U.S. Foreign Policy Versus the Great Commission (by Tony Campolo)
Samuel Huntington, the Harvard political scientist and the author of The Clash of Civilizations, contends that unless things change, we are facing an era marked by religious wars.
Just about every military struggle between 1945 and 1995 was over political-economic ideologies. This was true of revolutions in Latin America and Southeast Asia led by Leninists and Maoists trying to establish Communist regimes, or by the CIA endeavoring to overthrow governments that were antithetical to U.S. interests. But from 1995 on, Huntington points out, revolutions and wars generally have been fought over religion.
In the Philippines, Kashmir, Sudan, and in several other “hot spots,” religious militants have been endeavoring to establish domination in the name of their gods through the muzzles of guns. It remains an obligation by religious moderates to stand up against such militants and to work for reconciliation between conflicting religio-political camps. The alternatives are all-out war on a mega-level, or endless acts of terrorism.
Those of us who are Red Letter Christians have still another concern with respect to these religious wars. We are a people committed to evangelism, and we realize that as religious wars escalate, our opportunities to preach the gospel in many places, and especially in Muslim countries, where it is seldom heard, are dramatically diminished.
At just about every conference on missions, there are regular calls for new missionaries to spread the gospel to the millions of people who live in the 10/40 window. The 10/40 window refers to the land mass that reaches from 10 degrees above the equator to 40 degrees below the equator, and stretches from the Atlantic eastward to the Pacific. The population in the 10/40 window is overwhelmingly Muslim.
It doesn’t take much for Red Letter Christians to recognize that the hostilities between Muslims and Christians have increased greatly as of late because of certain geopolitical events—particularly as we consider what has been happening in the Holy Land and the consequences of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. It is not surprising that the Islamic world is growing more hostile toward the gospel than ever before. Around the world, Muslims are viewing the American army in Iraq as a Christian army reviving the likes of the medieval Crusades, which were marked by a massive slaughter of Muslims and the occupation of holy Islamic lands by so-called “Christian” conquerors.
The American toleration of the oppression of Arab peoples in Palestine, which our government could work to stop, has exacerbated a jihad that will settle for nothing less than having the Jewish people pushed off the land and into the sea, and an unbridled hatred of Christian Zionists.
The ramifications of our nation’s “big-stick” foreign policies in the Middle East have been severe for missionary work. For the first time in a thousand years, churches in Baghdad are being burned down. The Coptic bishop of Iraq was kidnapped and later found dead. Christians, facing persecution, have fled Iraq by the tens of thousands, so that a Christian community that once numbered more than 1.3 million is now down to 600,000.
In Pakistan, missionaries are finding it harder and harder to continue their work. Where once there were as many as 400 missionaries, it has been reported that the number is now down to 40.
Red Letter Christians should recognize that there is a certain unity among Muslim peoples that is ritually generated and sustained. Consider the social and psychological sense of solidarity of a billion people around the world who, five times a day, all turn and bow toward the same city, Mecca, and recite the same prayers. It should be easy to understand how this spiritual oneness creates a milieu in which injustice to any of their people can be deemed an attack on the entire Islamic people. It requires little imagination to recognize that America’s militaristic ventures in the Middle East, and the CIA’s toppling of legitimate Muslim governments (check the 20th-century histories of Iraq and Iran) are setting up barriers to the missionary enterprise in the 10/40 window.
It baffles me as to how the same evangelical Christians who are committed to spreading the gospel in the 10/40 window support with enthusiasm military actions and diplomatic policies that make evangelizing those who live in that part of the world nearly impossible. Perhaps in the long run they put nationalistic jingoism and our lust for oil above the call of Christ to go into all the world and preach the gospel.
We Red Letter Christians have a responsibility. We must act quickly to not only stop an immoral war and end the oppression of Arab peoples, but to help our missionary-minded evangelical brothers and sisters understand that America’s militarism is curtailing our capacity to spread the gospel.
Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Right on, Tony!
Posted by: Anna | June 5, 2008 1:22 PM
"Perhaps in the long run they put nationalistic jingoism and our lust for oil above the call of Christ to go into all the world and preach the gospel."
Yes, that is what we are all doing. This is a fair and reasonable way to start a discussion.
And perhaps you are a relativistic hippie pacifist who secretly hopes that Islamic extremists take over America.
Wasn't that a helpful exchange?
Moving past your strawmen, and to your point, the fact that Muslims operate with strong religious solidarity is not an argument for or against a certain policy.
If the Iraq war were completely justified, we would be seen as Christian invaders because it is helpful for Muslim leaders to portray us that way.
To incorporate this reasoning is to suggest that our foreign policy ought to be aimed at converting other religions to Christianity. I am open to an argument for that paradigm, but one would need to explore all of its implications before asking our military to take missions into account.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 5, 2008 1:23 PM
I love how you miss Tony's point, Kevin. He isn't asking for our military to take Christian missions into account. He's asking American Christians to take missions into account before blindly accepting American military policy.
Big difference, I think.
D
Posted by: Don | June 5, 2008 1:30 PM
I love how you miss Tony's point, Kevin. He isn't asking for our military to take Christian missions into account. He's asking American Christians to take missions into account before blindly or even not so blindly supporting American military policy.
Big difference, I think.
D
Posted by: Don | June 5, 2008 1:31 PM
"I am open to an argument for that paradigm"
Somehow that doesn't surprise me.
Posted by: JamesMartin | June 5, 2008 1:35 PM
It's very interesting to see that Rev. Campolo very specifically names Muslims as the aggrieved party in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, but in the "Kashmir, Philippines, Sudan, and several other 'hot spots'", where the US military has had a limited role (if any at all) it's not Muslims but "religious militants".
Likewise Campolo says that the US tolerates oppression in Palestine, but Campolo cannot bring himself to name the actual oppressors: radical Muslim groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, often with the backing of the Islamist regime in Iran.
Nor does he ask why nothing less than the annihalation of Israel will satisfy these radicals. Nor does he recognize that this policy of seeking the destruction of Israel is shared by both Islamist and secular parties throughout the Middle East, and predates the American invasion of Iraq. Nor does he acknowledge the fact that the current government in Palestine won a fair election, and has the apparent support of the Muslim population of the West Bank.
I wouldn't say that the US is entirely blameless, but Campolo goes to considerable lengths to avoid dealing with the reality of Muslim and Arab radicalism that predates many US actions.
I won't say there isn't room to criticize US foreign policy, but I think a pretty strong case can be made that missionary efforts in the Muslim world were bound to be hampered by radical Islam, regardless of US foreign policy.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 5, 2008 1:46 PM
Evangelicals need to start thinking holistically about America's foreign policy and personal faith.
And perhaps you are a relativistic hippie pacifist who secretly hopes that Islamic extremists take over America.
...Campolo cannot bring himself to name the actual oppressors: radical Muslim groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, often with the backing of the Islamist regime in Iran.
Nor does he ask why nothing less than the annihalation of Israel will satisfy these radicals. Nor does he recognize that this policy of seeking the destruction of Israel is shared by both Islamist and secular parties throughout the Middle East, and predates the American invasion of Iraq.
Our two in-house concern trolls are using the base emotion of fear in their attempts to obfuscate the issues and distract comments away from insight contained in Tony Campolo's post.
Posted by: justintime | June 5, 2008 3:08 PM
"I love how you miss Tony's point, Kevin. He isn't asking for our military to take Christian missions into account. He's asking American Christians to take missions into account before blindly accepting American military policy.
Big difference, I think."
It would be a big difference if he were talking about blind acceptance, but he is talking about any acceptance at all. And he is asking us to take missions into account selectively. He is not asking for us to consider missions as part of our political worldview. He is asking us to oppose this war. As such, he has added nothing to the discussion.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 5, 2008 3:10 PM
Seriously kevin - whether you agree with the entire premise of Tony's argument or not, the basic question remains: should American Christians take the biblical mandate to evangelize the world into account when they think about U.S. military policy? The answer is yes, because we should take the biblical mandate into account in pretty much all of our decisions.
So if you don't agree with Tony's approach or answer to the question, perhaps you could add to the discussion - instead of just proclaiming that Tony hasn't done so. Use his post as a starting point for something substantive - model the contribution to the discussion that you claim Tony is not making - rather than adding nothing helpful to the discussion yourself.
Personally, I think Tony makes a valid argument. Does it mean the war was wrong - not necessarily, but it should be considered as a factor by American Christians in making our decisions. As a pastor, I am continually disappointed to see how little what the Bible says factors into most Christian's decisions about government - especially when it comes to issues like torture and war. Tony is definitely taking a step in the right direction by asking Christians to consider how U.S. military policy affects our ability to reach other people with the gospel message.
Posted by: Jake | June 5, 2008 4:11 PM
Lust for oil?
I think Tony's overall message is good and one that needs to be told, but let's please stick to the facts. We are not taking any of Iraq's oil profits.
Posted by: Russell | June 5, 2008 4:22 PM
Wolverine: "I wouldn't say that the US is entirely blameless..."
An interesting statement coming from you, Wolverine. Since we Americans have little control over Hamas, Hezbollah, or any of the other radicals in that region, our complaints about them are relatively useless.
However, we do have control over our own government to the extent that we can go to the ballot box and select our leaders. In that vein I see it as much more important for us to examine our own nation's policies as we approach the election. Face it...all the ranting at the extremists in the region is doing nothing. However, we have the opportunity to change things here in our nation.
So, what blame do you see being rightly placed upon our nation in the past 75 years in that region?
Posted by: RJohnson | June 5, 2008 5:06 PM
"We are not taking any of Iraq's oil profits."
No...we are setting up western corporations to do that. And we are paying for their protection while they build their infrastructure in the region. And we are paying for that infrastructure. And we are giving them tax breaks for doing it.
Posted by: RJohnson | June 5, 2008 5:09 PM
Does no one here realize how offensive it is to Muslims to blithely talk about missionaries visiting their countries to try to convert people to Christianity? How many of you would be offended if a Muslim tried to convert you as aggressively as American missionaries do?
Posted by: A.D. Kay | June 5, 2008 5:19 PM
In answer to the last comment, a Muslim attempting to convert me would not offend me, but he would be ignored. And there we see the difference between a free country and a Muslim country. In a Muslim country, it is illegal to preach Christianity in public. In a free country it is not illegal preach Islam.
And the person who started the blog is also starting with a common misperception, that is that the crusades were a wholly Christian inspired, unprovoked assault on previously Muslim countries.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Muslim Arabs conquered the holy land from the Holy Roman Empire, which was a successor to the (pagan) Roman Empire, who conquered it (I believe, someone can look it up) from the Pagan Persian empire etc, etc, etc.
After conquering the holy Land, the Muslims proceeded to pour into Europe, conquering much of what is now Eastern Europe and Spain before the Europeans expelled them from Eastern Europe, and then proceeded with the crusades. While the ignorant like to blame the brutalities of the crusades wholly on European Christians, there is plenty of blame for both sides.
Just because the Muslims, who fully control speech and education in their countries blame the crusades on Christians does not mean that their history is accurate. It is the responsibility of educated people to know both sides of a question.
Posted by: A Kerber | June 5, 2008 6:01 PM
George Bush on evangelism:
This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. Reuters: September 21, 2001
God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. Haaretz.com: June 27, 2003
Ann Coulter on evangelism:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. September 12, 2001
Posted by: justintime | June 5, 2008 6:01 PM
"It is the responsibility of educated people to know both sides of a question." A Kerber
....
One of the ironic things about the Crusades is that even though “God may have indeed wished it, there is certainly no evidence that the Christians of Jerusalem did, or that anything extraordinary was occurring to pilgrims there to prompt such a response at that moment in history.”*
In the 11th century, In the minds of the Muslims the Crusades were Western invasions motivated by the West’s greed and hatred for Islam, while the Christian West thought they were reclaiming the Holy Land and stopping the spread of Islam. For the West these wars were known as the ‘crusades’ which comes from the Latin word for cross. The Muslims, on the other hand, referred to the wars as “Frankish Invasions” using the Arabic word al-ifranj which is the term for French although it was applied to Westerners in general. **
The Crusades have made a lasting impact on the Islamic world, especially in their perception of the West and of Christians. In fact even today Muslims still consider the Crusades to be a symbol of Western hostility toward Islam. The Muslims were horrified by the brutality of the Franks and how they so willingly massacred civilians and broke promises. **
It did not help that the Crusaders felt little to no remorse for what they did and when the Muslims compared that to Saladin’s reputation of being a man of honor they thought even less of the Franks.**
The fact that the Franks were motivated more by politics and greed than true religious reason has led Muslims to feel that when Europe began to colonize the East it was merely a continuation of the Crusades. This view caused the Muslims to set up intellectual barriers and become very isolationist in their policies causing them to be left behind in the world scene. **
Now extremists of both the Christian and Islamic faith believe that confrontation is inevitable and because of this view the Crusades remain in focus keeping them in an active albeit violent role in contemporary politics.**
*Peters, “Early Muslim Empires,” pg 85. Qtd in Islam: The Straight Path. John L. Esposito. Oxford University Press: New York, 2005. Pg. 58.
**Wikipedia “Crusades”
Posted by: justintime | June 5, 2008 7:06 PM
As an MK or "mish-kid" (a child of missionaries) who was born and raised in a much friendlier Middle East, it is apparent that this administration's antics have finally wiped out two hundred years of positive, peaceful Western influence in the region.
Hospitals, universities, orphanages, and schools established by Christians in Britain and America, that date back to before the time of Abraham Lincoln, have been largely abandoned in favor of short-term gimmicks like "The Camel Method." Now we have vacation/evangelism that targets ethnic "people groups" with step-by-step techniques for convincing the infidels that their Koran is in fact a coded route to instant-salvation Christianity.
There was barely-constrained glee when Prince George occupied Mesopotamia. Onward Christian soldiers! Start minting those cute coins (John 3:16 on one side and "are you ready for eternity?" on the other) that our God-blessed warriors can pass out as they prepare the people for Armageddon...
For a vision of unrequited injustice remedied at last, see:
http://www.missionmeeting.org/spandau/
What have we allowed America to become? We cower in fear at every threat. We are mezmerized by every "breaking" event that our once-vaunted Fourth Estate castrati proclaim as newsworthy. We are rapidly becoming that Orwellian state that another George predicted more than fifty years ago, where...
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Or, as Pogo famously said, "we have met the enemy and he is us."
Posted by: John Ragland | June 5, 2008 7:15 PM
Several points:
Most of the so-called religious conflicts named are not religious conflicts at all. They're nationalist or class conflicts using religion as a vehicle. Other examples include Northern Ireland, the Polish resistance to Soviet hegemony and Polish Communism from roughly 1956 to 1989, and to some extent the Philippine "People Power" movement against Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, led to some extent by Cardinal Jaime Sin.
And in fact the American Christian crusade against Islam is to a great extent a pursuit of world domination using a religious vehicle, which is why American "Christians" in fact have no interest in what Jesus would say about their adherence to an empire and its practices which they viewed quite differently when done by the Soviet Union or others. Why are Christians so entranced by American power and find their safety in it? Is this not a religious commitment to worldly power and wealth - the trust of the rich man in his wealth, for whom it is his strong city?
In particular, God is not ashamed of those who count themselves strangers here (Heb. 11:13-16). In Brazil, I would be a stranger, so I would not call the Brazilian military mine. In speaking of "our military" and otherwise wholly identifying with the USA and its institutions, these "Christians" show themselves anything but strangers, but on the contrary friends of this world. This friendship with the world and their favorite kingdom in it has made them enemies of God (James 4:4), and so it has been since their equally zealous fathers slaughtered the Indians, enslaved, flogged, and often raped the African slaves in the knowledge that Scripture calls men-stealers worthy of death - and have done more of the same ever since, and all to build their own kingdom in this world.
What to do to run away from this history, except to demonize and murder others (Matthew 23:1-34)? When we say we have no sin we call God a liar, so that his word is not in us, but that's what we do to other people too. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" is only possible when we stop bearing false witness for ourselves and the worldly powers we identify with. As we make excuses for ourselves and the evil things we condone, we can only do so by slandering God and others.
This is why we so often hear absurd statements like the one above that Hamas and Hizbullah are the oppressors of the Palestinians. Hamas won a free election because they are less oppressive than the Israelis and their American sponsors.
Hizbullah is a Lebanese political party and resistance organization, allied with the movement of the Maronite Catholic general Michel Aoun, the Eastern Orthodox leader Suleiman Franjieh, and other non-Muslims, and which does not even have a presence in Palestine.
Posted by: Peter Attwood | June 5, 2008 7:45 PM
There is no doubt that American policies make it difficult for Christians to spread the Good News abroad, since the U.S. is supposedly a Christian country and the President loudly proclaims his Christianity.
But the argument here seems a little backward. It sounds a bit like it's saying that the effect on evangelism should be a major determiner of American foreign policy. That doesn't seem right. There is no official religion here (well, actually there is, but it isn't religion as we would think about it, but a civil religion which really isn't essentially compatible with Christianity or any other major world religion).
The better approach is to look at the message of Jesus, and to seek to bring those values into the public policy arena. "Who would Jesus bomb?" We should oppose American foreign policy not so much because it hampers evangelistic efforts abroad as that it is in contradiction to the values we have because we are followers of Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | June 5, 2008 10:24 PM
Why either-or, Bill? Why not both-and? Either way, the answer is the same.
meurig
Posted by: meurig | June 6, 2008 12:31 AM
Wow tony and his apparent fans are so narrow that you don't see a very simple clear fact.
No american missionaries flew planes into buildings, sent HOMOCIDE bombers into markets, or cut peoples heads off to promote religious change. These are the acts of muslims not RED LETTER Christian missionaries. Which is more aggressive?
HMMM...
Posted by: erik | June 6, 2008 4:16 AM
Tony - do you know about Toronto International Celebration Church & World Impact Ministries www.mycelebrationministries.com
- it is a Christian Ministry that takes the healing message of Jesus to Muslims and people of other faith - in festival gatherings of 50,000 and more - in Africa, Indonesia, etc.
See Indonesia - YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IgnfkPK8zg
Have a look at http://mycelebrationministries.com/mycm/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=47&Itemid=150
Posted by: David Walsh | June 6, 2008 8:48 AM
I think the substantive point of Tony's piece is the motivation for wars since 1995 - his conclusions hinge on this point. War will never succeed in settling disputes that grow out of differences in worldview or religion, short of genocide or extreme subjugation. War is a flawed policy and is shown to be flawed by the teachings and example of Jesus. "Those to take up the sword die by the sword." - sooner or later.
Posted by: Mike | June 6, 2008 11:13 AM
"No american missionaries flew planes into buildings, sent HOMOCIDE [sic] bombers into markets, or cut peoples heads off to promote religious change. These are the acts of muslims not RED LETTER Christian missionaries. Which is more aggressive?"
This statement conveniently ignores the more shameful deeds committed by some colonial missionaries.
And, by the same token, perhaps some might also see the "Christian-American" soldiers as missionary-invaders.
Equating the extremists of 9/11 with all Muslims is like saying that all Christians bomb abortion clinics and kill the abortion doctors. I have met some very wonderful, kind, and hospitable Muslims and some very unfriendly, unkind, rude Christians.
So it's really not so simple as Muslim = Bad and Christian = Good.
Posted by: naomi | June 6, 2008 1:25 PM
"No american missionaries flew planes into buildings, sent HOMOCIDE [sic] bombers into markets, or cut peoples heads off to promote religious change. These are the acts of muslims not RED LETTER Christian missionaries. Which is more aggressive?"
Over the centuries various Christian factions have supported brutal Crusades against so-called heretics, the burning of suspected witches in Europe and New England, the driving of Native Americans into Reservations, Inquisitions, Slavery, Apartheid in South Africa, the Klu Klux Klan in the Southern States. For all of these brutal activities some have found an excuse in parts of the Holy Bible just as the Christian right still does in it's support of the so-called "War on Terror" and in refusing to condemn US atrocities in Guantanamo, Abu Graib and secret prisons elsewhere.
It is generally accepted that George W Bush has made the lives of the few remaining Christians in Iraq and most ordinary non-Christians much worse than they were under Saddam and that missionary witness in Muslim countries is far more difficult now than it was before the Invasion.
It was reported in the British press yesterday that Bush wants Iraq kept under permanent US control with 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors!!
Posted by: Annie (UK) | June 6, 2008 3:31 PM
The Muslims have hated Christianity since the get go, and our war in Iraq didn't start that. Their whole premise is to make Muslims of the whole world for Allah. I take exception that they are the agrieved in this matter.
Posted by: Billie | June 6, 2008 4:03 PM
Dr. Campolo is at it again...misremembering or misquoting or perhaps just fabricating facts to support his argument--quite unnecessarily!
I could not agree with him more that US foreign policy, especially the invasion and occupation of Iraq by US forces, has had a detrimental effect on Muslim public opinion and on opinion in Pakistan especially. (Just ask people on the streets of Lahore as I've done!) This misguided, dishonest, malicious, greed-driven and bungled invasion has negatively impacted mission outreach in Pakistan. It has spurred a polarization in the society there and turned off a large segment of the Muslim population that might otherwise have been willing to give a hearing to the gospel. For example, Muslim subscriptions to a popular Bible correspondence course in the country have dropped off dramatically compared to what they were in the 80s.
However, Dr. Campolo goes too far when he repeats the statement below, which I took him to task for using in a piece published a couple of years ago in the Evangelicals for Social Action e-newsletter [PRISM e-pistle--Sept 2006].
"In Pakistan, missionaries are finding it harder and harder to continue their work. Where once there were as many as 400 missionaries, it has been reported that the number is now down to 40."
I see he has still not repented from using this kind of blatantly false fact (quite unnecessarily!) to support his argument. A very reliable source currently retired in Pakistan after 40+ years of missionary service there has written me that Interserve alone has more than 40 missionaries serving in Pakistan (his son & family are among them). In addition, SIM, TEAM, CMS (UK & ANZ), the Presbyterian Church, and other agencies have missionaries working in the country. Korean, Chinese, and Ethiopian churches are sending more and more missionaries to Pakistan. Last year at the missionary language school in Pakistan were enrolled approximately 40 new missionaries to the country.
I was in Pakistan myself last Jan-August (2007) working at Forman Christian College. Even with the tension surrounding the US invasion of Iraq, the Pakistan government implemented its promise in 2003 to denationalize Forman Christian College in Lahore, which is now being led by the former president of Eckerd College (Florida), Dr. Peter Armacost, with a higher proportion of Christian faculty and students than it has had for many years.
Dr. Campolo, STOP, DESIST, APOLOGIZE! You are losing credibility, and that is not helping the cause that you and I both support. You don't need to use bogus facts to support an argument that can be supported with many other valid pieces of evidence.
Posted by: Mike Medley | June 6, 2008 7:05 PM
Several comments above confuse the issue. We're not talking about whether the United States is to consider evangelism in its policies. We're considering whether putative Christians should support the ambitions of their favorite empire at the expense of the kingdom of God. In short, we're talking about how disciples of Jesus are to be, not the nations. Those that are outside God judges.
As Jesus said, the nations say, "What will we eat and drink, what will we wear?" and so forth. Their hope is in the earth, like true sons of Cain, whose hope was in the earth he tilled, rather than in God.
We're not going to repeal that assessment of Jesus. The great commission does tell us to teach them everything that Jesus has taught us, but that presupposes that we first learn and practice it ourselves. So our business is not to direct the policy of the United States to make evangelism effective, when the log remains in our own eye. Our business is to learn Christ so that we can teach it and other kingdoms his ways.
The problem is not the monstrous nature of this empire. Our problem is never the condition of the world but our own. Rome was not a problem for the church's life until the church was seduced by it, long before this was formally ratified in the days of Constantine. Our problem, as always, is that people claiming the name of Christ identify with the empire, indeed worship it. Our nation, our troops, our this and that. It's not ours; we're strangers here, if we're Christ's. Can we imagine Jesus talking like any so-called American patriot? Such people never end up on a cross.
Paul wrote that the world was crucified to him and he to the world. Can we say that we are crucified to the United States and the United States to us? If not, isn't it time to seek repentance for this friendship with this present world?
If we are going to be disciples of Jesus, doesn't that mean, somewhere along the line, finding out where the nations we sojourn in fit in his mind, and learn that from him, abandoning our own thoughts in these matters? Only then, being reconciled to Jesus ourselves, can we have anything to say to the American empire or any other nations of this world.
Posted by: Peter Attwood | June 7, 2008 3:38 AM
" Our problem, as always, is that people claiming the name of Christ identify with the empire, indeed worship it. "
I disagree. I think very few Christians worship our country, and I disagree that our nation has imperial ambitions. I don't know anyone, for example, who wishes for Iraq to become an American territory.
It is probably reassuring to assume that those with whom you disagree are akin to those who identified with Rome. Such a worldview allows you to pat yourself on the back for having resisted such temptation and abandoning your own thoughts, as though your political opinions to not derive from your own understanding of matters, but constitute divine revelation.
Similarly, Tony creates a false dichotomy between agreeing with him and abandoning Christ to sate our oil lusts. This smack of the sort of hubris that makes Pat Robertson so unpopular.
Of course, nobody is going to feed Tony (or you) to lions for opposing the Iraq war, so you get the best of both worlds here.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 7, 2008 2:26 PM
I think everyone should just try to be nice to everyone else and the world will be better.
Posted by: Gavin the Great | June 8, 2008 1:10 AM
God, as we see in Scripture, is that in which we live and move and are (Acts 17). Therefore, whatever we consider the source of our life and security is the object of our worship. The rich man worships his money, since it "is his strong city in his imagination" - and Jesus made this perfectly clear in Matthew 6:24-34.
Thus it's quite routine for Christians to worship the American empire. For starters, they call it "our country." In it they find their identity. They do not find themselves strangers in it, as the Bible says of those that God is not ashamed of. In it they live and move and are. They feel threatened and defensive when its ways and their attachments to it are challenged.
It's preposterous to say Americans don't want to dominate Iraq and indeed the whole world. Americans don't feel safe unless we are in control of our relations with others, for fear that they will harm us, and to be in control of our relationships, we must be dominant.
Of course Americans don't generally want to make other countries explicit colonies because that's expensive and too crassly confronts us with what we are. The preference is nominally independent puppet states because it's a lot cheaper that way, but no mistake: any nation - Iran in 1953, the Dominican Republic in 1965, Cuba, Nicaragua in the 1980s, really any Latin American nation that has ever pursued its own welfare instead of permitting itself to be raped by American business - is always punished.
That you even want to argue about this shows that you certainly worship this empire contrary to the clearest statements of Scripture. If we accept the testimony of Jesus - the "Faithful Witness" - we accept his assessment that ALL the nations say, "What will we eat and drink, what will we wear," and so forth, looking around the earth to see how they might seize it, rather than looking up. "All the nations," as Jesus said, admits of no exceptions. A biblical viewpoint would lead you to class the American nation with all the others and judge its actions by the same standard - and that you are plainly not prepared to do.
Theologically, this sort of Americanism is indistinguishable from Mormonism or any other such cultic system. Jesus and the Bible are ostensibly authoritative, but in practice they are judged and filtered through an alternative religious filter - the Book of Mormon, the official doctrines of the Watchtower Society, American exceptionalism - and these therefore are the true supreme authority in each of these cultic theologies.
Of course all these cultists deny that they are supplanting the gospel with their special theologies, and they're not consciously lying. Only those standing outside the delusional system see it, although from that standpoint it's obvious. Nothing in the history of Christian theology before the Pilgrims introduced this innovation in 1620 suggests that the United States is special in God's plan. It's nonsensical myth, much less justified scripturally than such thinking among the Jews, which the prophets and Jesus didn't stand for for a moment.
When it passes away, its absurdity will be as evident as that of the very similar Afrikaner exceptionalism that undergirded the apartheid theology, bringing forth much the same arrogant and cruel behavior, the same defensiveness, the same belligerent self-righteousness.
You think it's such a big deal that somebody killed 3000 Americans in 2001, but it's no big deal that Americans murdered 3 million Vietnamese. You don't even notice the 3000 slaughtered in Chorillo in 1989. The 40,000 in Chedju Island in 1948 escape your notice. You somehow overlook the hundreds of thousands of Maya Indians murdered in Guatemala under American sponsorship since 1954. The hundreds of thousands of Filipinos annihilated 100 years ago, many in mass executions indistinguishable from those of the Einsatzgruppen in 1941 evidently don't touch you either.
How is American exceptionalism essentially different from Nazism, Stalinism, or any other such ideology that renders its devotees capable of the most horrifying atrocities, unable, as Jeremiah says, even to blush? Shouldn't the biblical person know that doctrines that arise from the earth and not from heaven must in essence be the same?
Finally, since you point out that we are not being fed to lions, you remind us that the US at this point is just like Rome - generally giving due process to its own citizens, while treating others as unpersons. That is why Americans don't even notice the millions of corpses out here, some few of which I mention above. They're not Americans, so they don't count. They are, literally, not even counted. You forget that if God counts the hairs on our heads, he certainly counts the drops of innocent blood shed by your favorite empire, which you choose to overlook.
Posted by: Peter Attwood | June 8, 2008 3:29 AM
"Therefore, whatever we consider the source of our life and security is the object of our worship."
I know more Christians who are unduly paranoid that this country is out to get them than Christians who find their comfort in the good old United States. Certainly, there are Christians who become overly attached to possessions, security, comfort etc... But it is insufficient to simply say that our support for Iraq arises from these comforts.
"The rich man worships his money, since it "is his strong city in his imagination" - and Jesus made this perfectly clear in Matthew 6:24-34."
Right, we shouldn't serve money as our God. No quarrel here.
"thus it's quite routine for Christians to worship the American empire. For starters, they call it "our country.""
This is poor evidence. Jim Wallis call it our country. I call Minneapolis my home city, the Detroit Pistons my basketball team.
"In it they find their identity."
Not entirely. To say that I am American and that this is part of my identity is indisputable, and does not consitute worship.
"They do not find themselves strangers in it, as the Bible says of those that God is not ashamed of. In it they live and move and are. They feel threatened and defensive when its ways and their attachments to it are challenged."
What ways? If someone, for example, wants to take us to task for our treatment of the unborn, I can guarantee you most Christians will wholeheartedly agree. We are not, however, required to assume that everything our country does is wrong.
"It's preposterous to say Americans don't want to dominate Iraq and indeed the whole world."
Simply saying something is preposterous does not make it so. I don't know anyone who wants America to dominate the whole world
"Americans don't feel safe unless we are in control of our relations with others, for fear that they will harm us, and to be in control of our relationships, we must be dominant."
I disagree that one must be dominant to control relations with others. You are wanting to define domination as control of diplomatic relationships. You are free to use that definition, but you will have to explain how this new definition of domination runs afoul of scripture. I don't see Christ forbidding governments to control relationships with other governments.
"Of course Americans don't generally want to make other countries explicit colonies because that's expensive and too crassly confronts us with what we are."
You go a bit over the edge here. If we can redefine empire to eliminate "explicit colonies" and crass confrontations, then we are no longer discussing empire.
"That you even want to argue about this shows that you certainly worship this empire contrary to the clearest statements of Scripture."
Well, that's a convenient tool of argumentation, isn't it? "The very fact that you disagree with me proves me right".
You have made a very flimsy exegetical case that I am rejecting the testimony of Jesus. I am arguing that I can simultaneously advocate that America defend itself abroad and adhere to Christs admonishment not to worship our country. In response, you have said that we ought not worship money.
You say that I am plainly not prepared to judge America by the same standard. On what basis do you say this?
"Theologically, this sort of Americanism is indistinguishable from Mormonism or any other such cultic system."
You are saying the same thing over and over, and leveraging different pejoratives to your cause. Perhaps you might spend some time explaining where the Iraq War empirically (not just in your opinion) flies in the face of scripture, and then demonstrate where Christians are literally (and intentionally) disregarding scripture. You might also offer a defense of Campolo's unhinged assertion that we are doing so to sate our oil lusts.
"Only those standing outside the delusional system see it, although from that standpoint it's obvious."
From the standpoint of one who has arrived at your conclusions, your conclusions seem obvious. That's generally true of anyone's conclusions, and this is how conclusions become convictions.
"Nothing in the history of Christian theology before the Pilgrims introduced this innovation in 1620 suggests that the United States is special in God's plan."
This does not necessarily argue that the United States is NOT special in God's plan, the answer to which question is unknowable, in my view.
I do think the United States has done some very special things, and has advanced the gospel in a lot of ways. Some Christians, in acknowledging this, take it a step too far, incorporating U.S. dominance into their biblical hermeneutic. For the most part, however, I find this not to be the case.
"It's nonsensical myth, much less justified scripturally than such thinking among the Jews, which the prophets and Jesus didn't stand for for a moment."
I don't know what you are talking about, here.
"You think it's such a big deal that somebody killed 3000 Americans in 2001,"
Don't you?
"but it's no big deal that Americans murdered 3 million Vietnamese."
This is apples to oranges, but suffice to say I think Vietnam was a very big deal generally.
"You don't even notice the 3000 slaughtered in Chorillo in 1989."
Are you talking about El Chorrillo? If so, you are greatly inflating the casualty totals. You go on to enumerate a litany of events. This is not an argument.
"How is American exceptionalism essentially different from Nazism, Stalinism, or any other such ideology that renders its devotees capable of the most horrifying atrocities, unable, as Jeremiah says, even to blush?"
Because American exceptionalism exists today only as a vague notion that we enjoy life and liberty, whereas our enemies often do not. It is not, for example, the basis of policy, explicitly or otherwise. Manifest destiny is no longer a stated policy aim, and rather obviously so.
"Shouldn't the biblical person know that doctrines that arise from the earth and not from heaven must in essence be the same?"
Huh?
"you remind us that the US at this point is just like Rome - generally giving due process to its own citizens, while treating others as unpersons."
At present, we have millions of illegal immigrants living among us. The harshest, most "Roman" policy option that has entered the mainstream political discussion is to simply return them to their home country. The president (you, know the purveyor of stalinist ideals) wants to offer them amnesty.
The problem is that, when one decides he has escaped a delusion, one loses all sense of perspective. By definition, you can only listen to those who are similarly enlightened.
After a spell, you find yourself with a worldview in which you are not offering disagreement, but claiming to wake people up from delusion. In this worldview, American Christians are just like the Nazis.
Campolo has similar visions of his own grandiosity. How wonderful to wake up in a world in which you (and a small cadre of your closest friends) are carrying the lamplight of the gospel, while the bloodthirsty masses are consumed with trifles like oil.
Wonderful for you, nauseous to the rest of us.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 8, 2008 1:54 PM
kevin s: "I don't know anyone who wants America to dominate the whole world"
You might look at The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (2002). There's a link on the White House website.
"You go a bit over the edge here. If we can redefine empire to eliminate "explicit colonies" and crass confrontations, then we are no longer discussing empire."
Many, if not most, scholars identify a type of imperialism usually labeled "informal" empire. It entails, without formal territorial annexation, control and domination of other peoples, societies, or nations such that they no longer enjoy genuine sovereignty. Since the U.S.-Mexican War of 1846-48, informal empire has, with a few exceptions (Hawaii, Philippines, Guam as examples) been the preferred mode of imperialism for the United States.
Some scholars, historian Michael Hunt for example, argue that "hegemony" better describes the U.S. global reach today than does "empire."
"Manifest destiny is no longer a stated policy aim, and rather obviously so."
It was never a stated policy aim. It was so imbedded in the national psyche there was no need to spell it as such.
"You might also offer a defense of Campolo's unhinged assertion that we are doing so to sate our oil lusts."
If this is an unhinged assertion, then most of the world is unhinged. If it was copper or tin under that sand, there would have been no Gulf War, no U.S.-Iraq War, no Central Command, etc.
"Campolo has similar visions of his own grandiosity."
That's an overstatement, and it's grossly unfair. O.k., so you disagree with Campolo, but there's no need for this kind of character assassination, particularly for someone who has labored mightily, for years, for the Kingdom of Heaven.
Posted by: carl copas | June 8, 2008 8:32 PM
"I don't know anyone who wants America to dominate the whole world"
In addition to Don's suggestion, check out Project for a New American Century. Of course, they don't actually use the word "dominate," but then Bush-Cheney's torture policy didn't actually use the word torture.
Posted by: I and I | June 8, 2008 10:02 PM
Rev. Campolo first came to my attention when he asserted that Jesus would not have driven a BMW, and, following the WWJD mantra, neither should Christians. I thought about it, realized he was mistaken, and have mostly ignored him since. Sadly, I actually knew Christians who bought that line of thought. One proudly drove a Chevette, but had $4000 worth of shoes in the closet, and the clothes to go with them...yeah, yeah, I know Campolo wouldn't have approved. That was a laugh line, though factual. We need those, now and then.
His assumption of the mantle, 'Red Letter Christian', is rather presumptive and self-congratulatory. While I discipline myself to challenge ideas and arguments, Campolo wraps himself so tightly in his 'understanding' of Christ's teachings, and uses it to exalt himself, that it is more difficult than usual to say, "you are wrong, here, and here," without 'nicking the patient', as it were, with an ad hominem attack. And, perhaps, that is appropriate: when one not only says, "I believe thus and so," but also claims the anointing of God as a prophet in the process, then if he is wrong, he is not merely mistaken, his self-assumed identity is shown to be false, as well: he is a false prophet.
Other posters have done a better job of pointing out the errors of fact, reasoning, etc., than I could have, and it makes me thankful they took the time to do so. The point of this post is to praise them for their service, and to remind us all that it's the red letter passages themselves, illuminated for us by the Holy Spirit directly, and through the Spirit-inspired words of the rest of the Scripture, to which we must give our primary attention.
Schaeffer's question remains, "How Should We Then Live". We must decide, mustn't we? In the area of politics, I support and vote for candidates on the basis of character first. If the character is good, I can accept policy decisions I don't agree with as mistakes (how presumptive of me), or as taking factors into account that are not known to me. Humility is a key element of good character, and on this measure, I rank Pres. Bush above prophet Campolo. (What's a fire without fuel?)
Posted by: david of fox lake | June 9, 2008 8:52 AM
I'm a Tony Campolo fan - when he teaches about applying Scripture to our daily lives.
But, when he discusses foreign policy, he reminds me of the majority of the clergy who are politicizing the Gospel. They are quick to speak beyond their expertise and justify it by classifying all subjects as spiritual matters.
But, foreign policy demands knowledge of history and culture not covered in our seminaries. For example, Rev. Campolo omits the issue of Muslim on Muslim violence because he can not blame America for Sunnis killing Shias. He also omits Muslim violence against their own family members who do not strictly adhere to Muslim customs which is a significant problem in Europe.
Tony Campolo knows Scripture and America. He should stick to what he knows.
Posted by: techwreck | June 9, 2008 10:34 AM
"It was stated outright, and debated both semantically and conceptually."
Show me a single official document that uses the term "manifest destiny" and identifies it as a policy goal. See for example, Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny or Anders Stephanson, Manifest Destiny.
"We're pinning the dark Jewish cabal on Christians now? Seriously, though, there is a lot to discuss there, but one can generally agree with the PNAC's statement of purpose without endorsing another Rome."
I didn't realize Cheney and Rumsfeld are Jewish or Christian. Seriously, though, that said, the U.S. justifies its empire in ways that recall the self-congratulations of Pax Romana.
"Seriously, though, where is the smoking gun here?"
There's no smoking gun. Read the entire document, in tandem with the PNAC White Paper. Then read James Mann's The Vulcans. The info is available. It doesn't mean the United States' foreign policy is uniquely evil; it's not. But neither is it uniquely good. All of which simply means the U.S. plays the games nations play.
Btw, early American leaders such as Washington and Jefferson were happy to use the term "empire" when envisioning the nation's future. Come to think of it, Theodore Roosevelt used it as well. During the debate over annexation of the Philippines in 1898-99, Roosevelt pointed out that opponents of the annexation logically were bound to oppose the annexation of Arizona and New Mexico. No one had much of a rejoinder.
Posted by: carl copas | June 9, 2008 11:52 AM
Rev. Campolo first came to my attention when he asserted that Jesus would not have driven a BMW, and, following the WWJD mantra, neither should Christians. I thought about it, realized he was mistaken, and have mostly ignored him since.
He was using that to make a point. I mean, is it truly necessary to buy a BMW? -- because it's only message is social status, which we Christians can do without.
Humility is a key element of good character, and on this measure, I rank Pres. Bush above prophet Campolo.
I've heard Campolo admit to being wrong and, having read some of his books, that humility shows. I can't say the same for the current president.
Rev. Campolo omits the issue of Muslim on Muslim violence because he can not blame America for Sunnis killing Shias. He also omits Muslim violence against their own family members who do not strictly adhere to Muslim customs which is a significant problem in Europe.
For our purposes, those are irrelevant because they don't pretend to be Christians and we can't expect otherwise. He's talking only about what Christians should do and not do.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 9, 2008 11:55 AM
" The Muslims have hated Christianity since the get go, and our war in Iraq didn't start that. Their whole premise is to make Muslims of the whole world for Allah. I take exception that they are the agrieved in this matter."
Posted by: Billie | June 6, 2008 4:03 PM
I'm not sure what the term "get go" means but then I'm British. Obviously there have been conflicts between Christians and Muslims in the past just as there have between Muslims and Muslims, Christians and Christians. Interestingly the Muslim faith was once percieved as a Christian heresy (cf the writings of William Dalyrymple)and in Medieval Spain before the Inquisition and expulsion of the Jews and Moors, Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together in relative harmony.
Presumably Christians want to evangelise the whole world for Jesus. The Western (nominally Christian) Coalition's invasion of Iraq and infliction of so much suffering (collateral damage I think is the euphamism) there doesn't make Christianity seem very attractive to anybody in the World let alone middle eastern Moslems. Many evangelical commentators believe that missionary witness in Muslim countries has been set back 200 years by Bush's ill-advised actions in Iraq.
Posted by: Annie | June 9, 2008 4:54 PM
Some points from above not already answered.
There are different senses to "our country." It was perfectly proper for the citizens of Philippi to acknowledge themselves Roman citizens, and Paul described their persecutors as their own countrymen. Paul and Silas were flogged and imprisoned for teaching customs "not lawful for Romans," and that was the source of the hostility to their disciples too. Disciples of the apostles, whether Roman citizens or not, clearly felt no need to be boosters and to think of the Roman empire as home.
Illegal aliens in the United States are not too severely treated most of the time, although their labor is exploited and they know that that sufferance might end at any time. In the same way, non-citizens of Rome were often treated quite decently, but they had no rights they could rely on.
Outside the borders of the imperial homeland, no one has any rights that anyone is bound to respect. Enormous massacres such as those I mentioned are routine - and, yes, listing such is indeed an argument, when the conclusion being supported is that it is usual behavior and not exceptional.
And yes, indeed, the United States is an empire, not the first to rule through nominally independent vassal states. The Babylonians; the Assyrians; the Carthaginians; the Athenians, through the Delian League; the Roman Republic; Napoleon Bonaparte; the British in India, Egypt, and Mesopotamia; and the Soviet Union used that model before us, and nobody denies that these all were empires. It's the only way to go much bigger than Austria-Hungary.
I also mentioned that the US must dominate in every relationship, and I was reminded that it's reasonable to control the nature of our relations with others. These are wholly different matters. I can marry this one and refuse that one, people come to our Bible study or they don't. But controlling the other himself is a different thing.
Look how furious Americans are when their friends won't act like puppets, the French being hated for being right about the aggression against Iraq. And anyone like Venezuela, or Chile in 1970-1973, when their governments act like an independent states and look out for the interests of their own people instead of selling them out, have always been punished, as it has been ever since Americans got off the boat in 1607 and 1620.
For Christinas, this is a crucial issue. Romans 5 states that we are to "reign in life." Far from meaning that we are to be the boss, it means that we are to rule our own spirits (Proverbs 25:28), remaining in the will of God and hence incarnating his kingdom, in every condition. Not only is this quite different than holding dominion over others: these two are indeed mutually exclusive, for the simple reason that for Jesus to increase in us we must decrease, which cannot happen when we are domineering in the world.
I expect the American empire to behave thus, because the words of Jesus must be fulfilled that it is like all the nations. But it should not be that way because in our utter prostitution to its mythology we do not know, perform, and teach the kingdom of God among them. The almost complete apostasy of that people ordained by God to teach his kingdom to the auto-messianic American nation these 400 years, who are instead almost completely seduced by its worldly pomp and luxury - that's our problem.
And to tell the truth, we haven't just learned the ways of "the domineering harlot" as the Bible puts it: our fathers laid down that foundation 400 years ago, and we are still resented in the wider American culture for insisting on dominating its culture and whining about its rejections of our demands. Until we address these 400 year-old problems, are we really going to get anywhere? We haven't since at least 1650, but I've written of these issues in more detail elsewhere.
Posted by: Peter Attwood | June 15, 2008 2:13 AM
Very interesting post along with a host of comments. I'm new to this whole blogging thing and I have a question for the larger community. I've read a lot of posts on God's Politics and I can't really ever find the originator of the post engaging in the dialogue other than starting it (is that true?). And that is not meant as a criticism, I'm just wanting and/wondering what they think of all the comments. Thanks! - Andy
Posted by: andy | June 17, 2008 8:57 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?