Before we get into today’s topic, I would like to make a modest and sensible proposal: the Mavericks send their number one lottery pick, along with Anthony Davis, to the Lakers for Luka. Please.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am continuously in search of ways to better articulate my conviction that the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world are incompatible. As disciples of Christ and citizens of God’s Kingdom, we already have our politics. We belong to a holy country without borders and we have a crucified and risen King, we have laws for getting along together and taking care of those around us, we have rituals and traditions that keep our story straight and our loyalties in place, we have ways and means for effecting change and transforming the world.  And all of it stands in direct opposition to the politics of the nations. The two kingdoms have opposite foundations and goals, opposite ways of getting things done, opposite methods for changing peoples’ lives, opposite ideas about wealth and power and force, opposite values–opposite everything.

Our King tells us we cannot serve two masters. We will love the one and hate the other, we will be loyal to one and despise the other. Jesus tells Pilate, “My Kingdom is not of this world; if it were, my servants would fight.” The politics of God’s Kingdom and the politics of worldly empires not only have nothing in common, they are each directly opposed to the other’s goals and ways and means of reaching them.

My brother, Keith, has heard me talk about this for about 20 years now. He doesn’t agree with me on every point–in his own words, he doesn’t see it as an “either/or,” he’s more of a “both/and.” But he’s come across an article by Paul Kingsnorth, a Christian writer living in Ireland, that articulates my views very well. The article is titled, “Against Christian Civilization” and was published in January by First Things. And it’s excellent.

On the third page Kingsnorth quotes Charles Alexander Eastman, a Dakota Sioux who was eighteen at the time of Custer’s Last Stand: “There is no such thing as ‘Christian civilization.’ I believe that Christianity and modern civilization are opposed and irreconcilable.”

I’ve read this piece five times now and I’m impressed with the expert way Kingsnorth weaves his narrative, and I’m thrilled with the clarity it gives the reader and for the potential for moving my conversations forward with others.

I’m asking you to read the article. It’s right here. And it will take some time. It’s thirteen pages and it covers a lot of historic and theological ground. I think you will find it helpful in, at the very least, understanding where I am and, I pray, wrestling with your own understandings and Christian calling regarding what I call Church As State.

Read it today. And I’ll write more about it tomorrow.

Here’s an excerpt to entice you to click and read:

“When we read the life of Jesus of Nazareth, in fact, it is impossible not to see a man who was, in some fundamental sense, uncivilized. He did not tell us to get good jobs and save prudently. He told us to have no thought for the morrow. He did not tell us to generate wealth, so that economic growth could bring about global development. He told us to give everything away. The rich, he said repeatedly, could never attain the Kingdom of Heaven. He did not tell us to defend our frontiers or to expand them. He told us never to resist evil. He did not tell us to be responsible citizens. He told us to leave our dead fathers unburied and follow him instead. He told us to hate our own parents and to love those who hated us. Every single one of these teachings, were we to follow them, would make the building of a civilization impossible.

What we are really hearing about, then, when we hear of defending or rebuilding ‘Christian civilization,’ is not Christianity and its teachings at all, but modernity and its endgame. It is the idol of material progress–the progress that has shredded both culture and nature–which is causing such grief everywhere. ‘Christian civilization’ is not a solution to this; it is part of the problem. And when actual Christianity is proposed instead, the response is so often the same: Oh, yes, that’s all very well, you fundamentalist–but what practical use is it?”

That last line reminds me of G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy” in which he says Christianity has not been tried and found lacking; it’s been found difficult and never really tried.

Go Stars!

Allan