The Myth Of A Christian Nation Part 4

The same may be said of Jesus' treatment of social outcasts. His beautiful service to lepers, the blind, the demonized, the poor, prost.i.tutes, and tax collectors screamed volumes about the inhumanity of various first-century social taboos and laws. While the mustard seed of the kingdom continues to grow slowly, Jesus' life established that in the kingdom community no distinction would be made on the basis of a person's social, economic, moral, or even religious standing. As such, it provides a beautiful alternative to the sociopolitical structures of the world and exposes the injustices of these structures in the process.

Along these same lines, Jesus exposed the inhumanity of certain religious rules (which in first-century Judaism had political force) by healing and feeding people on the Sabbath. And he exposed the evil of racial prejudice by fellowshipping with Samaritans and Gentiles and placing them in praiseworthy positions in his teachings (e.g., Luke 10:2937; 17:1119; John 4:439; cf. Matt. 8:510). While the mustard seed grows slowly, Jesus' life established that in the kingdom community people would be placed above rules and walls of racism would be torn down. As such, Jesus' kingdom provides a beautiful alternative to the socioreligious structures of the world and exposes the inhumanity and racist dimension of these structures in the process.

Finally, and most fundamentally, Jesus exposed the barbarism of the Roman government, and ultimately the barbarism of all "power over" kingdoms, by allowing himself to be crucified by them. Instead of using the power available to him to preserve his life, he exercised the power of love by giving his life for the very people who were taking it. While the mustard seed continues to grow slowly, Jesus' death established that the kingdom community would not be characterized by "power over" but by "power under." It would be a community where people have the same att.i.tude as Jesus and thus place other people's interests above their own (Phil. 2:45; cf. Rom. 15:12; Gal. 6:2; James 2:1516; 1 John 3:1418). It would be a community that looked like him, for it would be a community of people who "live in love, as Christ loved [them] and gave himself up for [them]" (Eph. 5:2). As such, Jesus' community provides a beautiful alternative to the "power over" structure of the world and exposes the self-centered ugliness of these structures in the process.

This is what we are called to be: a community characterized by radical, revolutionary, Calvary-quality love; a community that manifests the love of the triune G.o.d (John 17:2126); a community that strives for justice not by conquering but by being willing to suffer; a community that G.o.d uses to transform the world by providing it with an alternative to its own self-centered, violent way of existing. How socially and politically revolutionary it would be if his disciples lived up to their calling! is what we are called to be: a community characterized by radical, revolutionary, Calvary-quality love; a community that manifests the love of the triune G.o.d (John 17:2126); a community that strives for justice not by conquering but by being willing to suffer; a community that G.o.d uses to transform the world by providing it with an alternative to its own self-centered, violent way of existing. How socially and politically revolutionary it would be if his disciples lived up to their calling!

AN EXAMPLE OF THE KINGDOM IN ACTION.

A small ill.u.s.tration of how socially relevant and unique the kingdom of G.o.d in action can be may be helpful. A church I know committed itself to fixing up a dilapidated inner-city school. Government funding in their region had been drastically cut, and this church appropriately saw this as a marvelous kingdom opportunity. As they planned for and prayed about this project, word seeped out, and they began getting calls from local businesses and neighbors who wanted to help in the project, for kingdom beauty always attracts good-hearted people. Thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of food and materials for the workers were donated, and dozens of people from businesses and the surrounding neighborhood ended up joining the church in its work. With hundreds of people sacrificing time and energy, it took only ten hours for this school to undergo an "extreme makeover."

The kids who attended the school, the teachers who taught there, and the neighbors and businesses who partic.i.p.ated in or witnessed this renovation were deeply impacted. A fragmented, economically disadvantaged community was drawn together, resulting in a school building they could all take pride in. A long-term relationship developed between this school and the church, with people from the church volunteering in and praying for the school on a regular basis. Even more fundamentally, people saw Calvary-quality love in action, and some of them began to wonder, "Why would these people do this for us?" This This is the question the church ought to be continually raising in people's minds by its radical service to the world. is the question the church ought to be continually raising in people's minds by its radical service to the world.13 Not only this, but the action caught the attention of certain people in the government. The beauty of this act called public attention to an ugly aspect of the region's social and political structure and forced the question, Why is there significant disparity between the conditions of and resources available to predominately white suburban schools, on the one hand, and predominately nonwhite, inner-city schools on the other? It poignantly raised the question of whether the officials who made the decision to cut funding in the first place really understood the negative impact their decision would make on these already disadvantaged students. The pressure put on government when the church lives in love, as Christ loved us and gave his life for us, must not be minimized.

JUST DO DO THE KINGDOM THE KINGDOM.

Now, had that church decided to play the "power over" game of kingdom-of-the-world politics, it's unlikely the results would have been so positive. Had this church accepted the limited options given them by the kingdom of the world, the congregation would likely have divided between those who believe that the Republican economic approach is best and those who think the Democratic economic approach is best. Some might have sincerely thought that, given the totality of factors affecting the state's budget, cutting school funding was a necessary evil, while others might have sincerely concluded it was done only because the government immorally privileges the rich and powerful.

It's even possible the competing sides would have followed the common worldly practice of questioning the character of the opposing side. "If you really really cared about these hurting kids," I can hear someone say, "you'd support the Democratic party." "If cared about these hurting kids," I can hear someone say, "you'd support the Democratic party." "If you you really cared about helping these hurting kids," others may have responded, "you'd support the Republican party." And at that point there would be little hope of the "Matthews" and the "Simons" in this congregation and surrounding community working together to do the distinctly kingdom thing for this inner-city school. really cared about helping these hurting kids," others may have responded, "you'd support the Republican party." And at that point there would be little hope of the "Matthews" and the "Simons" in this congregation and surrounding community working together to do the distinctly kingdom thing for this inner-city school.

Fortunately, instead of trying to arrive at the "right" kingdom-of the-world approach to the problem this school faced, the church just decided to do do the kingdom. Why should it rely on government-or any particular political party within government-to do the right thing? Why should the church confine itself to the limited options given by the political machinery of the culture? Instead of trusting "power over," why not trust "power under"? When this church did so, they discovered that the beauty of Calvary has a power to effect profound change on an individual, social, and political level. the kingdom. Why should it rely on government-or any particular political party within government-to do the right thing? Why should the church confine itself to the limited options given by the political machinery of the culture? Instead of trusting "power over," why not trust "power under"? When this church did so, they discovered that the beauty of Calvary has a power to effect profound change on an individual, social, and political level.

The kingdom-of-G.o.d approach has more power than the ability to Christianize one of the limited package deals given by competing political groups. Providing a beautiful, Calvary-like alternative attracts people, unifies them, and calls attention to issues too easily ignored by the power structures of the world. It thereby impacts the social structures even while it advances the kingdom of G.o.d in the world.

AGAIN, WHAT IF WE JUST DID THE KINGDOM?.

There are, thankfully, many beautiful example of congregations and organizations living out their radical kingdom lifestyle in America. But what would happen if kingdom people in general made it their sole concern to live like this-"in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us"? What if we integrated this att.i.tude into every area of our life and society?

Imagine, for example, what would happen if white kingdom people chose to reverse the white dominance of American culture and, in a variety of ways, placed themselves in service to nonwhites? What if white Christians entered into solidarity with nonwhites and made the struggles of nonwhites their own? What if they used their position of privilege not for their own gain but to help bring nonwhites up to their status? What if kingdom people didn't make themselves dependent on government to resolve racial tensions, but rather a.s.sumed responsibility to eradicate centuries of cultural racism in this country in their own lives, in the life of their own congregations, and in the lives of those in their community? What would happen if Christian individuals and entire congregations were intentional in proclaiming-with their lives-that a central reason Jesus died was to reverse Babel (Gen. 11) and to tear down walls of hostility between people (Eph. 2:1416)?

Such Calvary-like activity would put on display a kingdom love and kingdom unity the world is not capable of and would, for this reason, advance the kingdom of G.o.d and attract people to Jesus Christ (John 17:2026). The "power under" beauty of the kingdom would turn a spotlight on the ugly racism of American culture that is so easy for whites and, therefore, the white-dominated power structures to ignore. It would advance the kingdom of G.o.d even while it impacts the sociopolitical structures.

Of course, as American citizens, we can use our access to government to make the kingdom of the world as just as possible. How to best do this amid the ambiguity of the limited options presented by this version of the kingdom of the world is a difficult and controversial topic. But as kingdom-of-G.o.d citizens, we need not, and must not, wait for these issues to be resolved before we act. Our trust, time, energy, and resources must not be centered on improving government but on living out the revolutionary kingdom of Jesus Christ in every way, shape, and form. It must be centered on praying and bleeding for others; it must be centered on coming under others, especially (following Jesus' example) those who suffer at the hands of the kingdom of the world.

When we individually and corporately bleed for others, the kingdom of G.o.d is advanced, and we end up having an impact on individuals and on the sociopolitical systems we'd never have if we merely played the kingdom-of-the-world game on its own terms. Resisting the temptation for quick, "power over" solutions and choosing the more sacrificial, discrete "power under" approach of Jesus is difficult. But it alone has the power to unify the church, advance the kingdom, transform hearts, and thereby move society closer to the reign of G.o.d.

CHAPTER 7.

WHEN CHIEF SINNERS BECOME MORAL GUARDIANS.

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," while the log is in your own eye?

MATTHEW 7:1, 34 WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE HARM THAT THE MYTH OF A CHRISTIAN NATION does to global missions, local missions, and the church's commitment to trust "power under" rather than "power over." Now we need to discuss a fourth damaging consequence.

As we've seen, when people who are serious about their Christian faith buy into the myth that America is a Christian nation, they can easily conclude that it is their job to keep America as Christian as possible, if not restore America back to its supposed Christian heritage. As a result, they may intentionally or unintentionally position themselves as moral guardians of society, coming to believe it is their job to preserve and promote moral issues-and fix moral problems. They sometimes believe themselves to be the moral conscience of the nation, keeping society from cutting the tether to its Christian heritage and spinning out of control. In their minds, it makes sense to play the role of moral guardian-after all, they know the Scripture and, thus, know G.o.d's will for society better than others.

While this view has been a basic a.s.sumption of a large portion of the American church throughout our history, I will argue that it is fundamentally misguided, even harmful to the advancement of the kingdom of G.o.d.

I believe there are at least five fundamental problems with this perspective.

THE EXAMPLE OF JESUS.

First, as people called to mimic Jesus in every area of our lives, we should find it significant that Jesus never a.s.sumed the position of moral guardian over any individual, let alone over the culture at large. In his ministry, he never once inquired into a person's moral status. (In a moment we'll discuss his engagement with Jewish religious authorities.) While he certainly dealt with some disreputable people (e.g., John 4:529), never once did he judge them (John 8:15) or try to control their behavior. As the one sinless person in history, he was the only one who could have justifiably a.s.sumed a position of moral superiority over others; unlike the rest of us, he didn't have tree trunks sticking out of his own eyes (Matt. 7:15)! But remarkably, he never adopted this position.

Why didn't the sinless Jesus point out, condemn, and try to control people's morality? It certainly wasn't because people in his day were less sinful than they are today. By most reckonings, morality in Jesus' day was a good bit worse than it is today. While we may get upset over a president having a s.e.xual liaison with a young intern, for example, Roman rulers routinely engaged in outrageous s.e.xual escapades. Yet, while Jesus certainly didn't condone such behavior, we have no record of him so much as commenting on it. His purpose, apparently, was not to guard, promote, or fix public morality.

It is true that Jesus, as a Jewish prophet, publicly confronted the Jewish religious leadership for their hypocrisy in enslaving people in a shallow, legalistic religious system and using religion for their own monetary and social gain (Matt. 21:1213; 23:1336). But it's important to understand that this sort of activity fell in line with a long prophetic tradition among Jews, and that it was accepted as part of the Jewish, theocratic, covenantal self-understanding. A Jewish prophet was supposed to hold Jewish religious and political leaders accountable, but neither Jesus nor any other Jewish prophet tried to hold non-Jewish leaders accountable. Jesus' confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders is more comparable to a Catholic cardinal reprimanding parish priests for abusing their flock than it is Christians trying to regulate the morality of their non-Christian culture.

The apostle Paul played a similar role within his congregations (e.g., 1 Cor. 5) and encouraged other pastors to do the same (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2). In appropriate ecclesial contexts such as these-contexts in which people have entered into a covenantal relationship with a spiritual leader-confronting damaging behavior is sometimes necessary-and expected. Because the people being confronted have willingly placed themselves under the authority of the one doing the confronting, it is likely to be received as an expression of love and, thus, have positive results. Outside of such covenantal relationships, however, such confrontations would not likely be received as loving and not likely be beneficial. Indeed, such confrontations would be inappropriate, falling into the category of judgmentally looking for dust particles in people's eyes when they haven't invited you to do so (Matt. 7:13). This is why Paul explicitly said he had no business-and no interest in-judging those outside the church in the broader Corinthian community (1 Cor. 5:12). And note that he makes this statement in the very same context in which he reprimands his congregation for condoning outrageous sinful behavior within the body of Christ (1 Cor. 5:1213).1 There is a place, then, for leaders to confront appropriately those who follow them and even for believers to play a role in confronting other believers (Matt. 18:1518; Luke 17:3). But everything hangs on the context. First-century Christians met frequently-often daily-in each other's houses (Acts 2:46; Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. v. 2; 2 John 10; cf. Acts 8:3; 12:12). In a world that was often hostile toward them, they ate together, worshiped together, studied together, shared resources with one another, and lived life together in small house churches. In other words, they lived in intimate, covenantal relationships with one another. All the "one another's" in the New Testament presuppose this house-church context, and in covenantal contexts such as this-contexts in which everybody knows one another and knows they are loved by the others-confrontation is likely to be received as loving rather than as judgmental and is more likely to be beneficial to the person being confronted for just this reason.2 Outside of such contexts, however, such confrontations are inappropriate. They are, at best, rude-and love is never rude (1 Cor. 13:5). Hence, while Jesus played a religious, covenantal role in confronting the Pharisees and cleansing the temple, he never acted like this in his broader day-to-day ministry. Here, Jesus just met needs, no questions asked, and this this is to be our model for ministry to the world at large. is to be our model for ministry to the world at large.

Jesus encountered numerous demonized people but never once inquired what they might have done to come under such bondage. He encountered scores of afflicted people, but consistently resisted the age-old temptation to look for a moral explanation for their affliction (John 9:15; cf. Luke 13:15). He never performed a "background check" on those he served or those who followed him. When people were hungry, he fed them. When a wedding host ran out of wine, he made more wine. When prost.i.tutes, tax collectors, and others judged to be "the worst" in society followed him around, he made himself available for friendship, no questions asked-and with no concern for his own reputation (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34; cf. Mark 2:1516). The agenda he lived by, and the agenda he gave his disciples to live by, was to demonstrate the kingdom by serving people and then announcing that the kingdom had come (e.g., Luke 10:59).

TWO POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS?.

Despite this clear pattern, some try to justify their self-appointed role as society's moral guardians by citing Jesus' words to the woman caught in the act of adultery: "Go and sin no more" (John 8:11 KJV). Shouldn't we be standing up for social morality by telling people they should stop sinning?

We need to remember that it's one thing for a sinless person like Jesus to say "sin no more" and quite another for people like us-with tree trunks protruding out of our eyes-to say the same thing. But even more crucially, remember that the central point of this pa.s.sage is that none of the woman's accusers was in a position to judge her-because they were as much sinners as she. Jesus invited whoever was without sin to cast the first stone-the prescribed punishment for adultery-but no one met this requirement (John 8:69). Meanwhile, the only one who could have justifiably cast the stone refused to. Jesus did not condemn this woman but rather told her to henceforth abstain from this sinful-and obviously dangerous-activity. One lesson of the pa.s.sage is this: if you want to judge someone else, you first have to be sinless. Of course, if you are sinless, like Jesus, you won't have any inclination to do so.

Another episode from John is sometimes used to justify Christians a.s.suming moral guardianship over others. Jesus pointed out to the Samaritan woman he met at the well that she had had five husbands and was now living with a man who was not her husband (John 4:1618).

True enough, but it's again important to look at the context. Jesus didn't mention this information to confront, judge, or fix this woman. Though he alludes to her past, he offers no commentary on it, and having alluded to it, he drops it as irrelevant to his primary concern. The only reason he let this woman know that he was aware of her unsavory past was to convince her that he was the Messiah, and that if this woman would "drink" the water he had to offer she would never thirst again. He was letting this woman know that he knew everything about her past-and yet the offer of "life" was still on the table, no questions asked! This is why the woman went back to her town joyfully proclaiming that she'd met a man who knew everything about her-including her sin (John 4:29). Had there been any shame or judgment involved, meeting a man who knew everything about her would hardly have been a joyful encounter.

We don't know what became of this woman. Was she convicted of her sin? Did she move out of the house of the man she was living with? Did she marry him? Did she finally get her moral act together? We don't know, for the point of the story is not how Jesus fixes people's moral lives but how he loves people and offers them everlasting life as they are, regardless of their moral lives. Whatever transforming impact G.o.d's love has on people, it has incredible power because it is given before-and apart from-the transformation itself.

This is how we are called to love. We are to be the shadow that Jesus casts-to imitate G.o.d by "living in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (Eph. 5:2). We are to demonstrate the kingdom by Calvary-quality acts of service and then proclaim that the domain in which G.o.d is king has come. We are to see a need and meet it-no questions asked. We are to love even our enemies with an unconditional, nonjudgmental love, and, thereby, offer everlasting life to all who are thirsty. To do this means we must refrain from doing what Jesus never did: namely, positioning ourselves as wiser, morally superior guardians and "fixers" of others. Moral guardianship is what the Pharisees did-not Jesus. is how we are called to love. We are to be the shadow that Jesus casts-to imitate G.o.d by "living in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (Eph. 5:2). We are to demonstrate the kingdom by Calvary-quality acts of service and then proclaim that the domain in which G.o.d is king has come. We are to see a need and meet it-no questions asked. We are to love even our enemies with an unconditional, nonjudgmental love, and, thereby, offer everlasting life to all who are thirsty. To do this means we must refrain from doing what Jesus never did: namely, positioning ourselves as wiser, morally superior guardians and "fixers" of others. Moral guardianship is what the Pharisees did-not Jesus.

THOU SHALL NOT JUDGE.

Second, when we a.s.sume the role of moral guardians of the culture, we invariably position ourselves as judges over others. Not only is there no precedent for this in the life of Jesus, but Scripture explicitly and repeatedly forbids us to judge others.

For example, immediately after telling us (twice) to love our enemies (Luke 6:27, 35), Jesus says, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned" (Luke 6:37). Jesus contrasts love and judgment as ant.i.thetical activities; we can't do both at the same time. This is why the original sin of the Bible is depicted as eating from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22).3 Our fundamental job is to love like G.o.d loves, not to pretend that we know what only G.o.d knows. For unlike G.o.d, we can't do the former so long as we're trying to do the latter. Our fundamental job is to love like G.o.d loves, not to pretend that we know what only G.o.d knows. For unlike G.o.d, we can't do the former so long as we're trying to do the latter.

So too Paul says that when we judge others we are pa.s.sing judgment on ourselves, for we are as guilty as any we would care to judge (Rom. 2:1). James says that when we judge we are acting like G.o.d himself. "There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy," he says. "So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:12).

This applies especially to the way Christians view those yet outside the kingdom community. As we noted above, while Paul acknowledges a role Christian leaders must play in discerning and correcting behavior within their congregations, he denied he had any right, ability, or interest in judging "those outside [the church]" (1 Cor. 5:12). Like Jesus, no part of Paul's kingdom ministry involved trying to tweak the morality of the culture at large. Like Jesus, his only concern was that kingdom people consistently live out the new life they have within the kingdom, for only when they do this will they offer the culture at large a beautiful, kingdom alternative to their present, sinful, self-centered, and, ultimately, destructive way of living.

AN UGLY REPUTATION.

Third, and closely related to this, when the church sets itself up as the moral police of the culture, we earn the reputation of being self-righteous judgers rather than loving, self-sacrificial servants-the one reputation we are called to have. While tax collectors and prost.i.tutes gravitated to Jesus because of his magnetic kingdom love, these sorts of sinners steer clear of the church, just as they did the Pharisees, and for the exact same reasons: they do not experience unconditional love and acceptance in our midst-they experience judgment.

The brutal fact is that we Christians are not generally known for our love-for the simple reason that we, like the Pharisees of old, generally judge more than we love. Ask any random sampling of pagans in America what first comes to their mind when you say the words evangelical evangelical or or born again born again Christian, and chances are close to zero that anything like "outrageous, sacrificial love" will be the first thing out of their mouths. Ask them to list the first ten things that come into their mind, and chances are still close to zero that "outrageous, sacrificial love" will be on any of their lists. Indeed, a recent survey demonstrated that, when asked to rank people groups in terms of their respectability, "evangelical Christians" were ranked one notch above the bottom, just above prost.i.tutes. Christian, and chances are close to zero that anything like "outrageous, sacrificial love" will be the first thing out of their mouths. Ask them to list the first ten things that come into their mind, and chances are still close to zero that "outrageous, sacrificial love" will be on any of their lists. Indeed, a recent survey demonstrated that, when asked to rank people groups in terms of their respectability, "evangelical Christians" were ranked one notch above the bottom, just above prost.i.tutes.4 This is nothing short of catastrophic! Love is the all-or-nothing of the kingdom of G.o.d. Above all Above all we are to love (Col. 3:14; 1 Peter 4:8). we are to love (Col. 3:14; 1 Peter 4:8). Everything Everything we do is to be done in love and, thus, communicate love (1 Cor. 16:14). We are to imitate G.o.d by living in Christlike love (Eph. 5:12), and if we do this, we fulfill the whole law (Matt. 22:3740; Rom. 13:810). If we lack this, everything else we do is devoid of kingdom value, however impressive it might otherwise be (1 Cor. 13:13). Not only this, but G.o.d has leveraged the expansion of his kingdom on the church loving like Christ loves (John 13:35; 17:2026). By G.o.d's own design, the corporate "body of Christ" is to grow as the corporate body does exactly what the incarnate body of Christ did-dying for those who crucified him. we do is to be done in love and, thus, communicate love (1 Cor. 16:14). We are to imitate G.o.d by living in Christlike love (Eph. 5:12), and if we do this, we fulfill the whole law (Matt. 22:3740; Rom. 13:810). If we lack this, everything else we do is devoid of kingdom value, however impressive it might otherwise be (1 Cor. 13:13). Not only this, but G.o.d has leveraged the expansion of his kingdom on the church loving like Christ loves (John 13:35; 17:2026). By G.o.d's own design, the corporate "body of Christ" is to grow as the corporate body does exactly what the incarnate body of Christ did-dying for those who crucified him.

For the church to lack love is for the church to lack everything everything. No heresy could conceivably be worse!

Despite our widespread reputation, of course, we evangelical Christians often insist that we are are loving; it's just that the world is so sinful they can't see it-or so we tell ourselves. loving; it's just that the world is so sinful they can't see it-or so we tell ourselves. They They don't understand what "true love" is. That att.i.tude is frankly as arrogant as it is tragic. People in the first century were not less sinful than people in the twenty-first, yet G.o.d expected to win first-century people by the sheer beauty of Christ's love shining on Calvary and radiating through his corporate body. Why think anything has changed? If contemporary people don't see in us what ancient people saw in Christ, it can only be because the love that was present in Christ don't understand what "true love" is. That att.i.tude is frankly as arrogant as it is tragic. People in the first century were not less sinful than people in the twenty-first, yet G.o.d expected to win first-century people by the sheer beauty of Christ's love shining on Calvary and radiating through his corporate body. Why think anything has changed? If contemporary people don't see in us what ancient people saw in Christ, it can only be because the love that was present in Christ isn't isn't present in us. And if they see in us what they saw in ancient Pharisees, it can only be because the self-righteousness found in the Pharisees present in us. And if they see in us what they saw in ancient Pharisees, it can only be because the self-righteousness found in the Pharisees is is found in us. found in us.

Our comical insistence that we are are loving, despite our reputation, is a bit like a man insisting he's a perfectly loving husband when his wife, kids, and all who know him insist he's an unloving, self-righteous jerk. If he persists in his self-serving opinion of himself, insisting that his wife, kids, and all who know him don't understand what "true love" is, it simply confirms the perspective these others have of him. This, I submit, is precisely the position much of the evangelical church of America is in. Until the culture at large instinctively identifies us as loving, humble servants, and until the tax collectors and prost.i.tutes of our day are beating down our doors to hang out with us as they did with Jesus, we have every reason to accept our culture's judgment of us as correct. We are indeed more pharisaic than we are Christlike. loving, despite our reputation, is a bit like a man insisting he's a perfectly loving husband when his wife, kids, and all who know him insist he's an unloving, self-righteous jerk. If he persists in his self-serving opinion of himself, insisting that his wife, kids, and all who know him don't understand what "true love" is, it simply confirms the perspective these others have of him. This, I submit, is precisely the position much of the evangelical church of America is in. Until the culture at large instinctively identifies us as loving, humble servants, and until the tax collectors and prost.i.tutes of our day are beating down our doors to hang out with us as they did with Jesus, we have every reason to accept our culture's judgment of us as correct. We are indeed more pharisaic than we are Christlike.

If we would simply internalize Jesus' teaching that we are to consider our own sin to be tree trunks in our eyes and other people's sin-whatever it is-to be a mere dust particle, we would quickly become known not as self-righteous judgers but as the most humble, self-effacing people on the planet. Paul's cry will be our cry: "We are the worst of sinners" (see 1 Tim. 1:15). If we would combine this humility with a resolve to simply love as Jesus loved-love as we have been loved by Christ-we would become known as a people who make no claim for themselves, but who simply live to serve others. We are slaves of Jesus Christ (Eph. 6:6); we are slaves to a love that compels us (2 Cor. 5:14). And because of this, we are humble servants of humanity.

While the ugliness of self-serving, judgmental religion pushes people away from the kingdom, the beauty of humble, Calvary-quality love pulls them in. If we lived in love as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, we would in time possibly find tax collectors and prost.i.tutes hanging out with us, just as they did Jesus. For only in a kingdom context such as this can they experience an unconditional love, worth, and acceptance they can't find anywhere else.

THE HYPOCRISY OF OUR JUDGMENT.

Fourth, when people a.s.sume the position of moral guardians of the culture, they invite-they earn earn!-the charge of hypocrisy. For all judgment, save the judgment of the omniscient and holy G.o.d, involves hypocrisy. Whenever we "eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"-that is, whenever we find some element of worth, significance, and purpose in contrasting ourselves as "good" with others we deem "evil"-we do so in a self-serving and selective manner. We always bend the tree, as it were, to our own advantage and, as a result, we do the exact opposite of what Jesus taught us to do. Instead of seeing our own sins as worse than others, we invariably set up a list of sins in which our our sins are deemed minor while sins are deemed minor while other people's other people's sins are deemed major. We may have dust particles in our eyes, we reason, but at least we don't have tree trunks like " sins are deemed major. We may have dust particles in our eyes, we reason, but at least we don't have tree trunks like "those people." Unlike the tax collector who made no moral claims for himself, we thank the Lord we are not like other people just as the Pharisee did (Luke 18:914). people." Unlike the tax collector who made no moral claims for himself, we thank the Lord we are not like other people just as the Pharisee did (Luke 18:914).

Our grading of sins has nothing to do with Scripture, of course, for Scripture not only has no such graded list of sins; it specifically teaches against such a notion. A major point of Jesus' teaching was to lop us all off at the knees on the sin issue. As it concerns our standing before G.o.d, the person who insults someone once is in as dire a spot as the serial killer (Matt. 5:2122). No, our graded sin lists have nothing to do with Scripture but are rather rooted in a fallen but primal need to feel secure in our own righteousness. However imperfect we may be, we want to believe that we are not as bad as others.

We feed our self-righteousness with this illusory contrast by ascribing ourselves worth at the expense of others. But "the others" we feed off of see the self-serving hypocrisy of the self-righteous and self-serving exercise, even if we don't.

To ill.u.s.trate, more than a few have noticed the comic irony in the fact that the group most vocal about "the sanct.i.ty of marriage," namely evangelical Christians, happens to be the group with the highest number of divorces in the United States, which itself has the highest divorce rate in the world!5 Numerous explanations have been offered by Christians to minimize this embarra.s.sment, but none of them are convincing-or even relevant. Whatever our excuses, outsiders legitimately wonder, "If evangelicals want to enforce by law the 'the sanct.i.ty of marriage,' why don't they try to outlaw divorce and remarriage? Better yet, why don't they stop worrying about laws to regulate Numerous explanations have been offered by Christians to minimize this embarra.s.sment, but none of them are convincing-or even relevant. Whatever our excuses, outsiders legitimately wonder, "If evangelicals want to enforce by law the 'the sanct.i.ty of marriage,' why don't they try to outlaw divorce and remarriage? Better yet, why don't they stop worrying about laws to regulate others' others' behavior and spend their time and energy sanctifying their behavior and spend their time and energy sanctifying their own own marriages?" marriages?"

Do evangelicals fear gay marriage in particular because the Bible is much more clear about the wrongfulness of gay marriage than it is about the wrongfulness of divorce and remarriage? No, for the Bible actually says a good deal more against divorce and remarriage than it does against monogamous gay relationships. Do they go after this particular sin because the research shows that gay marriage is more damaging to society than divorce and remarriage? It seems not, for while one might grant that neither is ideal, there's no clear evidence that the former is socially more harmful than the latter-especially given the fact that divorce and remarriage is far more widespread than gay marriage. But in any case, this point is completely irrelevant since the present issue isn't over gay unions unions. The issue is only over whether these unions should be called "marriages." To the best of my knowledge, no one has shown that the social welfare of our nation is significantly harmed by what monogamous gay unions are called called.

Why then are so many evangelicals publicly obsessed with cracking down on this particular sin? There are undoubtedly a number of reasons, not least of which is that the loss of the traditional definition of marriage is a poignantly symbolic indication that the quasi-Christian civil religion of America is on the wane. And as we've said, many evangelicals believe that preserving and recovering this civil religion is their central kingdom duty. Whatever the reasons, however, outsiders have the impression that evangelicals go after this sin because it's one they don't generally have.

We evangelicals may be divorced and remarried several times; we may be as greedy and as unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as p.r.o.ne to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others in our culture; we may be more self-righteous and as rude as others in our culture-we may even lack love more than others in the culture. These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we're not gay gay!

So despite the paucity of references to h.o.m.os.e.xuality relative to the sins we minimize or ignore, and despite empirical evidence that some of the sins we minimize are far more harmful to people and to society than this sin (for instance, greed and gluttony arguably kill millions!), this this is the sin evangelicals as a group have decided to take a public stand on. Why? Because by drawing a line in the sand on this point we can feel that we're doing something righteous. We're standing up for truth and G.o.dliness; we're defending "G.o.d and country"; we're playing the role of moral guardian that (we believe) G.o.d has called us to play. is the sin evangelicals as a group have decided to take a public stand on. Why? Because by drawing a line in the sand on this point we can feel that we're doing something righteous. We're standing up for truth and G.o.dliness; we're defending "G.o.d and country"; we're playing the role of moral guardian that (we believe) G.o.d has called us to play.6 Tragically, the self-serving and hypocritical nature of this moral posturing is apparent to nearly everyone-except those who do the posturing. And just as tragically, it causes mult.i.tudes to want nothing to do with the good news we have to offer. While the church was supposed to be the central means by which people became convinced that Jesus is for real, activity like this has made the church into the central reason many are convinced he's not not for real. If I had ten dollars for every time I've encountered someone who resisted submitting to Christ simply because they "can't stand Christians," I'd have a fairly robust bank account. for real. If I had ten dollars for every time I've encountered someone who resisted submitting to Christ simply because they "can't stand Christians," I'd have a fairly robust bank account.

There's nothing beautiful or attractive about this sort of self-serving, hypocritical behavior. The beauty of the cross and the magnetic quality of Calvary-quality love has been smothered in a blanket of self-righteous, self-serving, moralistic posturing.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the church should publicly take a stand for for gay marriage, nor am I trying to influence how evangelicals vote. Some may feel it best for society to outlaw gay marriages-others to allow it. In a democracy you're asked to give your opinion on such matters, so give it according to your conscience. I'm simply maintaining that, in our role as public representatives of the kingdom of G.o.d, Christians should stick to replicating Calvary toward gay people (as toward all people), and trust that their loving service will do more to transform people than laws ever could. gay marriage, nor am I trying to influence how evangelicals vote. Some may feel it best for society to outlaw gay marriages-others to allow it. In a democracy you're asked to give your opinion on such matters, so give it according to your conscience. I'm simply maintaining that, in our role as public representatives of the kingdom of G.o.d, Christians should stick to replicating Calvary toward gay people (as toward all people), and trust that their loving service will do more to transform people than laws ever could.

If your particular burden is to free people from their h.o.m.os.e.xuality, then go about it in a Calvary-like fashion. Commit to suspending judgment, start befriending gays, and then serve them in love-for years. Perhaps your loving kindness will lead some of them to faith and open doors for dialogue as G.o.d gently works in their lives-just as he works in yours. You may eventually develop a trusting, committed relationship in which you are invited to address issues in a gay person's life as you invite them to address issues in your life, for G.o.d uses relationships like this to lead us all into greater conformity to Jesus Christ.

OUR INCOMPETENCE AS MORAL GUARDIANS.

The fifth fundamental problem with the church being the moral guardian of society is that, throughout history, the church has proven itself to be a very poor moral guardian. As we noted in chapter 4, whenever the church exercises the power of Caesar to enforce its doctrine and convictions, the result has usually been at least as bad as any non-Christian version of the kingdom of the world. Even more concerning, it's been far more damaging to the kingdom of G.o.d than any other version of the kingdom of the world-precisely because in this instance the name of Christ was a.s.sociated with the result.

There is no indication that the church is better qualified for the position of moral guardian today than it has been in the past. Not only have we not earned the right to be heard by consistently coming under others in love, but the arbitrary way many evangelicals seem to decide what needs addressing and what doesn't undermines our credibility as moral spokespeople. The fact that many evangelicals are publicly more upset about gay marriage than about divorce and remarriage, greed, gluttony, violence, and many other things is a case in point. But the arbitrariness can be extended much further.

For example, several days before the 2004 Super Bowl, a friend of mine who works with people in extreme poverty, including the dangerous ministry of rescuing children from forced prost.i.tution, came back to the U.S. from Cambodia. On the night he returned to the U.S., he happened to catch a special that aired on television exposing the tragedy of childhood prost.i.tution in Cambodia and Thailand, the very area where he works. The show accurately reported that approximately thirty thousand children are at any given time sold into s.e.xual slavery in the region and that this business is financed primarily by Western "clients." I too along with several million others, saw this doc.u.mentary and found it a horrifying, gut-wrenching presentation. There was, however, no public reaction on the part of evangelical Christians.

A few days later my friend watched the infamous Super Bowl in which Janet Jackson exposed her breast for several seconds during the halftime show. This This caused Christians to react! The moralistic outcry was heard around the nation-for weeks. Through email, radio, magazines, pulpits, and a variety of other venues, individuals and congregations were urged to call their senators, boycott the stations and the products that support these stations, write letters to station managers and the FCC, and so on. caused Christians to react! The moralistic outcry was heard around the nation-for weeks. Through email, radio, magazines, pulpits, and a variety of other venues, individuals and congregations were urged to call their senators, boycott the stations and the products that support these stations, write letters to station managers and the FCC, and so on.

Of course, my friend too finds Janet Jackson's behavior juvenile and disgusting. What drove him to despair, however, was the fact that Christians seemed far more upset by a breast exposed for five seconds than by thirty thousand kids sold into s.e.xual slavery. He and others justifiably wonder about the viability of the evangelical moral compa.s.s. Granted, many more watched the Super Bowl than watched the doc.u.mentary on child s.e.xual slavery, but this is really beside the point. Had Janet Jackson exposed her breast on the TV special rather than the Super Bowl, it would certainly have elicited much more of a reaction than the facts about childhood s.e.xual slavery elicited.

This is hardly an isolated case, which leads many people to view the moral compa.s.s of the evangelical church, as a whole, to be quite bizarre. Issues related to s.e.x get ma.s.sive amounts of attention while issues related to corporate greed, societal greed, homelessness, poverty, racism, the environment, racial injustice, genocide, war, and the treatment of animals (the original divine mandate given to humans in Gen. 1:28) typically get little attention. Going into the sociological explanation for this odd prioritization would take us outside the scope of this work, but the fact that it exists calls into question the credibility of the evangelical church to be any kind of moral guardian. When evangelicals a.s.sume the posture of knowing what is best for society, it only serves to further undermine the credibility of the good news we are commissioned to proclaim, and it hinders the advancement of the kingdom of G.o.d.

Does this mean that evangelical Christians shouldn't speak out publicly on moral issues? Absolutely not! We should speak out, but we should do so in a distinctly kingdom way. We should speak with self-sacrificial actions more than with words. We should speak not as moral superiors but as self-confessing moral inferiors. We should call attention to issues by entering into solidarity with those who suffer injustice. We should seek to free people from sin by serving them, not by trying to lord it over them. And we should trust that G.o.d will use our Calvary-like service to others to advance his kingdom in the world.

Again, as citizens of a free country who are invited to give our opinions, we may enter the fray of conflicting political opinions as we see fit. But as public representatives of the kingdom of G.o.d, our confidence is to lie solely in G.o.d's promise to build his kingdom through Jesus' Spirit at work in and through us. This is where our focus must be, and this is what we must be willing to bleed for.

A KINGDOM APPROACH TO ABORTION.

To ill.u.s.trate, consider the highly charged and divisive issue of abortion. Whether one should vote pro-life or pro-choice is clearly an important question for all citizens to consider. Because all kingdom-of-the-world issues come in complex political packages, numerous complex considerations will affect how one votes on this issue.

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 G.o.d?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? 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 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-G.o.d partic.i.p.ants-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. 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-G.o.d partic.i.p.ants-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 vote? The distinctly kingdom question is, How should we live 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 unsurpa.s.sable 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 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 "G.o.d'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 G.o.d. And the only relevant question kingdom people need to answer is, Are we willing to bleed for both 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 kingdom approach. And because it manifests the beauty of Jesus, it glorifies G.o.d and has a power to change the world in a way that kingdom-of-the-world strategies never could. approach. And because it manifests the beauty of Jesus, it glorifies G.o.d 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. 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 bas.e.m.e.nt 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 G.o.dmother. 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 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 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 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. 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 pet.i.tion. 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 that is the power of the kingdom of G.o.d, the power that comes from bleeding for others. It is the power that looks like Calvary and that flows from Calvary. is the power of the kingdom of G.o.d, 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 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 unsurpa.s.sable 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 s.e.xual bondage, and confused, needy people such as Janet Jackson?

The distinct kingdom question is not, How do you vote vote? The distinct kingdom question is, How do you bleed bleed?

CHAPTER 8.

ONE NATION UNDER G.o.d?.

Jesus refused to accept conventional wisdom.... His model of kingship, and his vision of the kingdom of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d.

First, consider the oft-cited, theocratic-sounding slogan that America is "one nation under G.o.d"...