3.13.2006

Against Christianity?


Peter Leithart is controversial and provocative. He wants to be. He wants to change the categories and labels so that we think about what we’re doing. Thus the title of this book.

What’s it all about? Largely, it’s about a “Christianity” that is confined to the head, the pew, and one day of the week. This is contrasted with the Biblical view of the Church as “the Assembly” (Greek: ekklesia). Leithart doesn’t go the usual route with this term – called out of the world, or called as in elect of God. Instead, he notes that this is the same term the Greeks of the day used for their political gatherings which had the purpose of governing the city. Assembly is Parliament. Ekklesia is Congress. The Church is the new governing body of a new City. It is the City of God, already established here on earth, as a challenging alternative to the secular city.

Okay, so now that I’ve got you nervous, let me alleviate that. Leithart does not mean political as you think of political. He does not advocate political activism as it is typically thought of. The Church isn’t supposed to be telling congress what laws to pass. It’s not like that.

Now let me make you nervous again. The Christianity Leithart is against allows the world, and even Christians, to marginalize their faith out of the center of culture. Instead, our faith, if preached and lived out faithfully, will have tangible results beyond the pew and morning devotions. We will act differently at work, with our neighbors, etc., and that will change the culture. This is not a bad thing. We have to rethink what culture is; it is nothing more than the outworking, externalizing, of religion. What we DO is determined by what we BELIEVE.

Many people lament the times in history where whole cultures and their governments have adhered to Christianity, because it makes for nominal Christians. This is misguided. Such nominalism is a real concern, but in a thoroughly Christian culture it can be dealt with through knowing each other well, and subsequent church discipline. We don’t need a godless general culture to produce genuine Christians. Leithart points to Jonah at Nineveh as an example. “You called me to be a prophet against them, not a chaplain for them!” But what’s wrong with being a chaplain aligned with a power that believes?

Along these lines, Leithart’s last chapter is “For Constantine.” Christendom is not an inherently negative thing, where the Church is grasping after power in a sinful way. “Christendom meant not the Church’s seizing alien power, but alien power’s becoming attentive to the Church” (pg 129, quoting Oliver O’Donovan’s “Desire of Nations”).

“The Christian Right made one of the most characteristic of modern political beliefs the foundation of its entire agenda: the assumption that the state has jurisdiction of morals….. A more radically Christian approach would be for the Church to challenge this assumption by reasserting her own jurisdiction of morals…. The Church could begin by accepting responsibility for the conduct of her own members” (pg 118).

But,

“The Church does not agree on, much less enforce, her own ‘thou shalt nots.’ The Church does not even agree that there are ‘thou shalt nots.’ The anti-culture has invaded the Church” (pg 115).

“So long as the Church preaches the gospel and functions as a properly “political” reality, a polity of her own, the kings of the earth have a problem on their hands. Some Haman will notice that there is a people in the empire who do not live according to the laws of the Medes…. As soon as the Church appears, it becomes clear to any alert politician that worldly politics is no longer the only game in town…. This necessarily forces political change, ultimately of constitutional dimensions” (pg 136).

The big questions this book raises, but doesn't really answer or address: how do we go after a distinctively Christian culture OUT THERE, while also affirming religious tolerance in the public square? Was it wrong for Constantine to outlaw pagan religions in favor of Christianity? Why would that be wrong today in America? Do we believe more strongly in the First Amendment or the First Commandment? Ultimately (in the Kingdom of Heaven), the two are incompatible and the former will pass away. But if we’re praying for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, why are we reluctant about this?

No direct answers from me right now, but this from Steve Forbes during his presidential campaign a few years back: we have to change the culture before we can change the laws. Because the laws are just the outworking of our beliefs. Work on the heart of your neighbor; that’s the way to change things. Neither Leithart nor I am interested in imposing Christian laws on people who don't want it. God will judge them for their rebellion eventually; I don't have to now. But we need to keep in mind our goal in the culture war: to win; to change enough hearts that people want to have a government that explicitly honors the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whether this will actually happen before Christ's return is beside the point; shouldn't we be working towards it now?

Expecting some good discussion on this one...

5 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:53 PM

    I can't argue constitution, because I know nothing about the American constitution except that the separation of church and state is nothing like it is commonly understood today.

    I question, do we really want to establish a 'Christian' culture? I ask that because it seems whenever culture gets christianized, many pagans become Christian on the outside, but without real heart faith, because it is the 'acceptable thing' to do. It has been a long time since I read a book entitled "The Once And Future Church," but I seem to remember that was part of what happened when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. The far reaching changes in the church that came from that have lasted until the last couple of decades. Now we seem to be in a paradigm shift back to a culture much more like that of the early Christian church. Is that good? I'm not sure, but the cultural christianity of the past was more friendly, but how many people were christian in name, but not in any other way because it was the expected thing?

    I'm looking forward to hearing more from others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. steve,
    I thought you were married, or are you and sara living in _____? :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. What can I say...Jim put me up to it! :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:11 AM

    Steve, I guess my question is does Christianity need to be the official religion of the land for Christians to have an effect on culture? I'm not sure it does.

    It seems that if all those who follow Jesus would realize whatever task they do is a vocation in which they serve God, if all those who followed Jesus would live with a consistent view that all they do must be done in light of God and seeking to glorify him, then I would hazard a guess that there would be great effect on the culture even if Christianity was not the official religion.

    Having said that, a similar problem could arise if there were enough Christians in a given culture so that they are the majority. Then it would also be advantageous for people to become nominal Christians as that is the group that makes us the majority.

    So I guess either way the same danger it there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10:51 AM

    I guess I am not sure that the establishment of a theocracy is what we are charged to do as the church. This is not to say that I would not want a Christian government that enforced the first tablet of the law, but rather, that I would need to be convinced that that is something we as Christians are charged to establish.

    ReplyDelete