Living in Two Kingdoms - Meg's Homework Ramble

Our Sunday school class just finished a John Piper video series in which Piper explained that Jesus is a lamb-like lion and a lion-like lamb. He expounded on that, of course, but I think the phrase pretty aptly summarizes what he had to say.

We're now beginning a new series entitled "Living in Two Kingdoms." I'm not sure if this is another tape series of someone speaking or if this is something Don has put together himself. But he sent out some homework questions for us to answer before we show up tomorrow. I thought I'd "think out loud" here with my answers.

1. What is the Kingdom of God?
The obvious first part of that answer is that the kingdom is the domain of God. And God wouldn't be god unless everything was in his domain -- from atoms to the universe, if it weren't all God's to rule then he really would be more of a demi-god or a sub-god than an almighty god.

But I think there's more to this answer than just the easy bit. The Kingdom of God encompasses all of this substantial world, but it also refers to a realm that overlaps with ours but that is distinct from the earthly/human world.

The book group that I'm in recently finished a book called The City & The City (by China Miéville) in which two distinct nations overlapped each other geographically, but were entirely distinct otherwise to the point that people in one nation learned to "unsee" people in the other nation. In order to "see" the people in the other nation you actually had to go through customs  to socially and politically enter the other nation, at which point you'd have to "unsee" the people that you had seen all the time back in your old nation. In other words, you could live right next to people in another nation and never interact with them, or even acknowledge them, because they technically lived somewhere different from where you did. It was a trippy book, but an interesting concept.

I think the Kingdom of God is similar to Miéville's story in that we live in an overlapped situation. But it differs in terms of interaction. We daily walk in both nations, as opposed to only in one or the other. But I think many people who call themselves Christians live only in one nation and believe that the other nation, the heavenly nation, is a subset or part of that one nation. They spout "God and country" in a way that clearly subjects God to the designs of the country. I think they miss "the Kingdom of God" in its entirety - or else severely misunderstand it.

I still don't think I've answered the question, though. The Kingdom of God is a political entity that defies all other polities. It is an eternal kingdom ruled by God, with characteristics unlike any other nation, and yeah, I'll cop to it, it's a utopia. It is the glorified, unified,

2. What are the characteristics of God's kingdom?
The Kingdom of God is characterized by love. In fact, love is the characteristic that governs every other characteristic in this kingdom: forgiveness, unity, kindness, faithfulness, caring, gentleness, mutual submission (looking out for each other's best interests), compassion, meekness, humility, self-control, selflessness, trust, patience, contentment, peace, equality of worth, hopefulness, truthfulness, generosity, perseverance, righteousness, readiness, holiness, prayerfulness,....

3. What features of U.S. culture are explicitly biblical-Christian?
I think this is the hardest question of the bunch. Maybe that's because I'm reading into it. I expect this question to be, "What features of U.S. culture are explicitly inline with features of the Kingdom of God. But I suppose that's not necessarily what it's asking.

I suppose the first part of this question is "What are the features of U.S. culture?" Individuality, selfishness, strength, craving entertainment, ingenuity, entrepreneurial spirit, risk-taking, creativity, consumerism, untested trust, arguing, hatred (that Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind), insensitivity, callousness, overload, brilliance, diversity, acceptance, .... This is a really hard list to come up with. There is obviously kindness in America, but is kindness a feature of U.S. culture? It doesn't strike me as being integral to our culture. Then again, if I were looking just at our neighborhood, or more likely, in a rural American neighborhood, then perhaps kindness would strike me more as being a feature of the culture. Maybe the first part of the question isn't "What are the features of U.S. culture?" but "What is the U.S.?"

OK, so to take a stab at answering the original question here, I'd say that diversity and creativity are explicitly biblical-Christian. There's probably other things. But I'm still caught up in "What is the U.S.?" and "What are the features of her culture?" to see them.

I'll be really eager to hear Sonia's thoughts on this question. She probably sees American culture with different eyes than we do.

4. How do we live in God's kingdom and earth's world?
Fully.

What? Is that cheating? I can't just answer with one word? *sigh* I'd say it's very easy to live in the earthly world. And those who like to point out the most loudly that they aren't living according to the culture or values of this world are often the very ones who hold more tightly to nationalism and cultural values of anger, hatred, and individualism more tightly than most. I think it's important that we're aware of how we're embedded in this world. What values have we taken on that are distinctly worldly? (Not just American, since not all Christians are Americans (*gasp* I know. For some I'm speaking heresy here.) but of any human culture.)

We are humans and therefore we cannot not live within human culture. It's impossible. Even when we try to steep ourselves in godly culture, we build within it so much human culture of our own making that we are no longer in godly culture. (The Pharisees and Westboro church are poster children here.) We do best to be aware of that in which we reside, to use well that which is good of our own culture and to disengage from that which is bad.

And we need to steep ourselves in the culture of heaven. Church should be our proving grounds where we test forgiveness and unity and kindness and.... It should be a safe place where we learn to put on heavenly culture and where we can safely mess up and try again. It should be a place where we experience godly culture, where we are helped to grow in it, where we have partners who grow with us. And it should be a launching point for carrying God's culture with us out to the world, loving the world and all her people, enabling those not of God's kingdom to experience the culture of God's kingdom and inviting them to join in it with us.

Why can't we all just get along?

I hear Rodney King's sentiment, "Why can't we all just get along?" echoed now and again among various groups of people that I hang out with. But I wonder what they mean by that. More often than not, the impression I'm left with is closer to "Why can't everyone who disagrees with me just stop being stupid and agree with me?" It seems that people would like to have unity, but at the same time I don't see them doing anything that involves them crossing those invisible barriers that divides groups of people from one another. They're not building bridges. They're not listening to opposing view points. They're not walking in other people's shoes. 

I came across two quotes recently that I found interesting in that they seem to encourage a culture of discovery, discussion, respect and scholarship. I'm sure I could find all sorts of quotes that encourage such a culture, but what struck me about these quotes is that they actually are already rooted in a culture: Judaism. 

Pertaining to Biblical studies, the saying shiv'im panim la-Torah, "The Law has seventy faces," is a reminder that Torah can be interpreted many ways.

In other words, just because it's plain as day to me that such and such means THIS, that doesn't mean that everyone else is seeing with the same eyes. And just because their perspective is different doesn't mean they're wrong. We should explore our difference of opinion. Maybe there's information that colors our understanding that would be helpful to share. Perhaps there's experiences or details that, while not changing our mind, might help us to graciously accept and understand why the other person thinks differently. Perhaps we can stop thinking that we are always right.  

For those who undertake the study of more than five centuries of rabbinical thought--the Talmud--another maxim applies: elu va-elu divrey Elohim khayim ("both are the words of the living God"). This means that interpretations which are contrary to one another may both be acceptable.

The endless debates regarding free will vs. predestination immediately jump to mind. (As do several political debates that seem to polarize the church as well as the nation.) If all things are predestined, then how can we be responsible for anything we do, whether good or bad? But if all relies upon free will, then aren't we negating God's sovereignty and his will? But why does it have to be only one way or the other? Can't we be fully culpable for our actions and can't God also be fully in control? Isn't is possible that both are accurate interpretations of the scriptures? (The example of Pharaoh comes to mind.)

If we are ever to see unity within the church, we need to start by listening to one another. And we need to realize that *I* am not the final arbiter of what is right or wrong. God is. And he has placed us in a community, not for us to antagonize each other, but for us to learn from each other and encourage and exhort one another. 

- - - - -

The quotes were taken from the book Hebrews through a Hebrews Eyes by one of my former pastors, Stuart Sacks.

The beginning of wisdom

A friend of mine just retweeted this:

RT @JohnPiper The beginning of wisdom is that I have absolutely no say in how God should run the world, and I am peaceful with that.

It seemed to fit in with our previous discussion in which I used a gardener and ant analogy, so I thought I'd share it here.

Why Pharaoh Falls Squarely Into the Calvinist/Arminianist Camp(s)

I just read Wink's post entitled, I'm Sorting It Out, on the topic of Our Free Will vs. God's Sovereignty.  I was going to add a reply there when I realized that what I'd really like to post is my "Pharaoh list" (which is in the form of a jpg). But I generally try to avoid adding html to other people's blogs (off Multiply, that is) because more often than not it's either rejected or causes the reply to get held for moderation.  So I decided to post it here along with an excerpt from the essay I wrote on the "Pharaoh list".  This excerpt was originally written in January 2002.

- - - - -

At some point, in reading the story of Moses, I realized a little detail that comes up several times, but that had never jumped out at me before.  In fact, I’ve never heard this preached on nor have I ever heard anyone bring it up in discussion.  Its one of those little details that you don’t tend to notice when you break a story down into chunks to study and its one of those items that you tend to notice one side of more than the other (depending on your doctrinal leanings). The problem is this, when Moses asks Pharaoh to let his people go, at times the text says that Pharaoh hardened his heart and at other times it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.  Here’s a chart showing the flipping flopping back and forth in the assigning of responsibility (as in, who made Pharaoh’s heart hard):

So, which is it?  Does Pharaoh have free will?  Is he able to decide when he is going to harden his heart and when he is not?  Or is he just a puppet and God can pull the right strings to make him harden his heart?

Perhaps both may be true.

First of all, let me point out that in Exodus 9:34 it not only states that Pharaoh (and his officials) hardened his heart, but the statement was also made that Pharaoh “sinned again.”  Very clearly Pharaoh is responsible for his actions.  He had the choice, he made it, he sinned, and he is therefore guilty.  If he had no say in what path he had chosen, then it would be unfair for him to bear guilt.  Pharaoh had the free will to choose whether he would harden his heart or not.  

But note that just a few verses later, in Exodus 10:1, God claims responsibility for what the text just got done saying was Pharaoh’s responsibility.  

But how can it be both that God has acted and that Pharaoh has acted in the very same situation (in the same act!)?  And how can one be responsible for what the other has done?  The Bible makes it very clear that both God and Pharaoh are fully responsible for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.  Now if that doesn’t give you a headache, you’re probably not getting it yet.

Those that say that people have free will are absolutely correct.  And those that say that God predestines our lives are absolutely correct.  Here, in one story, both sides are shown to be true.

Perhaps you could try thinking about it this way.  The Pointillists were known for painting pictures using only primary colors.  They would paint by using very short brush strokes (or points) and when the completed painting was viewed from a distance, the eye blended the colors bringing out a plethora of colors beyond the simple few that the artist used.  Imagine that any one of us is an ant and we are viewing the picture from several different parts of the room.  The ant on the far side of the room might see a spot of orange, whereas the ants that are crawling across that section of painting might instead see either only red, or only yellow.  Now imagine that red is predestined acts and that acts done of our own free will are yellow. The ant that sees the orange is the one that sees things most clearly, though really, its still a bit fuzzy.  Orange indicates that both colors are present. The ant standing on the red dot has a skewed view, as does the one standing on the yellow dot.

The analogy is certainly not perfect.  It might be more accurate to imagine an artist mixing both red and yellow paint together to create orange.  What is created is now predestination and free-will combined so seamlessly that they have formed a new color, or a new status of predestination and freedom of choice.  In orange, one could say that red is fully there and yellow is fully there.  And yet neither can be seen because they have become a third color.  Predestination can be “true” and free-will can be “true” but neither one is fully accurate on its own because they are only describing components of a more full reality.

Christianity and Patriotism

This is a repost of a repost. This article was originally published on my meg.dunn.net site (which has long since expired). It was then republished in the Christian Community group here on Multiply. I started that group back in September 2004, but I've decided to remove myself from there and focus on my DandelionWine site instead. So I'm reposting several reposts that I had put there over to here.

I originally posted this in November 2001 so no promises on the links.

			Christianity and Patriotism * "I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the nation for which it stands...." Many of us learned those words in first grade about the same time we learned the words to, "John Jacob Jingleheimer Smith. His name is my name too." We didn't give a lot of thought to what we were saying. In fact, I have seen comics in which kids say the pledge with all the wrong words... and its funny because we know we probably did the same as children. We had no true sense of what we were saying. We just tried to get the sounds and syllables right. There's no "Confirmation" point for our national allegiance (except, perhaps, in times of war). We don't generally have our allegiance questioned or tested. Its often just expected (a dormant dragon waiting to be roused by some catastrophe or Olympic sporting event). And because our allegiance is rarely questioned, we often don't weigh our own thoughts and attitudes, or actions, in regards to our allegiance. Are we devoted to our country? Do we feel obligated to it? How deeply do we align ourselves with our nationality (a confusing term in America where most of us consider ourselves something not American in terms of nationality -- "Kiss me. I'm Irish."). allegiance n. Devotion; loyalty; as, allegiance to science. Just as a child who is raised in the church, still needs to come to a point where they actually decide for themselves whether they will fully embrace the God of their parents (hence, Confirmation, or in some denominations, Baptism), so the children of America should, if they desire to be people of integrity, question their own relationship to their nation. This is especially true of Christians who reside in America (and I'm sure true of Christians in any country... but obviously I'm harping on Americans because I am one... besides, isn't it an American trait to be completely self-centered and ignorant? Woops, that's a bunny trail, now isn't it?) The question, when boiled down to its core, is, "Can a Christian, a follower of Christ, in good conscience, pledge their allegiance to the nation in which they have their citizenship?" allegiance n. The tie or obligation, implied or expressed, which a subject owes to his sovereign or government; the duty of fidelity to one's king, government, or state. Obviously, the first place to look would be the Bible. Does the Bible direct us to pledge our allegiance to our country? Does it say anything about it at all? Does it tell us to flee to the hills and forego all bonds to country? "No," "Yes," and "No," are the conclusions that I have come to for the above questions. The Bible includes several directives in terms of citizenship, national duty, and how our attitude should be toward our government. (I have compiled a list of verses that I believe are relevant to this topic.) Citizenship "But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,..." (Philippians 3:20) Despite the fact that in terms of voting, ... and ... we are considered to be citizens of this country, our true and enduring citizenship is in heaven. As Paul says to the Ephesians (2:19), "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,..." I think that for many of us, its hard to envision what this looks like. Its easy to say that I'm a citizen of heaven, but what does that really mean in terms of how I approach life? I can understand it best when I consider a foreigner living in the United States. Let's say, for the benefit of having a more concrete example, that we're considering the make-believe person, Isobel, who is a citizen of Spain, though she lives and works in Chicago, Illinois. Isobel enjoys the benefits of living in America -- the huge shopping mall;, the ability to go site seeing miles away without having to take a passport along; the freedom to practice her own religion; even the right to bad mouth the United States, the President, the Congress, etc. At the same time, she must suffer the down sides of living in America as well -- the consumer minded populous; the American-centric, even prejudiced, attitude of many Americans; the comparative lack of hospitality; the dimwitted sitcoms on television, etc. Isobel may enjoy living in America. But, as a citizen of Spain, she maintains obligations to Spain that could require her return and that will actually affect her concerns and decisions. Not only will she tend to behave culturally as a Spaniard (though she may adopt some Americanisms), she will also maintain and concern for the welfare of her country. If Spain were bombed or suffering a severe economic downturn, she would suffer anxiety and feel compassion for those in her homeland. On the other hand, if America were bombed or suffering a severe economic downturn, she would most likely be affected, but not as deeply or emotionally as if it were her own country. I believe that what I am trying to get at is not only would Isobel have legal obligations to Spain (she may be called home if there is a war and she is drafted (do they draft women in Spain?) or she is still subject to their laws of espionage), but more than likely, her maintained citizenship in Spain indicates an emotional bond with that country that she maintains even though she is geographically no longer in that country. citizen n. 1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation. 2. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there. At the same time, Isobel is still subject to the laws of the United States. Just because she is a citizen of a different country does not mean that she can murder her coworkers without being subject to the related laws. She cannot fail to pay taxes, she cannot drive 100 mph in a 45 mph zone and she cannot legally sell crack to drug users. So, even though she is legally and probably emotionally connected to Spain, she also must behave within certain parameters during her stay in the United States. Though citizens of heaven, Christians still live on this earth and receive both the positives and negatives in living here. We are also required to obey the laws and obligations of citizenship in heaven and residency on earth. The laws of heaven are the Ten Commandments and the other laws listed in the Pentateuch. But as the Jews helpfully modeled for us in the rest of the Old Testament, the laws are impossible to keep fully. So Jesus (the King of heaven -- John 18:36-37) fulfilled those legal obligations for us, although the fruits of our citizenship should still be visible for others to see. (Woa! What do I mean by that? Well, though we won't be imprisoned for disobeying the law, since Jesus has "washed our sins away," we're still expected to behave as upstanding citizens of the country, heaven. Its not our "upstanding actions" that give us the right to be citizens of heaven, its Jesus' actions that have provided that right. But that doesn't change the fact that once we're citizens, we can be reputable citizens or we can be shabby citizens. In other words, our faith will be shown in works and not vice versa.) I'll dig deeper into our earthly obligations later. I also believe that the Bible calls us to an emotional connection with our heavenly citizenship (which is why I included it as a part of the Isobel example, though I've known foreigners who certainly seem to be more emotionally tied to America than their home country). Passages such as Hebrews 13:14, John 16:33, 1 John 2:15-17, as well as others, lead me to believe that we are not only legally citizens of God's Kingdom, but that we are called to long for that kingdom as well. It is easy to get so blinded by the day to day living on earth that we forget about our true homeland. And yet, it is remembering our true identity that helps us to live as citizens of heaven, with all the difficult decisions that may require and the positive fruit that it should produce. National Duty I think our national duty is fairly clear. Just as Isobel still had to obey the laws of America, so we still have to obey the laws of America (Matthew 22:17-22 - give unto Caesar what is Caesar's - as well as Romans 13:1-7 and others) as well as the laws appropriate to whatever state we live in, whatever country we live in, perhaps even whatever subgroup we live in. (A subgroup could be something like involvement in an online discussion group. One of the rules is not to spam the members. This might not be a national law, nor a local law, but its still a rule that should be followed if you want to be an upstanding member of that group.) There are still hazy areas to this civic obedience, of course. If the US goes to war, should we, as Christians, go and kill others in order to be obedient? Or should we look to the laws of heaven which might lead us to conclude that it would be better to run off to Canada than to take the life of another person? I definitely know people that would fall pretty soundly on either side of this argument, and yet I believe that those on both sides are Christians. Certainly God's law supersedes national laws. And yet, I believe that these laws disagree so rarely, that I certainly don't want to make a huge issue of it. I do think, however, that whatever side we might choose to follow in these gray areas, we should be sure to think through our decisions (and its ramifications) carefully. The Christians' Attitude Toward Government As followers of Christ, we're called to more than just physical obedience to the laws of whatever nation we might find ourself living in. We're actually called to have an attitude of submission as well. 1 Peter 2:13-17 sums it up fairly succinctly: "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king." We don't fear the king, even an evil tyrant (as many of the Christians lived under in the early church). In fact, as far as we can, we should submit to their authority. But we submit not out of fear of the ruler, but out of fear of God. (Fear of God is an entirely different topic and I'm not about to try to cover my thoughts on that here.) And no matter what type of person the king is, we're told to honor him. It doesn't say, "and honor those king's who are honorable." Not only do we give rulers the honor that they're due, but we should be praying for them. We should be seeking "the peace and prosperity" of the country/city/group to which we have been "exiled." (see Jeremiah 29:5-7) Whether we like where we live or not, whether we like the people we're surrounded by our not, whether we like our rulers or not, we still need to seek their best. In fact, seeking the best for our country and our leaders will actually end up benefiting us. (Jeremiah again) We should be praying for our national, local, and group leaders as directed in 1 Timothy 2:1, "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." "I pledge allegiance to the Giants..." Patriotism So all of this brings me back to, "Can a follower of Christ, in good conscience, recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States?" Well, if the allegiance mentioned in the pledge is the same allegiance that I can hold for a sports team or a chocolate bar (mmmm, Chocolove!) then sure, why not? But, if allegiance means a tie or obligation that I hold to my King, Jesus Christ, then I don't think so. I can and will submit to my country. But "allegiance" seems to hold more to it than just submission. There's a relationship involved - subject to king. And if I am to remain faithful to that relationship, then I cannot hold the same type of relationship with any other person or thing. Attributing Patriotism to God Are we "one nation, under God?" Well, of course. Every nation is under God. Are we somehow God's nation? Or is God more on our side than any other nation's side? I severely doubt that. Perhaps its fine to support ones country. In fact, according to Jeremiah 29, we should be supporting whichever country in which we find ourselves. However, does that mean that a country can be Christian or non-Christian? God's or not God's? Every country is God's, whether the people within it call themselves Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. * disclaimer: I use the term "American" to refer to those living in the United States of America, and likewise have chosen to use "America" to refer to those same United States (since it often sounds poetically more correct than saying "the USA" or "these United States" or any other phrase that has come to refer to this country that essentially has no name but is rather referred to by its organizational status. German Patriotism in the Church (in the 30's and 40's) (an addendum added April 2003) The following is a selection from Eberhard Bethge's biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, from chapter seven which was entitled, "Berlin: 1933." A forest of swastika flags surrounded the alter of Magdeburg Cathedral. The cathedral dean Ernst Martin interpreted the scene from the pulpit with words similar to those used by many other church leaders: It has simply become the symbol of German hope. Whoever reviles this symbol is reviling our Germany.... The swastika flags round the alter radiate hope--hope that the day is at last about to dawn. In the first sermon Bonhoeffer preached in the Trinity Church in Berlin after Hitler's seizure of power, he announced: The church has only one alter, the alter of the Almighty... before which all creatures must kneel.... Whoever seeks something other than this must keep away; he cannot join us in the house of God.... The church has only one pulpit, and from that pulpit, faith in God will be preached, and no other faith, and no other will than the will of God, however well-intentioned. The Christian's obviously had no idea of what was coming. But as Bonhoeffer points out, whether well-intentioned or no, the church follows God, not state. Following state means dividing (or completely transferring) loyalties. Our allegiance should be to God. We should give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but to God goes our allegiance and loyalties. The church in Germany certainly struggled with this. Or rather, some of those churches didn't struggle enough. The German Christian's (a party within the church... church offices were elected) slogan was, "Build the new Church of Christ in the new State of Adolf Hitler." We can look back upon that and shudder, but how many Christians might feel completely comfortable saying something similar today (either of George W. Bush or of the Republican party). Matthew 6:24 says that "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other...." Choose carefully who shall be your master.