foundational myth reinforces the pervasive misconception that the civil religion of Christianity in America is real real Christianity. Christianity.

To understand this, we need to understand that throughout history most cultures have been influenced by some religion or other. Typically, most people in the culture don't make the dominant religion the central point of their life. But the religion nevertheless plays an important role in providing the culture with a shared worldview, shared history, shared values and practices, common holidays, and so on. In short, it helps bind the culture together. We might think of this as the civil role of religion.5 While legitimate debate continues about what various founding fathers of America actually believed, it is undeniable that the civil religion of America from the start has been a deistic version of Christianity. Our worldview, our sense of history, our values, and even our calendar have been influenced far more by Christianity than any other religion. While things are changing quickly, a majority of Americans still identify themselves as "Christian" to pollsters.

Now, as is typical of civil religions, if one further inquires into what actual impact these people's faith has on their lives, one discovers that in the majority of cases it is negligible. Indeed, research has consistently demonstrated that the majority of professing Christians, when asked, lack even an elementary understanding of the faith they profess.6 Though they may attend church on occasion, they think, feel, and behave pretty much as they would even if they were not Christian. They answer "Christian" when asked, not because it makes any significant difference to them on a personal level, but simply because this religious identification is part of the cultural air they breath. Though they may attend church on occasion, they think, feel, and behave pretty much as they would even if they were not Christian. They answer "Christian" when asked, not because it makes any significant difference to them on a personal level, but simply because this religious identification is part of the cultural air they breath.

On one level, there's nothing wrong with this. Every society needs some sort of shared vision of the world and shared values to stay healthy. And, as the decline of communism suggests, it is difficult to support this shared vision and these shared values without some religious underpinnings. Civil religion is good, if not necessary, for a healthy culture.

Problems arise, however, when kingdom people fail to see that civil religion is simply an aspect of the kingdom of the world. Problems arise when kingdom people forget that the kingdom of G.o.d always looks like Jesus and so has no intrinsic relationship with any any civil religion. Problems arise when we fail to see that the civil religion of Christianity has no more kingdom-of-G.o.d significance than the civil religion of Buddhism, Hinduism, or the ancient Roman Pantheon. civil religion. Problems arise when we fail to see that the civil religion of Christianity has no more kingdom-of-G.o.d significance than the civil religion of Buddhism, Hinduism, or the ancient Roman Pantheon.

THE HARMFUL ILLUSION OF THE CIVIL RELIGION.

When we fail to distinguish between the quasi-Christian civil religion of America and the kingdom of G.o.d, two things happen.

First, American kingdom people lose their missionary zeal. Because we buy the myth that we live in a Christian nation, as defined by the civil religion, we don't live with the same missionary zeal we'd have if we lived, say, in a country where Buddhism or Hinduism was the civil religion. This is why American Christians so often define "missions" as sending people to other other countries-as though there was more missionary work to do countries-as though there was more missionary work to do there there than than here here.

I believe this sentiment is rooted in an illusion. If you peel back the facade of the civil religion, you find that America is about as pagan as any country we could ever send missionaries to. Despite what a majority of Americans say when asked by pollsters, we are arguably no less self-centered, unethical, or p.r.o.ne toward violence than most other cultures. We generally look no more like Jesus, dying on a cross out of love for the people who crucified him, than do people in other cultures, and thus are generally no closer to the kingdom of G.o.d than people in other cultures. The fact that we have a quasi-Christian civil religion doesn't help; if anything, it hurts precisely because it creates the illusion in the minds of kingdom people that we are closer to the example of Jesus than we actually are (cf. Matt. 21:31).

If we simply hold fast to the truth that the kingdom of G.o.d always looks like Jesus, we can see the irrelevance, if not harmfulness, of the quasi-Christian civil religion for the advancement of the kingdom of G.o.d. When a kingdom person realizes that the civil religion of America has no more relationship to the real kingdom of G.o.d than any other civil religion-that it's all just part of the religious trappings most versions of the kingdom of the world adopt-they are motivated to live as much as a missionary in America as they would if they were stationed in, say, China, Cambodia, or India. The only significant difference is that in at least one respect it's arguably harder harder to be a missionary in America, for here the majority think they're already Christian simply by virtue of living in a Christian nation. Their need for the true kingdom is concealed behind a civil surrogate of the kingdom. to be a missionary in America, for here the majority think they're already Christian simply by virtue of living in a Christian nation. Their need for the true kingdom is concealed behind a civil surrogate of the kingdom.7 THE DISTRACTION OF THE CIVIL RELIGION.

A second thing that happens when we fail to distinguish the civil religion of America from the kingdom of G.o.d is that we end up wasting precious time and resources defending and tweaking the civil religion-as though doing so had some kingdom value. We strive to keep prayer in the schools, fight for the right to have public prayer before football games, lobby to preserve the phrases "under G.o.d" in our Pledge of Allegiance and "in G.o.d we trust" on our coins, battle to hold the traditional civil meaning of marriage, and things of the sort-as though winning these fights somehow brings America closer to the kingdom of G.o.d. This, we think, is part of what it means to "take America back for G.o.d."

Now, you may or may not agree that preserving the civil religion in this way is good for the culture. Vote your conscience. But can we really believe that tweaking civil religion in these ways actually brings people closer to the kingdom of G.o.d, that it helps them become more like Jesus? For example, does anyone really think that allowing for a prayer before social functions is going to help students become kingdom people? Might not such prayer-and the political efforts to defend such prayer-actually be harmful to the kingdom inasmuch as it reinforces the shallow civil religious mindset that sees prayer primarily as a perfunctory religious activity? Might it not be better to teach our kids that true kingdom prayer has nothing to do with perfunctory social functions, that true kingdom prayer cannot be demanded or retracted by social laws and that their job as kingdom warriors is to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:17) whether the law allows for it to be publicly expressed or not?

In other words, rather than spending time and energy defending and tweaking the civil religion, might it not be in the best interest of the kingdom of G.o.d to distance distance ourselves from the civil religion? Couldn't one even go so far as to argue that it would be good for the kingdom of G.o.d if this civic brand of pseudo-Christianity died altogether? Isn't one of the primary problems we're up against in this nation the fact that Christianity has been trivialized by being a.s.sociated with civic functions? And aren't we actually reinforcing this trivialization by fighting so vigorously to preserve this pseudo-Christian veneer? Maybe Kierkegaard was right when he stated that the worst form of apostasy the Christian faith can undergo is to have it become simply an aspect of a culture. ourselves from the civil religion? Couldn't one even go so far as to argue that it would be good for the kingdom of G.o.d if this civic brand of pseudo-Christianity died altogether? Isn't one of the primary problems we're up against in this nation the fact that Christianity has been trivialized by being a.s.sociated with civic functions? And aren't we actually reinforcing this trivialization by fighting so vigorously to preserve this pseudo-Christian veneer? Maybe Kierkegaard was right when he stated that the worst form of apostasy the Christian faith can undergo is to have it become simply an aspect of a culture.8 Perhaps it would be a benefit to the advancement of this kingdom if America Perhaps it would be a benefit to the advancement of this kingdom if America looked looked as pagan as it actually is, if the word as pagan as it actually is, if the word G.o.d G.o.d wasn't so trivially sprinkled on our coins, our Pledge of Allegiance, our civic functions, and elsewhere. Then perhaps the word might come to mean something significant to people who genuinely hunger and thirst for the real thing! wasn't so trivially sprinkled on our coins, our Pledge of Allegiance, our civic functions, and elsewhere. Then perhaps the word might come to mean something significant to people who genuinely hunger and thirst for the real thing!

When the public stance of Christians is a.s.sociated with preserving and tweaking the civil religion, we reinforce the impression that Christianity is primarily about the civil religion, about engaging in social functions, answering a pollster a certain way, and perhaps performing "religious obligations" a couple times of year by going to church and giving a couple of dollars. Would it not be better if kingdom people spent their time and energy doing authentic kingdom things-that is, looking like Jesus looking like Jesus? Would it not be beneficial if we individually and corporately dedicated ourselves to serving others in Christlike love?

WHAT IF WE DID THE KINGDOM?.

What if the energy and resources used to preserve and tweak the civil religion was rather spent feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, befriending the drug addict, and visiting the prisoner? What if our focus was on sacrificing our resources to help inner-city schools and safety houses for battered women? What if our concern was to bridge the unG.o.dly racial gap in our country by developing friendships and collaborating in endeavors with people whose ethnicity is different than our own? What if instead of trying to defend our religious rights, Christians concerned themselves with siding with others whose rights are routinely trampled? What if instead of trying to legally make life more difficult for gays, we worried only about how we could affirm their unsurpa.s.sable worth in service to them?

In other words, what if we individually and collectively committed ourselves to the one thing that is needful-to replicating the loving sacrifice of Calvary to all people, at all times, in all places, regardless of their circ.u.mstances or merit? What if we just did did the kingdom? the kingdom?

This is far more difficult than merely protecting the civil religion, which perhaps partly explains why so many prefer focusing on the civil religion. Doing Doing the kingdom always requires that we bleed for others, and for just this reason, the kingdom always requires that we bleed for others, and for just this reason, doing doing the kingdom accomplishes something kingdom-of-the-world activity can never accomplish. It may not immediately adjust people's behavior, but this is not what it seeks to accomplish. Rather, it transforms people's hearts and therefore transforms society. the kingdom accomplishes something kingdom-of-the-world activity can never accomplish. It may not immediately adjust people's behavior, but this is not what it seeks to accomplish. Rather, it transforms people's hearts and therefore transforms society.

FORGETTING THE "POWER UNDER" OF PRAYER We have seen that buying into the myth of a Christian nation harms not only global missions but missions in America as well. A third damaging aspect concerns the effect the myth has on kingdom people in terms of what power they tend to trust. If we think that our nation is Christian-or at least close to being Christian-then it makes sense that we who take the Christian faith most seriously need to gain more of Caesar's "basically Christian" power to enforce a more "Christian" way of living. We would obviously never think this way if we were missionaries in, say, China. We succ.u.mb to this Constantinian temptation only because we mistakenly think that America, as opposed to China, is already "basically Christian."

As a result, many Americans place exaggerated confidence in the ability of Christians to influence society by political means rather than by distinctly kingdom-of-G.o.d means. What are distinctly kingdom-of-G.o.d means of influencing society? The answer, as always, is found by looking at Jesus.

Among other things, Jesus set an example for us to follow by being a person who consistently prayed (Matt. 26:36; Luke 5:16; 6:12; 9:28; 11:1). Not surprisingly, the New Testament reinforces this example by instructing kingdom citizens to be people of persistent prayer (Luke 6:28; 11:58; 18:16; Eph. 6:18; 1 Thess. 5:17; 1 Tim. 2:8; James 5:14). This is one means of influence we are to place our trust in, and so intercessory prayer-a distinctly kingdom-of-G.o.d form of social action-is one of our primary sacrificial acts of service to the world. As kingdom people, we have a unique authority and responsibility to affect what comes to pa.s.s by calling on G.o.d, and we are to use this authority in service to others.9 It's one of the primary ways we exercise "power under" others. It's one of the primary ways we exercise "power under" others.

Both the Old and the New Testaments emphasize the power and urgency of prayer. In fact, dozens of times the Bible depicts the fate of a nation as hanging in the balance not on what society did or on what politicians did, but on whether or not the people of G.o.d prayed prayed.

To give one example, the Lord told Ezekiel that because the leaders of Israel were acting unjustly, oppressing "the poor and needy," he was going to bring judgment on the land (Ezek. 22:29). Yet he "sought for anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach...on behalf of the land"-someone who would pray-in which case he "would not destroy it." Unfortunately, the Lord "found no one." "Therefore," he told Ezekiel, "I have poured out my indignation upon them" (Ezek. 22:3031).

What a revealing pa.s.sage! Despite its unjust practices, the land would have been spared had the Lord found an intercessor. A number of times in Scripture the prayer of one or more people altered G.o.d's plan and thus altered the course of history (e.g., Ex. 32:1014; Deut. 9:1329; 1 Kings 21:2129).10 Dare we accept the obvious implications of this pa.s.sage in Ezekiel? Dare we believe that the primary thing that may affect what happens in and to a nation is not what politicians do behind closed doors, but what kingdom people do-or don't do-on their knees in their prayer closets (Matt. 6:6)? Dare we accept that it's not primarily the righteousness or sinfulness of a nation that determines whether G.o.d blesses or curses it, but the presence or absence of prayer on the part of those who call themselves his people?

When the 9/11 attacks occurred, a number of evangelical spokespeople pointed the finger at the ACLU, gay-rights lobbyists, and other typical evangelical scapegoats-despite the New Testament's repeated insistence that we are not to judge others (Matt. 7:15; Rom. 2:13; 14:23, 1013; James 4:1012). Because of the sin of these people, it was suggested, G.o.d's "hand of protection" had been lifted off our nation.

According to Jesus, however, the whole business of trying to discern the hand of G.o.d in catastrophic events-just as a psychic might read tea leaves-is misguided (Luke 13:15). But blaming others for tragic events is even worse! If we took Ezekiel 22 seriously, our inclination would not be to judge others, but to a.s.sume responsibility ourselves. Whatever sin might exist in the ACLU, among gay-rights lobbyists, and others, we who are citizens of the kingdom of G.o.d must a.s.sume it to be a mere dust particle compared to the tree trunk of sin that protrudes out of our own eyes (Matt. 7:15). And whatever else our tree trunk includes, it includes the sin of not praying enough for others and for our nation. Were the people of G.o.d judging less and praying more, who knows but that this tragedy might have been lessened or avoided altogether? Who knows?

Why do we not place more trust in the power of prayer to affect the world? One primary reason, I think, is our national myth. Because we think our nation is "basically Christian," we tend to trust Caesar's "basically Christian" power more than Christ's. We therefore allow ourselves to be sucked into the "power over" game of politics, thinking that if only we can pa.s.s certain laws and enact certain policies, the Christian status of our nation will be improved. While we, of course, tip our hat to the need for prayer, our actions belie the fact that we generally (there are are marvelous exceptions!) place more confidence in our individual and corporate political activity than we do in the power of prayer. marvelous exceptions!) place more confidence in our individual and corporate political activity than we do in the power of prayer.

As U.S. citizens we have a civil right to influence the political system. But in following our consciences, we must never forget where our real real power-our distinctly kingdom power-lies. It's not in "power over" but in "power under." It's not the power of your vote-every citizen of a democratic country has this; it's the power of your kingdom heart expressed on your knees in loving service to the world. power-our distinctly kingdom power-lies. It's not in "power over" but in "power under." It's not the power of your vote-every citizen of a democratic country has this; it's the power of your kingdom heart expressed on your knees in loving service to the world.

We will only be motivated to live this out consistently if we understand that the power of Caesar is not and never can be a distinctly kingdom-of-G.o.d power. Hence, the urgency for us to exercise the unique kingdom power of prayer is the same for kingdom people in America as it is for those in North Vietnam, China, or India. The kingdom of G.o.d always looks like Jesus wherever and whenever it appears.

SOCIAL ACTIVISM JESUS STYLE.

The myth that America is a Christian nation causes us to minimize a second, distinctly kingdom way of influencing society. Many are so conditioned by the "power over" mindset of the world that they can't even envision an alternative way of affecting society and politics other than by playing the political game. Some thus conclude that, since Jesus didn't try to overhaul the political systems of his day by political means, the Christian faith must be reduced to private piety without any social relevance. This is an especially prevalent a.s.sumption among upper-middle-cla.s.s, white evangelicals who often don't notice how the white-dominated power structures of society privilege them while oppressing others. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth!

As John Howard Yoder has brilliantly shown in his book The Politics of Jesus The Politics of Jesus, everything about Jesus' ministry was socially and politically relevant.11 Precisely because he did not allow the society or the politics of his day to define his ministry, he positioned himself to make a revolutionary prophetic comment, and ultimately have revolutionary impact on the society and politics of his day. Precisely because he did not allow the society or the politics of his day to define his ministry, he positioned himself to make a revolutionary prophetic comment, and ultimately have revolutionary impact on the society and politics of his day.

Jesus didn't buy into the limited options the culture placed before him. He rather exposed ugly injustices in all kingdom-of-the-world options by offering a radically distinct alternative. It is a kingdom that resists the demonic pull toward "power over" violence that characterizes all versions of the kingdom of the world. It is, therefore, a kingdom that, through self-sacrifice, unmasks the ugly injustice and violence of all versions of the kingdom of the world and the demonic powers that fuel them. It is a kingdom that doesn't wage war "against flesh and blood" but instead fights against "rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness" (Eph. 6:12) that hold all people, oppressor and oppressed, in bondage.12 It is a beautiful kingdom that is not so much spoken as it is displayed in loving action. It is a beautiful kingdom that is not so much spoken as it is displayed in loving action.

For example, Jesus never entered into the fray of particular debates about the status of women in society. He rather exposed the ugliness of patriarchalism by the countercultural way he treated women. Ignoring negative consequences for his reputation-and ultimately for his life-Jesus befriended them and gave them a culturally unprecedented dignity. In a society in which women were generally understood to be the property of men and in which women had few rights, Jesus' actions were r