With all of the talk stirred up by Black Lives Matter and National Anthem protests and counter-protests (yes, that is a picture from a KISS concert), I think that some evangelical Christians have been caught up in the rhetoric and perhaps lost sight of some of the original questions related to being a citizen of America. In more than a few episodes of debate, it seems fair to say that the role of the "patriot" has been taken by conservative Christians (if you think about it, that is part-and parcel with what "liberal" and "conservative" have come to mean in today's politics). That's not out of step with American history. I recently had the discussion with my son about how the First Great Awakening was the truly galvanizing force behind the American Revolution, and I recently held a lecture explaining the role of Christianity in the Civil War. There hasn't been a whole lot of scholarly work done specifically on Christianity and American patriotism, but I would recommend the books America's God by Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis also by Noll, and A Cautious Patriotism by Gerald Sittser. My purpose here isn't a history lesson, though. I simply want to re-cast the discussion of Christian patriotism in terms that make sense in our current political climate. At this moment, I think 1 Peter 2 is the best place to go.
Peter was writing to a fledgling church in a hostile culture. I take the view that Peter wrote these words either just before or just after Nero blamed the Christians for setting the Great Fire of Rome (64 AD). Nero found Christians good targets because they were disliked in social terms. They would not worship Rome's gods. They would not participate in the Roman pagan festivals. Worst of all, they would not acknowledge Caesar as Lord. They had distanced themselves from Roman society and culture and were feeling the heat therefrom. Peter wrote to encourage them to stay true to their calling because the prize (salvation) was infinitely more precious than anything they could give up on earth. He also wanted them to stay true to their church because they were stronger together. This passage marks the transition from Peter's introduction (a primer on the purpose of salvation in this life) to his main point (how a Christian should live in a hostile culture). Consequently, they are pretty key to understanding the whole letter. Peter gives a few commands in here:
Submit vs. Obey. To understand Peter's word at all we have to understand this distinction. Submission is the voluntary placement on oneself under the authority of another. "Voluntary" is the key word. Submission is not subjection. Submission is by one's own will, which means it can be withheld by one's own will, which cannot necessarily be quantified. Obedience on the other hand is easily quantifiable. I can tell through observation whether you have obeyed or not. I cannot tell through observation whether you have done so in submission or not. Does that distinction make sense? Even God Almighty, who do not doubt will make everything subject to Jesus Christ, gives us the choice of submitting to Christ willingly. One can obey without submitting, and one can submit without obeying. Patriotism vs. Nationalism. I have seen this distinction thrown around on a few websites, and I'm not sure that the authors know exactly what they're talking about. Let me give these definitions to the terms, and you can tell me if it makes sense. "Patriotism" is our acknowledging our responsibility to serve and support the country we live in as well as the recognize the authority of that country's leaders. In other words, we can connect patriotism with civic responsibility and being a good citizen. "Nationalism" on the other hand was a result of the anti-God-ing of Europe in the 1800s, during which certain demagogues redirected the devotion of the masses toward their nation. Importantly, "nation" could refer to the geographic country of residence, or it could refer to the people group (ethnicity) within that country out of which that demagogue was trying to create a new country. (Needless to say, there were a whole lot of revolutions in Europe in the late 1800s.) In that sense, nationalism is a religion--utter devotion to a nation, including participation in rallies and festivals and complete obedience to leaders. (Jingoism is an expression of nationalism.) I shouldn't have to explain how nationalism in that sense is incompatible with Christianity. "Doing Good" in Peter's Context. This is the real key for understanding this passage. Peter says that governors commend good deeds. Well, what could that possibly mean? Realize that Roman governors didn't particularly care about "good deeds" in the sense we might think of them: doing something nice for somebody. Frankly, Rome didn't care about that. When I taught about the Roman Empire, I highlighted five primary virtues on which Roman society was built:
Now - where am I going with all of that talk about Roman virtues? It's simple. Those things were expected of all Romans. A governor isn't going to commend anyone for doing something expected! Rather, Roman governors reserved commendations for extraordinary acts of service. Like funding a public building. Or equipping the army. Or making a large donation to a populace in need. So, What Role Can Christians Play in America?Let's turn all of this into some rules for living. Back to Peter's words, and let's work backwards. Peter says that it is God's will for us to silence unbelievers by doing good. Remember that Christians were under pressure from the populace for being anti-social or even anti-Rome because they did not participate in local pagan customs or emperor worship. But abstaining from such practices did not mean that Christians could not do good! And further remember that "doing good" in this context meant doing something for the benefit of the local Roman society. And it meant doing so in submission to the Roman authorities. Catch that! Working for the benefit of one's pagan society and submitting to one's pagan authorities is not only not anti-Christian, it's commanded by God. Commanded. By. God. We will have to talk about some limits, but Peter builds those in to the very passage we're studying. Notice the motivation and the consequence. Why do we work for the good of our society? To silence those who think that Christians don't care about the world around them. That accomplishes two things: (1) it takes some pressure off of Christians who are under persecution by painting all Christians in a better light; (2) it gives Christians a bridge over which they can share the gospel. What does it look like? Very simple: a Christian should honor everyone, including the Emperor. But the "meat" of that sandwich keeps a Christian focused on the church and on God. In other words, "honoring the Emperor" never comes at the expense of "fearing God." How? Because those concepts are not mutually exclusive. This goes back to the distinction I drew earlier between submitting and obeying. One can honor the Emperor without violating God's other commands. As we keep working backwards, we see that we honor the Lord when we acknowledge the authority of worldly rulers (even anti-Christian ones). Why? Because all authority on this earth ultimately derives from God. Jesus told Pilate that Pilate would have no authority over Him at all were it not for God's choice (John 19). If we trust that God has control over this world, no matter how fallen, then we must also trust that His chosen instruments must answer to Him. But lest we start getting nervous about what that means, as we keep working backwards, we see that Peter had already given us critical perspective and boundaries on what he has in mind. Most importantly, we are "strangers and temporary residents" in whatever location we live. (The ultimate temporary resident was Jesus, but in the book of Hebrews we get an additional model: Abraham, the first "stranger in a strange land" (Heb 11:9). Abraham knew no one in the place God was leading him; he didn't ever actually own any land there. He was pretty involved, and he certainly left an impression.) And there are two commands associated with being a temporary resident:
Those two concepts clarify our boundaries. If you've moved around a lot or been placed on short-term assignment, you already know the challenges of being "temporary." It's hard to build relationships; it's hard to be accepted; by the time you've figured out what's going on, it's time to leave. That sounds . . . not good. But Peter has an angle on it that you might find surprising. I know a number of first-generation American families. They moved here intending to stay. Consequently, they wanted their children to "become" American, letting their children be immersed in the American experience. Often, that involved changing language, adopting new customs and behaviors, and marginalizing the family's heritage. It didn't mean turning their back on their heritage, but it would play a very small role in their identity as an American. Looking back, I think it was hard on some of those parents to watch the changes in their children. On the other hand, I have also known families who came here on short-term assignment or to go to school. Those parents had an easier time of keeping up boundaries for their children. They seemed to have a mindset like "We're here, enjoy your stay, but don't get too used to it because we will be going home soon and need to be able to re-adapt quickly." I think it would be fair to cast Peter's point in those terms. Roman culture, although it had a very strong civic ethic (as mentioned above), had a morality that was largely incompatible with Christianity. To say that they indulged their sensual desires would be an understatement. But Peter reminded his audience that they were temporary residents. They did not have to feel obligated to participate in this cultural nonsense. They could dabble in local culture (a temporary resident is still a resident), but they did not have to immerse themselves in it. This becomes one of the boundaries for us: we do not participate in cultural/societal practices that lead us into sin and temptation. That's a very complex statement, so let's see what the other boundary adds. Peter also tells his audience to conduct themselves honorably. You may have read this in a number of different ways: "live such good lives" (NIV), "live properly" (NLT), "keep your behavior excellent" (NASB), "having your conversation honest" (KJV). What exactly did Peter say? Let's compare:
This is how I think that boundary works. One the one hand, we must be active. If we are to be good, we must do good (the idea of goodness means nothing if it does not act). But on the other hand, the only true standard for doing good in this sense is God. When we talk about usefulness and effectiveness, we are talking about fulfilling a purpose. But the only person who truly knows the purpose for which something was created (and thus can measure its effectiveness) is the creator. Our Creator is God. God, and only God, provides the standards by which our goodness (usefulness) can be measured. We are to be active and engaged in our community, but working in a way defined by God, not by the culture around us. Doing good is not necessarily doing what the culture wants us to do, but doing what God tells us is best for the culture. That has a negative sense ("abstain from fleshly desires") and a positive sense ("conduct yourselves honorably"). That brings us to the final boundary that Peter set for us: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His possession, so that you may proclaim the praises of the One who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. These words probably mean what you think they mean, but let me highlight two "must notice" elements. (1) Everything is plural and collective. We are not to think of ourselves in this context as individuals, but as a "people" or a race. (2) The "nation" we are to think of is not firstly where we live but who we are in Jesus Christ. That spiritual bond supersedes all political and cultural bonds.
And I think that's where Peter is going with this. God wants us to be model citizens of our country of residence. But we need to think of ourselves as temporary residents. We work for as much good as we can . . . without getting too comfortable. We cannot do that if we isolate ourselves, if we don't get involved. But our involvement must never lead us to participate in the sinful practices of the world around us. We can and should be proud to be an American, but our first and primary identity is Christian. And if God ever called us to leave America for somewhere else, we should not only do so willingly, we should work for the good of whatever country He takes us. That still gives individual Christians a lot of leeway of interpretation, or what exactly they believe they should and should not do. But hopefully I've helped to clarify some clear boundaries that Peter set for his audience. Remember that Peter was writing to a church that lived in a "country" where the leader was plotting to kill them. We have no excuses. God, bless America, the land that I love, my home. God, help me to make the right difference in my community, and lead all Christians to do the same.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorIf I ever say something in here that doesn't make sense, please ask me to clarify. It always makes sense in my head, but that doesn't necessary mean anything to you . . . Categories
All
|