The Myth Of A Christian Nation Part 6

It was obviously a good thing that blacks were freed from slavery and that the Third Reich was stopped. Other wars have produced positive outcomes, despite their carnage. For people who think only in terms of the kingdom of the world, this settles the matter: the good goal justifies the b.l.o.o.d.y means. From a kingdom-of-G.o.d perspective, however, the matter cannot be settled so quickly. Four further things must be said.

First, a kingdom person can agree that the outcome of a war was to some degree good without saying that the war itself was a Christian war or that it was good that Christians fought in it. As we have noted throughout this book, for the sake of the holiness of the kingdom, we must guard against labeling Christian Christian everything that might be considered comparatively good. The kingdom of G.o.d is not merely the goodness of the kingdom of the world. Rather, the kingdom of G.o.d is the radical everything that might be considered comparatively good. The kingdom of G.o.d is not merely the goodness of the kingdom of the world. Rather, the kingdom of G.o.d is the radical alternative alternative to the kingdom of world. It is not merely good: to the kingdom of world. It is not merely good: it is beautiful it is beautiful. And there's nothing beautiful about war, however good its outcome may be.

Second, it's not the case that if all who profess Christ had "turned the other cheek" and "loved their enemies" blacks would still be enslaved and the world would now be under n.a.z.i rule. To the contrary, it was mostly nominal Christians who enslaved blacks and who supported the n.a.z.is! Had professing Christians been remotely like Jesus in the first place, there would have been no slavery or war for us to wonder about what would have happened would have happened had Christians loved their enemies and turned the other cheek! had Christians loved their enemies and turned the other cheek!11 There's a general principle behind this observation: the thing that creates the need for violence is the thing that ensures it will be countered with more violence-namely, the idolatrous depravity of the human heart. So long as hearts are depraved, people will live and die by the sword, for the t.i.t-for-tat kingdom is forever exchanging blows. There is therefore no need to worry about the theoretical possibility of too many people "turning the other cheek" and "loving their enemies." Until G.o.d's kingdom is established on the earth, we can unfortunately be a.s.sured there will always be governments and others creating situations that call for violence, and governments and others willing to address that situation through violent means.

This leads to our third point. The kingdom person must always remember that G.o.d is the Lord of all creation and Lord over all the nations. As Lord of all, G.o.d takes responsibility for the governance of the world. Though all versions of the kingdom of the world are polluted by the influence of the fallen powers, G.o.d is the one who ultimately gives them their "power over" authority, who sets the general parameters of the amount of good and evil they can accomplish, and who thus takes responsibility for the care of the world as a whole. He is the one who takes responsibility to orchestrate the sword-wielding powers he finds in the world (Rom. 13:24).

Though much takes place through these authorities that is against G.o.d's will, kingdom people must trust G.o.d's ability to wisely manage the whole. We are not to "worry about our life," let alone the life of the world (Matt. 6:25). G.o.d uses the power of the sword to keep law and order, and though agents can and do use this power for evil, G.o.d ensures overall law and order will be maintained in the long run. Indeed, if need be, he can use the evil of one nation to keep the evil of another nation in check. Hence, no evil scheme of any person or any nation can thwart his ultimate purposes for creation (e.g., Job 42:2; Ps. 47:23, 78; 66:7; 75:67; Isa. 40:2223). He is the G.o.d of all G.o.ds, the Lord of all lords, and the King of all kings (e.g., Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:3; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 19:16).

This means that kingdom people must leave to G.o.d the ultimate responsibility of governing the world and instead focus their attention on living out the radically distinctive call of the kingdom. We must not allow our fallen and fallible ideas about "what the world needs" to compromise the unique call on our life to live in Christlike love, even toward our nationalistic enemies. We must never let expediency replace faithfulness as the motivation of our behavior. Though it may violate our fallen "common sense" to do so, we must remember that Christ's death on the cross wasn't "common-sensical." To the contrary, Paul admits it is "foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:18, 23). Jesus didn't concern himself with fixing or steering the Roman government. He entrusted this matter to his Father and allowed himself to be crucified by the Roman government.

Of course, from a kingdom-of-the-world perspective, our refusal to operate according to common sense-that is, opting out of the "save the world through violence" mindset-will undoubtedly seem irresponsible. "It's your duty as a citizen of your nation to defend it-lest evil take over," we may hear. This has been the b.l.o.o.d.y mantra of all versions of the kingdom of the world throughout history. While we should worry about being despised because we're viewed as self-righteous hypocrites (see chap. 7), we should never worry about being despised because we refuse to partic.i.p.ate in a culture of violence (Luke 6:22; John 15:20). Our response can only be to testify that we have a higher duty to a greater king and a greater country-and to invite our antagonists to join us in fulfilling this higher duty and serving this greater country.

Finally, not only are kingdom people called to trust G.o.d's ultimate lordship over the nations as we walk in humble obedience to Christ, we are also to trust that he will use our sacrificial obedience to Christ to accomplish his purposes in the world. It is the power of the cross, not the power of the sword, that holds the hope of the world, for the power of the cross is also the power of the resurrection. Even if it looks like evil gains the upper hand as we return evil with kindness rather than retaliate with violence, we are to know by faith that this apparent loss is only apparent.

We must remember that for three days it certainly looked like the Devil had won, but Christ's resurrection proved otherwise. G.o.d vindicated Christ's loving sacrifice and, in principle, ended the Devil's stronghold on the world. This victory forms the basis of our confidence that G.o.d will vindicate our non-common-sensical imitation of Christ. As we manifest kingdom life by replicating Jesus to the world, it may often look like we are doing little-and even sometimes look like we are losing ground. But we know, against all common sense, that nothing could be further from the truth. However trivial they may seem, we know that Christlike acts are doing more to bring the world to the glorious end G.o.d has for it than any "power over" act ever could.

Kingdom people need to see the world through the eyes of the kingdom of G.o.d, the eyes of faith, not through the eyes of the kingdom of the world. For example, to the natural eye it looks like the relative strength of two armies fighting on the battlefield determines the outcome of a battle. But the eye of faith should see that this outcome is much more affected by a man standing on a hill raising his arms in prayer (Ex. 17:813). Faith understands that the fate of nations may hinge more on whether a kingdom person is praying than on the decisions of its leaders (Ezek. 22:2931).

Looking at the world in this way, a kingdom person can see the shallowness of the argument that moves from a comparatively good outcome produced through violent means to the necessity of violence to produce a good outcome. While the Civil War did produce at least one good outcome, for example, a kingdom person must see the shallowness of concluding that this outcome could only only have been achieved by having over six hundred thousand people-most of whom professed Christ-slaughtering each other. A kingdom person should rather wonder what might have happened had more kingdom people been willing to live out the call of the radical kingdom. What might have happened if more people had trusted "power under" rather than resorting to "power over"? have been achieved by having over six hundred thousand people-most of whom professed Christ-slaughtering each other. A kingdom person should rather wonder what might have happened had more kingdom people been willing to live out the call of the radical kingdom. What might have happened if more people had trusted "power under" rather than resorting to "power over"?

How much of the violence of the Civil War could have been avoided if, say, a larger number of kingdom people were persistently and fervently in prayer to end slavery and avoid war? Such considerations are of course silly from a kingdom-of-the-world perspective, but from a kingdom of G.o.d perspective few questions could be more relevant. And how much of the bloodshed could have been avoided had more white Christians demonstrated Calvary-quality love by resisting the evil of slavery through nonviolent means?

Similarly, what if millions (rather than hundreds) of whites had been willing to "come under" black slaves by helping with the underground railroad? What if more than a miniscule number of white Christians had refused to benefit in any way from the slave trade? What if, rather than taking up arms, Christians from the North and South would have been willing to sit down together and seriously ask the kingdom question, how can we sacrifice of our own resources to make it economically feasible to Southern, white land owners to set blacks free? What if instead of fearing a loss of congregants and revenue, denominational leaders had leveraged their authority to get white pastors to treat owning slaves as seriously as the sin of, say, adultery?

In other words, what might have happened if mult.i.tudes of those who claimed to be Christian were actually Christlike? Undoubtedly, the outcome would have been much better than the "good" outcome of the war, and it would have been achieved without such a diabolical loss of life. In fact, as noted above, had sufficient numbers been willing to live out the call of the kingdom, slavery never would have been a reality in the first place.

We accept arguments about the necessity of violence because historically this is the approach that's usually been used to resolve large-scale conflicts. What is more, while military victories tend to be celebrated, nonviolent victories seem to pa.s.s without notice. Most know about Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., but the nonviolent revolutions that ended various unjust dictatorships and brought increased freedom to more than three billion people in the twentieth century alone are hardly ever discussed.12 Consequently, we are conditioned to think violence is the only viable approach to resolving conflict. Yet kingdom people are called to follow the example of Jesus, not the example of Caesar or world history. We are called to trust "power under," not "power over." And we are thereby called to show by our life that, while violence sometimes brings about some positive results, violence is never inevitable-if only kingdom people will live out their unique kingdom call.

4. DON'T YOUR IDEAS LEAD TO Pa.s.sIVITY?

Your proposal is a prescription for disaster! Like the hangman, if Christians don't aggressively fight the forces of evil in our culture, eventually we will find ourselves getting hung. The marriage of gays, for example, is a stepping stone toward outlawing our religious right to preach that h.o.m.os.e.xuality is a sin. Christians have a responsibility to take a strong public stand now to stop this slippery slope into a culture that may eventually make being a Christian illegal. You're irresponsibly encouraging Christians to sit by while we see our rights slowly erode.

A lot of this sort of "sky is falling" rhetoric is going around these days. While often spoken sincerely, it instills fear in many Christians. It is also used to motivate them to support certain political positions, policies, and candidates as the last, best hope left to the church and to America itself.

Four things need to be said in response.

First, to say that followers of Jesus should act like Jesus is not to say they should "just sit by." The objection a.s.sumes that the only alternative to seizing "power over" is doing nothing. The objection exemplifies a complete trust in worldly power and a lack of trust in kingdom power. To follow Jesus is not only to do something; it is to do something far more powerful than fighting a "power over" battle ever could. Such battles may succeed in preserving one's own rights, but it will not transform lives and advance the kingdom.

If, on the other hand, we collectively follow the example of Jesus and bleed for those who (some fear) may take away our rights-if we do not resist evil and instead do good to those who (some think) are persecuting us-this will sow kingdom seeds that will bear fruit for eternity. It is the one course of action that is not only faithful to the kingdom but contains the possibility of transforming those who (some believe) are trying to take away our rights. The kingdom of G.o.d does not seek to conquer; it seeks to transform.

Second, we need to understand that fear is a diabolic force. Its ultimate creator is Satan, and he uses it to keep us in bondage (Heb. 2:15). Throughout history, leaders have used fear to rally the ma.s.ses around their causes, sometimes getting them to do things they otherwise would never dream of. Most of the worst atrocities committed in history-by so-called Christians and others-were motivated by fear. People felt threatened, demonized the ones who threatened them, and thus felt justified in doing whatever they thought necessary to protect themselves. It is impossible to live in love and live in fear at the same time, which is why Scripture says that love casts out fear (1 John 4:18).

Now, as kingdom people we are called to live in love, which means we are called and empowered to live free of fear free of fear. Because our source of worth, significance, and security is found exclusively in G.o.d's love and G.o.d's reign, not our own immediate well-being, and because we believe in the resurrection, we are empowered to love even those who threaten our well-being-for this does not threaten our essential worth, significance, and security. We are, therefore, not to fear them (see 1 Peter 3:1418). If we do do fear them, it is only because some element of our essential worth, significance, and security is rooted in what they threaten. In other words, fear is an indication that we are living in idolatry, not love. fear them, it is only because some element of our essential worth, significance, and security is rooted in what they threaten. In other words, fear is an indication that we are living in idolatry, not love.

All this is to say that kingdom people whose lives are exclusively rooted in Jesus Christ will not succ.u.mb to motivation by fear. Our motivation for all we do is to be love, not fear (1 Cor. 16:14; 2 Cor. 5:14).

Third, like most slippery slope arguments, the logic of the question posed above is highly suspect. There is no inherent connection between allowing gay unions to be termed marriages marriages on the one hand, and outlawing the view that h.o.m.os.e.xuality is a sin (let alone outlawing Christianity) on the other. Now, there on the one hand, and outlawing the view that h.o.m.os.e.xuality is a sin (let alone outlawing Christianity) on the other. Now, there is is precedent from certain countries that have allowed gay marriages for concluding that precedent from certain countries that have allowed gay marriages for concluding that hate speech hate speech against h.o.m.os.e.xuals may soon be outlawed. But why should Christians be against this? To the contrary, wouldn't we find Jesus entering into solidarity with gays and others who might be the objects of hate speech? Is this not precisely what he did in befriending the tax collectors and prost.i.tutes of his day, even though it cost him his reputation among the "socially respectable" religious people? And are we not called to imitate him in this, as in every other matter? against h.o.m.os.e.xuals may soon be outlawed. But why should Christians be against this? To the contrary, wouldn't we find Jesus entering into solidarity with gays and others who might be the objects of hate speech? Is this not precisely what he did in befriending the tax collectors and prost.i.tutes of his day, even though it cost him his reputation among the "socially respectable" religious people? And are we not called to imitate him in this, as in every other matter?

Nevertheless, let us suppose that the doomsday prophets are right. Let us suppose that the sky is is falling. Suppose (as some have argued) that within ten years the government is going to make it a crime to say out loud that h.o.m.os.e.xuality is a sin. Let us suppose this will be followed (as some argue) by public evangelism being outlawed, by our Bibles being confiscated, and eventually by Christianity becoming illegal. falling. Suppose (as some have argued) that within ten years the government is going to make it a crime to say out loud that h.o.m.os.e.xuality is a sin. Let us suppose this will be followed (as some argue) by public evangelism being outlawed, by our Bibles being confiscated, and eventually by Christianity becoming illegal.

Should we be afraid of this? Should we rise up to protect ourselves from this slippery slope? Where do we find Jesus ever worrying about such things? When did Jesus ever concern himself with protecting his rights or the rights of the community he was founding? Did he not rather do the exact opposite and teach us to do the same? He had all the power in the universe at his disposal and had every right to use it, yet out of love he let himself be crucified. This is how he established and manifested the domain in which G.o.d is king. And we expand and manifest the domain in which G.o.d is king by imitating him in this act.

Instead of fearing the possibility of persecution someday, kingdom people should trust that if this happened, G.o.d would use it for the furthering of his kingdom, just as he used Jesus' death. In fact, as terrible as they often are, persecutions have usually had a positive kingdom effect. While gaining political power has always harmed the church, as we saw in chapter 4, persecutions have almost always served to strengthen it. Tertullian was on the mark when he said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.13 As much as we would hate having our religious rights taken away (let alone being thrown into prison or even martyred) it would not be too much to suggest that perhaps this this is exactly what the American church needs! As it stands now, the American church reflects pagan American culture in almost every respect, as numerous studies have shown. The radically countercultural and revolutionary movement that Jesus birthed has, in our country (as in every other "Christian" country), been largely reduced to little more than a preservation society for a national civil religion. A persecution would cure this ill, forcing Christianity to is exactly what the American church needs! As it stands now, the American church reflects pagan American culture in almost every respect, as numerous studies have shown. The radically countercultural and revolutionary movement that Jesus birthed has, in our country (as in every other "Christian" country), been largely reduced to little more than a preservation society for a national civil religion. A persecution would cure this ill, forcing Christianity to mean mean something significant. It would force us to be the one thing we are called to be: imitators of G.o.d, dying on a cross for those who crucified him. something significant. It would force us to be the one thing we are called to be: imitators of G.o.d, dying on a cross for those who crucified him.

In the early church, Christians considered it an honor to be martyred for their faith and to testify to the loving lordship of Christ by dying the way he died. They weren't gluttons for punishment; they simply saw their life and death from a kingdom perspective. If dying furthered the purpose of the kingdom of G.o.d, they considered it an honor. How things have changed! We now find ourselves in a version of Christianity where protecting ourselves ourselves is one of the main things we stand for-"in Jesus' name"! In the name of the one who surrendered his rights and died for sinners, we fight against sinners for our rights! As with many other things, we do what ordinary pagans do-we simply is one of the main things we stand for-"in Jesus' name"! In the name of the one who surrendered his rights and died for sinners, we fight against sinners for our rights! As with many other things, we do what ordinary pagans do-we simply Christianize Christianize it. it.

"But if we lose our rights," some people object, "we lose our power to speak into people's lives and into the culture at large." In response, I simply ask, "Where is your faith?" Our power to speak into people's lives and into the culture has never been given by Caesar, and it therefore can't be taken away by Caesar. Civil religion worries about such things, but not the kingdom of G.o.d. Our power has always been our willingness to imitate Jesus, our willingness to suffer for the sake of righteousness, and our willingness to bleed for others as Christ has bled for us. It has been the availability of Caesar's power and the quasi-Christian veneer of our civil religion in America that has caused many of us to forget this.

With or without persecution, our call is to simply live in sacrificial love and trust that the sovereign G.o.d will use our love to further his kingdom, as he did with the love Jesus expressed to us and all people on Calvary.

5. DON'T WE BEST SERVE THE OPPRESSED BY OVERTHROWING THEIR OPPRESSORS?

How can we come under and serve people who are oppressed by unjust laws unless we're willing to work to gain power over those who oppress them?

Of all the questions in this chapter, I have personally struggled the most with this one. I offer three considerations that I find helpful in gaining clarity on a unique kingdom-of-G.o.d perspective on confronting unjust, oppressive laws.

First, while the kingdom of the world focuses on controlling behavior, the kingdom of G.o.d focuses on transforming hearts. When hearts are transformed, behavior follows. Laws simply reflect the hearts of those empowered to make them. So, the focus of citizens of the kingdom of G.o.d should be on changing the hearts of oppressors rather than on trying to conquer them with a greater coercive power.

As both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. realized, the oppressors are themselves oppressed by their oppression of others. The goal of kingdom people, therefore, must be to free the oppressor from his or her oppressed heart, which in turn frees those who are oppressed by them. To accomplish this, we must first possess a genuine love and concern for the oppressors, as Gandhi and King both said. We must genuinely love our enemy, as Jesus taught. The kingdom of G.o.d is a radical way of being being before it is a particular way of before it is a particular way of acting acting against injustice and oppression. It is about against injustice and oppression. It is about living living in love, as Christ loved us and gave his life for us (Eph. 5:2) before it is about in love, as Christ loved us and gave his life for us (Eph. 5:2) before it is about acting acting in a loving manner that will improve the world. And we will never be able to do the latter unless we have cultivated the former. Only to the extent that a heart and mind has been purged of "all bitterness...wrath and anger" (Eph. 4:31) and saturated with the reign of G.o.d can a person even see the sensibility of the kingdom approach to oppression and injustice, let alone be empowered to carry it out consistently. in a loving manner that will improve the world. And we will never be able to do the latter unless we have cultivated the former. Only to the extent that a heart and mind has been purged of "all bitterness...wrath and anger" (Eph. 4:31) and saturated with the reign of G.o.d can a person even see the sensibility of the kingdom approach to oppression and injustice, let alone be empowered to carry it out consistently.

Second, as with everything else in the kingdom of G.o.d, we "come under" oppressors and help free them from their own oppression by being willing to replicate the Calvary-quality love of Jesus toward them. And we do this primarily by replicating the Calvary-quality love of Jesus toward those they oppress.

As we saw in chapter 6, Jesus exposed the ugliness of inhumane religious laws by healing on the Sabbath. He exposed the ugliness of patriarchy by his respectful treatment of women. He exposed the ugliness of cultural taboos by touching lepers and having close fellowship with socially unacceptable "sinners." He exposed the ugliness of inst.i.tutionalized Jewish racism by ministering to and praising Gentiles and Samaritans. And he exposed the ugly injustice of the Roman government and the world by entering into solidarity with a rebel race and letting us crucify him on the cross. Jesus' whole life was the kingdom of G.o.d, and his consistent sacrificial love, in solidarity with the oppressed, consistently provided a beautiful contrast to the ugliness of the oppressive kingdom of the world and the oppressive princ.i.p.alities and powers that are over it.

As followers of Jesus, we are called to do the same. While we, along with all decent citizens, should work against unjust laws by political means, our distinctive calling as kingdom people as kingdom people is to go far beyond this and manifest Calvary-quality love. We are called to enter into solidarity with all who are marginalized and crushed by the powers-that-be and to allow ourselves to be marginalized and crushed along with them. This Calvary-quality love exposes the ugly injustice of laws that marginalize and crush, and in this way just possibly leads oppressors to repent. is to go far beyond this and manifest Calvary-quality love. We are called to enter into solidarity with all who are marginalized and crushed by the powers-that-be and to allow ourselves to be marginalized and crushed along with them. This Calvary-quality love exposes the ugly injustice of laws that marginalize and crush, and in this way just possibly leads oppressors to repent.

This solidarity involves refusing to partic.i.p.ate in and benefit from unjust, oppressive laws. Kingdom people are called to obey societal laws insofar as this is possible (Rom. 12:18; 13:1), but when obedience to the laws of the land conflict with obedience to G.o.d, the laws of the land must be broken. As Peter said, "We must obey G.o.d rather than any human authority" when the two conflict with one another (Acts 5:29). Of course, as with Jesus, this civil disobedience may bring us under the power of the sword-and that that is the point. When we, following Jesus' example, allow ourselves to be unjustly crucified at the hands of an unjust, oppressive regime, we serve the oppressor by further exposing the ugliness of the oppressive regime. Our love for the oppressed and the oppressor heaps "burning coals on their heads" (Rom. 12:20) and puts to shame those who malign us (1 Peter 3:16). is the point. When we, following Jesus' example, allow ourselves to be unjustly crucified at the hands of an unjust, oppressive regime, we serve the oppressor by further exposing the ugliness of the oppressive regime. Our love for the oppressed and the oppressor heaps "burning coals on their heads" (Rom. 12:20) and puts to shame those who malign us (1 Peter 3:16).

Third, while this approach will always place self-sacrificial love at the center, it will look quite different from situation to situation. The way Gandhi united Indians and others and led them to nonviolently resist unjust British rule was different from the way King united blacks and others to nonfiolently resist unjust Jim Crow laws. What is effective in one context may not be effective in another. So kingdom people need to be "wise as serpents" in how they approach issues of injustice, just as they need to be in their approach to evangelism and all other matters (Matt. 10:16). Shrewdness is not inconsistent with the kingdom of G.o.d, for it's not inconsistent with Calvary-like love. To the contrary, the kingdom that Christ established and is now growing is a subversive movement that depends depends on shrewdness. on shrewdness.

Thus, it's imperative that in any given context, confronting any given issue, kingdom people seek the "wisdom from above" (James 3:17). This is the kind of wisdom Jesus always manifested in his dealings with the religious authorities of his day, and the kind of wisdom both Gandhi and King consistently exhibited in dealing with the oppressive, unjust regimes they confronted. It's the kind of wisdom Oskar Shindler exhibited in rescuing over a thousand Jews from certain death in n.a.z.i Germany-without violence-and Paul Rusesabagina exhibited in protecting over a thousand Tutsis from Hutu genocide in Rwanda-again, without violence. It's a G.o.dly wisdom that is willing to suffer for others and that can discern the most effective way of doing this. It's a wisdom that effectively manifests the life and love of the kingdom of G.o.d, while exposing the demonic dimension of the kingdom of the world.

Of course, many have argued that this approach is naive when one is dealing with evil people empowered to make and enforce evil laws. Such people cannot hope to be converted, it is argued: they must be overpowered. This is the very kind of thinking that was behind Peter's use of the sword and that has fueled the b.l.o.o.d.y "power over" merry-go-round throughout history. It is, sadly, the staple of the way all versions of the kingdom of the world operate. Yet from a kingdom-of-G.o.d perspective, we must simply conclude that if it's naive to think there is an alternative "power under" way of addressing issues and changing the world, then so be it. The att.i.tude of the kingdom-of-G.o.d citizen has to be that we'd rather lose by naively following a Calvary-like approach to issues than win while trusting the "power over" approach to issues.

While our goal is to be faithful rather than pragmatic, experience has shown that Christ's approach, while costly, is often effective -the liberation of India from oppressive British rule and the acquisition of civil rights for blacks in America being the two most noteworthy examples. But even when it looks like this approach doesn't work, even when it looks like evil triumphs by putting us and others to death, the kingdom person is to remember that it's still a "Good Friday" world. We are to have faith that things will look different when Easter morning arrives. The ultimate hope of the world is not found in achieving victory now. The ultimate hope of the world is the resurrection, when all things shall be reconciled to G.o.d (Col. 1:20). Then we will see that no act of kingdom love has ever been wasted.

In the meantime, faithfulness to our Lord rather than carnal effectiveness in gaining the upper hand in the affairs of the world is to be our guide.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.

INTRODUCTION.

1. Gregory writes, "This book may well irritate and offend you at times. You may never agree with me. But I believe that wrestling with these issues will benefit you nonetheless. I only ask that you hear me out." (11) Having read the introduction, what questions do you have about this book's premise that you hope to see addressed in the coming chapters?

2. In John 18:36, Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." What implications do you feel Jesus' words have regarding how you you express your political views? What implications might Jesus' words have on how much weight you place on your political views? express your political views? What implications might Jesus' words have on how much weight you place on your political views?

3. Do you know anyone who has been put off by Christianity because of American Christians' tendency to link their faith with their politics? What messages do you hear repeated?

4. In what ways do you exercise "power over" those around you? In what ways do you exercise "power under"? Can the two ever co-exist? If so, how? If not, why not?

5. Do you agree that "while the way of the kingdom of G.o.d is always simple, straightforward, and uncompromising, the way of the kingdom of the world is always complex, ambiguous, and inevitably full of compromises"? (15) Why or why not?

CHAPTER 1: THE KINGDOM OF THE SWORD.

1. "Though all versions of the kingdom of the world try to influence how their subjects think and feel, their power resides in their ability to control behavior.... Laws, enforced by the sword, control behavior but cannot change hearts." (18) Christians often turn a relationship with G.o.d into moral behavior modification, both in the community of faith as well as outside of it. Do you think the world could become better if we focused more on transforming hearts and less on controlling behavior?

2. G.o.d does not create create or or ordain ordain kingdoms of the world, but rather kingdoms of the world, but rather orders orders them (1920). What is the distinction between these? Does this distinction change your view of G.o.d's sovereignty or affirm it? If it changes your view, how? them (1920). What is the distinction between these? Does this distinction change your view of G.o.d's sovereignty or affirm it? If it changes your view, how?

3. Gregory writes, "Satan, the ultimate 'power over' G.o.d of this age, watches the bloodshed with a demonic sense of amus.e.m.e.nt." (24) A study by the Barna Inst.i.tute showed that roughly eight out of ten Americans call themselves Christians, but that about six out of ten reject the existence of Satan. Do you you believe Satan is real or simply a caricature for evil? Support your position with Scripture. believe Satan is real or simply a caricature for evil? Support your position with Scripture.

4. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, some claimed that the only way to end the conflict was to "rid the world of evil." (26) Is this ever ever possible apart from the second coming of Christ? Why or why not? possible apart from the second coming of Christ? Why or why not?

5. How might Gregory's a.n.a.lysis of the "power over" kingdom affect how a Christian would respond to a political leader claiming they were going to rid the world of evil."

6. Jesus was the only person who ever truly and fully had "power over," yet he chose not to exercise it. (28) Do you feel that this is a model for us to follow or a choice unique to Jesus' mission? Explain your answer.

CHAPTER 2: THE KINGDOM OF THE CROSS.

1. Read Matthew 18:24. Jesus tells us that "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (3637) Consider a child you've observed recently. How does becoming as that little child, as Jesus says we must, help subvert the "power over" mentality in our lives?

2. "This is how power is wielded in the kingdom of G.o.d. If you have all power in heaven and earth, use it to wash the feet of someone you know will betray you! In serving like this, Jesus declares to all who are willing to hear that he 'would not rule by a sword, but by a towel.'" (37) Do you think this the kind of power most American Christians trust to transform society? Why or why not? is how power is wielded in the kingdom of G.o.d. If you have all power in heaven and earth, use it to wash the feet of someone you know will betray you! In serving like this, Jesus declares to all who are willing to hear that he 'would not rule by a sword, but by a towel.'" (37) Do you think this the kind of power most American Christians trust to transform society? Why or why not?

3. Do you believe that the sacrificial service that characterizes the kingdom of G.o.d applies to Christians in world politics as well? How about outside the realm of politics? Why or why not? Can Christians serve al Qaeda or North Korea "by a towel"? If so, how?

4. Gregory writes, "If this teaching sounds impractical and irrational-to the point where we might want to come up with clever rationalizations to get around it-this is simply evidence of how much we have bought into the thinking of the kingdom of the world." (42) Do you resist this teaching? If so, do your answers reveal ways that you have bought into kingdom-of-the-world thinking?

5. Gregory quotes Hauerwas and Willimon, authors of Resident Aliens Resident Aliens, who write, "The basis for the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount is not what works but rather the way G.o.d is." (43) Do you tend to make choices based primarily on what will bring about a desired result-even (or perhaps especially) if they are desired results for ministry? Or do you choose in accordance with the character of Christ, regardless of the outcome?

6. Answer Gregory's questions: "How might our churches be different if we took Paul's teaching seriously? What would happen if the ultimate criteria we used to a.s.sess how 'successful' or 'unsuccessful' our churches were was the question, are we loving as Jesus loved are we loving as Jesus loved?" (45) How would taking Paul's teaching seriously and using this criteria affect your congregation?

7. Who are your your "enemies"? In what ways can you-will you-love them? (48) "enemies"? In what ways can you-will you-love them? (48)

CHAPTER 3: KEEPING THE KINGDOM HOLY.

1. Respond to Gregory's statement that "you can no more have a Christian worldly government that you can have a Christian petunia or aardvark." (54) Do you agree or disagree? Why?

2. Gregory points out that "a version of the kingdom of the world that effectively carries out law, order, and justice is indeed closer to G.o.d's will for the kingdom of the world for the kingdom of the world," but that "no version of the kingdom of the world is closer to the kingdom of G.o.d than others because it does its job relatively well." (5455) What is the difference between being close to G.o.d's will will for kingdoms of the world and being close to the kingdom of G.o.d for kingdoms of the world and being close to the kingdom of G.o.d itself itself?

3. In what ways do you maintain a healthy suspicion toward your version of the kingdom of the world? In what ways do you find this difficult?

4. Why is aligning any version of the kingdom of the world with the kingdom of G.o.d "idolatry"? (55) 5. What similarities are there between Israel's desire for a human king and American Christians' desire today for political power? (58) 6. Gregory points out that during Jesus' time, certain questions were used to test orthodoxy: "Should Jews obey Roman laws, and, if so, which ones? Should they pay taxes to Caesar, thereby supporting his tyrannical regime?" (58) What politicized questions do American Christians use to measure one another's orthodoxy today?

7. "Jesus would simply not allow the world to set the terms of his engagement with the world. This explains how (and perhaps why why) he could call Matthew, a tax collector, as well as Simon, a zealot, to be his disciples (Matt. 10:34)." (6263) What does Scripture's silence say to you about the priority of Matthew's and Simon's political differences-one with conservative views, another with liberal views-when compared to the kingdom of G.o.d?

CHAPTER 4: FROM RESIDENT ALIENS TO CONQUERING WARLORDS.

1. If "we are only as useful to the kingdom as we are yielded" (69), in what ways do you find yourself yielding to the kingdom of G.o.d? In what ways do you find yourself still held back? Take a few minutes to pray, asking G.o.d to help you yield fully to him, to let "his kingdom come and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

2. Gregory writes, "A significant portion of evangelical Christianity has come under the influence of an escapist apocalyptic theology. Believing Jesus will soon 'rapture' Christians out of the world before destroying it, they have little concern with the church being a witness on issues of social justice, global peace, the environment, and so on." (72) What words of exhortation would you give someone (perhaps yourself) who embraces this theology to help that person yield to G.o.d's "power under" service for his kingdom?

3. The temptations Jesus faced by the Devil (Luke 4:68) on the surface appeared appeared good. What temptations do you face that good. What temptations do you face that appear appear good, but that circ.u.mvent kingdom-of-G.o.d ways? What temptations do you think the evangelical Church today as a whole faces that may appear good, but that compromise its call to manifest the unique kingdom of G.o.d? good, but that circ.u.mvent kingdom-of-G.o.d ways? What temptations do you think the evangelical Church today as a whole faces that may appear good, but that compromise its call to manifest the unique kingdom of G.o.d?

4. "The Christian version of the kingdom of the world was actually the worst worst version the world has ever seen." (81) Do you believe that this statement applies to America today? Why or why not? version the world has ever seen." (81) Do you believe that this statement applies to America today? Why or why not?

5. If the presence of Christ and evidence of his love in a person's life is the best test of orthodoxy, why do we create other litmus tests? (83)