I really enjoyed that post. You would think that religion would be better able to withstand the tides of fashion, but I suppose even the religious want to belong.
SaraHarding
· 1 year ago
I, um, actually think that guy's sort of right. The Scripture passages you cited are directed toward apostate Israel, who had a specific calling within her covenant with God, and had broken that covenant. Jesus' prophetic witness to the chief priests and Pharisees could be summed up in his parable of the wicked vinedressers. "The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it." The subsequent destruction of Jerusalem in the 1st century marked the end of the end of that age, fulfilling Jesus prediction that "on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth..." So I don't think it's a timeless universal that we can pluck out and use to justify the belligerent guilt manipulation going on in the world and also the church. As members of the new covenant Israel of the new creation order, we have a better means of addressing wrongs of past generations. We have the cross as witness that this vicious cycle of inherited guilt is ended, the dividing wall between social groups broken down. No further groveling required. And we have a chance to live and demonstrate an alternative by our relentless practice of love. A healing love, directed towards those who have been hurt by some our ancestors, yes, but a guilt free love, which is the best kind. But I'm open to correction......
RichieDaley
· 1 year ago
As members of the new covenant Israel of the new creation order, we have a better means of addressing wrongs of past generations. We have the cross as witness that this vicious cycle of inherited guilt is ended, the dividing wall between social groups broken down. No further groveling required. And we have a chance to live and demonstrate an alternative by our relentless practice of love. A healing love, directed towards those who have been hurt by some our ancestors, yes, but a guilt free love, which is the best kind.
I mostly agree, but disagree on a key point (or two). I believe that the cross is a witness to the fact that the dividing wall between us and God is broken down, but the words of Jesus as well as other scripture imply to me that the forgiveness of the cross does not relieve us of the duty of seeking forgiveness from each other.
Jesus instructed us that if we realize that our brother has something against us, even while doing our religious duty, we should go resolve it. The entire book of Philemon is a letter trying to reconcile two people who have an unreconciled conflict by appealing to both justice and mercy.
The problem is that there is unreconciled confict in our society. Groups that we are a part of have wronged other groups, and as a group we have rarely sought forgiveness. It's easy for us to seek justice (eg giving people rights that they have been denied, abolishing unjust laws, etc), those things make us the hero, they make us the good guy. Seeking forgiveness is harder, because it makes us feel bad, and forces us to admit that we and/or the group that we are a part of, have been the bad guy. But the way of Jesus is to admit when we have done wrong, seek forgiveness for it, and go forward and do right by demonstrating our relentless, healing and guilt-free love.
SaraHarding
· 1 year ago
Actually, my allusion to the dividing wall is from Ephesians 2, which describes how Christ abolished the enmity between two hostile social groups, Jews and Gentiles, and made the two into one new humanity. This is a huge theme in the Pauline epistles, yet never once does he call upon Greek and Roman Christians to apologize to the Jewish Christians for the terrible things their ancestors did to them. It is striking also that Jesus points out the Pharisees' guilt by their claim that they were descended from those who killed the prophets. If they were on board with Jesus' agenda, they would disown their fathers, because Jesus came to lead his people on a new exodus, a new way of being Jewish, to make a break with their past. In the same way, I think we are called to abandon all of our solidarities with any social group that has any claim upon us, to come out and be separate, to consider our national/tribal/ familial heritage as trash (Phil 3) in comparison to the glory of our belonging to God's united family.
RichieDaley
· 1 year ago
Are you saying then, that because our national/tribal/familial heritage pales in comparison to our Godly heritage, that as Christians we are not being called to work for the reconciliation of conflicts that our nation, tribe or family are a party to?
SaraHarding
· 1 year ago
I was not arguing whether or not we are called to work for reconciliation, but from what vantage point. Do we identify ourselves with the oppressive/oppressed parties, or do we see ourselves as aliens and strangers within their midst? On the other hand, if the oppressors claim to belong to Christ and do their deeds in the name of Christianity, then I would feel burdened to ask forgiveness, because I belong to that body. But if the deeds were done in the name of the Pax Romana, or American democracy, or the KKK, my stance would be closer to that of a foreign missionary coming upon the scene, because I do not consider myself incorporated with any of those groups.
RichieDaley
· 1 year ago
So if I'm understanding you correctly, the issue is an issue of identity rather than an issue of reconciliation. Is that correct?
So, it is ok for those affiliated with the Church, to seek forgiveness for acts done by those who claim to belong to the Church in the name of the Church, would that be correct?
Similarly, would it be ok for people who are members of the Australian government apologizing for the acts of those affiliated with the Australian government done in the name of the Australian government?
In a similar vein, if Australians in the past have done wrong in the name of Australia, would it be ok for Australian Christians to apologize for that since they share the identity of Australian? Or are you saying that once someone is a Christian they are no longer Australian?
SaraHarding
· 1 year ago
I have a question too. Some of my ancestors are Native American. Some are white. Would it be ok if I apologized to myself? :)
RichieDaley
· 1 year ago
lol If it helps you reconcile some internal conflict go right ahead :)
Mark Van Steenwyk
· 1 year ago
Personally speaking, I don't feel it is helpful to be bogged down in guilt, but nor can I act as though I have a clean slate.
The sad reality is that, as a white dude living in America, I was born profoundly privileged...even though I grew up in the lower class or at least lower-middle class. My place in the world--and in the Church--is lofty. I live at the pinacle of a great mountain that is made of the bones of the oppressed. Native Americans and African Americans and Latino Americans and others died to give their bones to my mountain.
I was born on this mountain...so in a certain way of thinking, its existence isn't my fault. But I notice that the decedents of those entombed in my mountain are all much worse off than me. When White America was being created on the backs of African, Native, and Latin Americans, it left fewer resources for them to pass onto their children. So when my ancestors sailed across from Europe and were able to cheaply and easily buy farm land to start their towns and farms, there were entire dispossessed and struggling ethnic groups already here who couldn't buy that land--for a variety of reasons.
Not my fault, I suppose. But I live on the mountain. And I can't help but think that it sucks that Natives and African Americans and Latin Americans and others live at the foot of my mountain. And I can't help but think it sucks even more than I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and my brothers and sisters live below.
So what can I do? I can be downwardly mobile. I can live in solidarity. I can be hospitable. I can be generous and place my spiritual kinship about ethnic ties and racial ties and even family ties. I don't do this out of guilt, but because I honestly believe that I can experience more of the Kingdom this way, and experience more of Jesus this way. And I can recognize that the American Empire is a white-washed Nation. Underneath the lime-wash is an ocean of blood and oppression. Not that America is a bad empire as far as Empires go.
SaraHarding
· 1 year ago
Haha, that was a great answer, Richard. And to answer your questions- I can't really speak for anyone in Australia, I don't want to judge anyone's conscience. What I originally meant was that the cross offers an alternative way of dealing with the conflict between social groups to the guilt manipulation so prevalent today. The gospel calls us to make a break with the past, to disown our empires and cultural pride, and take on a brand new identity where the last are first and servants the greatest. I think that is what Mark is getting at by downward mobility. Seeking leastness is the way to bring reconciliation. By the way, good thoughts, Mark. And thanks, Richard, for taking the time to engage me in conversation. I get so little adult interaction lately, lol, it really is appreciated. Not that I don't love talking with my little ones, of course. And I really do agree with the greater substance of this article. It was very thought provoking.
RichieDaley
· 1 year ago
Sara, thank you. It's been really cool engaging this topic with you. Plus, you have a sense of humor, it makes pretty much everything better.
James
· 1 year ago
I think the real issue is to whom the Church confesses its sins. Is the Church required to confess its collective sins to a fallen sinful world that refuses the same obligatory confession and repentance for the persecution and murder of Christians throughout history? Or should the Church confess its collective sin to her King?
As I read the post, one thing became very clear to me, far too many of us cannot draw a separation between the Church and world governments and nations (even when those nations committed atrocities under the guise of being 'Christian' though their fruit spoke otherwise).
On a more personal note, I have seen this issue first hand where an older black couple so hated white people for the sins of the past that they said they could never accept a white orphan child into their home, and somehow when I said that children are not responsible for the evils of the past I became the bad guy. Yet if I followed their logic I would have to hate myself because I am of British and Irish descent (no need to go in to detail about the history there), I am also Swedish, Swiss-German and Polish (the Vikings committed horrible atrocities against much of Europe). Being of European descent primarily, I am also Native American (and I definitely do not have to talk about that history). That being said, my wife is German and Native American primarily, but some of my ancestors were killed in concentration camps in Poland by the Nazis. Is my wife answerable for that sin? Must she confess the sins of the entire German nation of the 1930's to me? (Read Ezekiel 18:20 in contrast to what was cited in the post. Is there a tension related to this issue?)
The point I am making is that where the Church recognizes it has sinned whether in the present or the past, it must confess and repent to God, but no human nation is the Church, and therefore, biblically speaking God has his own way of bringing them to judgment for their sins (read Romans 1-2 for one example).
Mark Van Steenwyk
· 1 year ago
James,
While I don't disagree with what you are saying, I think it doesn't address part of the problem. The issue for me isn't simply the sins of the past, but the way in which I benefit or are harmed by those sins.
In other words, we can agree that the white baby isn't responsible for the sins of his parents. But being white in America means that he is likely to benefit from the old sin of slavery. A black baby is likely to suffer for that sin.
The issue isn't about repenting for past wrongs, but striving for a future where the such inequities are reinforced by the church. When big affluent white churches spend all their resources on reaching out to affluent whites while the minority churches down town struggle to make ends meet, they don't need to repent for slavery. They need to give up the power that is granted to them by the society built upon slavery.
James McMahon
· 1 year ago
So what do you advocate for the solution? Socialism, redistribution of wealth as payment for sins, self-hatred?
Mark Van Steenwyk
· 1 year ago
By no means. But we can't act as though we have a clean slate. We can't simply move on and shrug our shoulders.
Redistribution...perhaps, but only in a Christian sense of sharing of resources. Not as a payment for sins. Nor out of self hatred. But out of a desire to live faithfully as the Church.
I'm sorry if I'm misreading you, but I can't help but sense a bite in your last statement, James. There is no need for that.
What do you recommend? Is there a balance between repentance for the sins of the past and dismissal of the unjust state of things?
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
In my experience, it's not so important which group of people I associate myself with, but which group of people other's associate me with. In Kenya, people were killed just because their name or features associated them with the president's tribe. It had nothing to do with whether those people voted for the president. In Tibet Han and Muslim Chinese are being harmed because of their ethnic background, even if they have no particular influence on government policy.
I have found it is easier to forgive when someone apologizes to me, even if the person apologizing really doesn't understand the consequences of their actions. I have also benefited from apologies from people who apologized on behalf of others even though they personally didn't harm me. True forgiveness is difficult and I'll take any help I can get.
James McMahon
· 1 year ago
I meant nothing personal by my last comment, nor was I inferring anything about you. I have seen friends go that route in their thinking, and as a student of history know that they are putting their trust in a political system that has led to some of the worst acts of genocide and atrocities ever committed in human history. I was just throwing that option out there because it is becoming a common route for many who are buying into marxist-type liberation theology.
I am not sure how to deal with the issues related to the fact that my ancestors immigrated to this country to flee war, economic hardship, etc. Many of the institutions and sinful social structures were already in place by that time and had been abolished or changed long before I was born. I guess the fact that my ancestry is so culturally and ethnically diverse and that I am well aware of the oppression and/or persecution they faced after coming to this country that I can only say, like Jesus did, Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
The root of the problem is that the Church historically and in contemporary culture has relegated its duty to care for the widow and orphan, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, bandage the persecuted, and call the outcast to his/her inheritance in the Kingdom of God to human governments, which because they are creations of man are sinful fallen social structures (even the best of them) and they usually end up making things worse. I am not sure how to get that genie back in the bottle on any large scale. That is why I think we are witnessing the shift to more incarnational, missional type Christian communities which are modeled after the example of the early church. This is perhaps the best way to begin to address such a big issue: one neighborhood at a time.
So, why I mourn for the sins of the past and pray that God will forgive us for what we have done to others who are also created in the image of God, I try not to develop a messiah complex where I begin to think that somehow I am personally responsible for saving the world from its sin. Jesus already accomplished that and all we can do is point people to Him through our words and our actions, and trust that He has the power to conform people to His image and in doing so these issues should disappear within His community. I think sometimes we just get in the way of the work entrusted to His Spirit, so that we can have a community built in our image that does the things we want it to do and looks the way we want it to look.
Casey Ochs
· 1 year ago
Mark brings up an important point. In what sense do we benefit from the sins of those that came before us? Is it possible for one to live in Babylon and not partake in her sins in some way?
Christians like the Bruderhofs and even the Von Trapp family are now considered heroes, but Germans who remained in Germany during the second world war came out of the conflict assuming collective guilt for their passivity and failure to stand against fascism and genocide.
Revelation 18:4 gives us a sobering warning. "Come out of her MY PEOPLE (emphasis mine) so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes." As Christians do we understand this in a spiritual sense only, or should we be looking at this literally?
James McMahon
· 1 year ago
Okay, let's just start from that proposition that you begin your comment with. What should we do? If we move to another country will we not benefit from the sins of those who built that society. Where can we go to escape complicity in the sins of the past? If your logic stands then there is absolutely nowhere on earth that we can go in which we will not benefit in some way from the sins of past generations. Not even Amish/Anabaptist communities in America that completely separate themselves from modern society can escape benefiting from the sins of the past because they are living on land that was stolen from the native people.
I had a professor describe the Christians relationship to the world by comparing the world to a pool full of dirty water in which every human being is swimming. Some really enjoy swimming in the water and do not recognize that it is dirty. Others see the water for what it is and want to get out. The point he was making is that none of us remain untouched by sin in this world.
One last point. In all of this discussion I see little reference to Jesus. We have a tendency to only view Jesus' crucifixion as saving the individual from personal sin. God's work of salvation in Jesus means that Jesus conquered sin in all of its forms from the individual who sins to the social structures that are enslaved to sin. However, that final defeat is not a full reality in the world in which we live but I believe a glimpse of it is intended to be seen in the church, which is Christ's community. I think that is the point being made in Rev. 18:4: the church is supposed to exist as a glimpse of the new creation where none of this stuff exists which illuminates the significance of statements like there is no longer Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. We are all one in Christ and the sin of the world has no dominion over the Lord's church even though Christians may stumble due to the fact that we still live in the pool.
James McMahon
· 1 year ago
Sorry, one more thing. I guess in the end if we benefit in some way from the sins of society both past and present then how we use what we gain is important. If we use the things we have for selfish reasons then we remain complicit, but if we practice stewardship and use what we gain to further the cause of Christ through word and deed then we practice a form of Christian jiu-jitsu by using our enemy's weapons against it.
Mark Van Steenwyk
· 1 year ago
James. It is good to point out that we can't simply "opt out" from things like white privilege and the like. Even those who move out into the woods to live in an environmental utopia are able to do so because their privilege affords them that option.
Really, what we all must do is use our resources to bear witness to the Kingdom. The Rich Young Ruler, for example, wasn't called to burn his resources, but to share them with the poor. We, who have been given much, must use our resources and privileges for the cause of Christ, not for our own purposes.
joet
· 1 year ago
I think the problem is a misunderstanding of the concept of repentance. As I understand the biblical concept, it means identifying a fault in a relationship, apologising and turning 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
Now, we Brits are responsible for most of the world's problems as everyone knows. Our colonial exploits set in motion many of the conflicts which still reverberate today, we were closely involved in the slave trade and all that stuff.
Ultimately it can be argued that the basis of our national wealth is our history of raping and pillaging around the planet. Given that I am sitting on a huge pile of cash - to the extent that 90% of the planet's population is poorer than I am - I have benefited from that terrible harvest.
But I cannot offer repentance to those millions who have been affected by the actions of my forefathers - because I am not in a position to put right the wrongs. Just as I have friends stuck within a cycle of poverty which keeps them poor, I am stuck within a cycle of advantage which it is difficult to break out from.
The best I can offer them is an awareness of the collective guilt I carry as a man, a European, a Brit, a white person, a middle class person etc, and to commit myself to their welfare in the future along with a continued battle with the wealth I am saddled with. I appreciate that isn't good enough, but I honestly cannot see how I could repent enough to those affected by my ancestors.
C Ochs
· 1 year ago
There is no doubt that Scripture commands us to be salt and light. I don't think there is any dispute here, and certainly we are to show solidarity with the poor by sharing our resources. This is our prophetic call. Nor can we pack up and run every time we think we may get dirty. That really was not my question. My question was whether or not we are to view Revelation 18:4 in purely spiritual terms, or is there a sense in which we must take it literally?
I used WWII Germany as an extreme example, but it is a real example nonetheless. Many groups left Germany in the 1930's (like the Anabaptist Bruderhofs) when they saw the fascist writing on the wall. The storied Von Trapp family left Austria before Captain Von Trapp was forced to report for duty in the German navy. Many good German Christians remained in Germany delivering mail, (to SS officers), running the trains (with human cargo headed to death camps) and growing food (for the advancing German armies). Those who remained after the war assumed the collective guilt of the nation. Even today Germany pays reparations to Israel for crimes committed 70 years ago. Had we lived in Germany in 1938 what would we have done?
It's interesting that the Anabaptists were brought up in an earlier comment. Probably no Christian group has been more prone to "witness with their feet" whenever persecution or conviction called them to "come out".
Mark Van Steenwyk
· 1 year ago
But there were also those, like Bonhoeffer, who fled...only to return later to resist. At first, he resisted with spiritual weapons. Later he got involved in an assasination plot. But I think he shows us a little of what it can mean to "come out of Babylon" without leaving the country.
I tend to think that the Anabaptists were somewhat hasty in their "witness with their feet." When people withdraw from the world in order to be separate from its corruption, they all too often leave the missional impulse behind.
It is amazing how missional Anabaptists can be in places like Congo or Columbia, yet sometimes miss things when it comes to the US.
If we are going to "come out" from Babylon, then we must also, as a next step, embrace a sense of being "sent" to Babylon as Kingdom people. This, it seems to me, is about attitude, practices, and convictions more than it is a change of location.
James McMahon
· 1 year ago
Mark, I agree. If we flee or come out of a nation to avoid benefiting from its sin then we abandon the very people Jesus commanded us to minister to. Bonhoeffer's conscience convicted him after he left Germany to come to Union Theological Seminary. He recognized that in fleeing the suffering of the German people that would come with the Nazi regime he forfeited his right to return afterwards to help rebuild the country and the church.
Maybe the lesson we need to learn is that we are called to carry our cross daily and follow Jesus. He did not flee or come out of his nation or the Roman Empire but instead offered a counter-cultural community and way of life that actually resisted that social structure in a nonviolent manner.
Casey, I pointed out the the church IS the coming out of Babylon spoken of in Revelation. Contrast the statement with the initial letters to the church in order to develop some context for that statement.
C Ochs
· 1 year ago
Jim and Mark agree with most of your points. Certainly, for most of my Christian walk I have understood Rev 18:4 in the spiritual sense only. The Church is coming out of Babylon; with this I agree. My question for both of you is this: Can we ever legitimately interpret Rev 18:4 literally and if so, under what circumstances? Are we ever commanded to "shake the dust off our feet" and leave?
As far as context is concerned I tend to view Revelation as a futurist, so much of what happens after Rev 4:1 I would classify in the category of "unfolding events". I do not claim to be a Bible scholar, however.
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
Practicing permaculture in an urban setting might be one way of coming out of Babylon. The concentration of wealth allows for advances in knowledge, science, and technology that wouldn't be possible otherwise. These advances allow society to benefit everyone. The decision to go or stay has a lot to do with the kind of cross Christ asks us to carry.
Mark Van Steenwyk
· 1 year ago
Casey,
Well, clearly Rev 18:4 is to be taken in more than a spiritual way in the sense that we have to actually do something about Babylon. But the language isn't literal. It says: "Come out of her" which is poet language referring to Babylon as a woman. And even the use of the word "Babylon" is prophetic poetry.
So, if I read it as "come out of Rome" I suppose I could take it literally...that I should actually leave Rome. The problem is that I don't get any sense from any of the research I've done that any Christians at the time took it as a call to geographically leave the Roman Empire.
If I take it one step further and try to equate Rome with "the USA"--which one can easily do, though not in a 1:1 sense--I could maybe take it as a call to leave the US. But I don't see that in the scripture at all. Throughout all of Revelation (and throughout Paul's writings) I get the sense that our "coming out of Babylon" is indeed a relocation: a relocation to the Kingdom of God.
In other words, coming out of Babylon involves living as Kingdom citizens. Not participating in pagan worship, pagan economics, pagan values. As USAmericans we have to do a bit of imaginative work to figure out what that means (which is what Jesus Manifesto is all about). Jesus Manifesto is, in a sense, an exploration of just that: what does it really mean to "leave Babylon?"
I say this as a partial preterist (meaning that I don't think Revelation has very much to do with future events. Most of the scholars that I trust who understand early Christian origins and history and literature tend to see it the same way.
The church in every age has had to explore what it means to leave Babylon. Could that, in some way, mean leaving the country you live in? Sure, but I don't think that is what is being talked about here. And it seems to me that the best way we can "come out" of Babylon is to nonviolently resist her, rather than relocating.
This is filtered through my opinion that the big Empire we need to struggle against in our day isn't the USA, but the entangled mess of governments, business, consumer-forces, and individualist values. And for Chinese Christians the Empire is something different. And for Christians in Pakistan it is something different.
Casey Ochs
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the response to my previous questions. Since my view of the book of Revelation (chapter 4 on) tends to be futurist, I look at Chapter 18 both symbolically (like you and Jim do) and more or less literally, as an events yet to come. Obviously, the language of Revelation is poetic and symbolic, but I do believe it refers to actual future events as well. It is my understanding that for the first two hundred years or so Christians viewed Revelation 4 and following, from a futurist perspective, (events yet to come) and it wasn't until Tyconius' commentary in AD 390 that the interpretation became more symbolic. Certainly Augustine viewed the book much more metaphorically.
So, do we symbolically come out of Babylon? Yes, absolutely. Should we engage in worldly practices? Clearly no. We need to live as citizens of God's Kingdom in the here and now.
Nevertheless, Scripture gives us a number of examples of people called out of a place (Abraham from Ur, Lot from Sodom, the Israelites from Egypt). Even Jesus tells us that there will be times when we will have to physically leave a place unresponsive to the Gospel and shake the dust off our feet. He also warns that the judgment for such a place will be harsh. (Matt 10:14).
I'm not saying here that we must now leave Minnesota (den of iniquity that it is), or that Christians need to get our of New York or Las Vegas. My point is that we need to listen to what the Holy Spirit says and if He says "shake the dust off your feet and go" then we need to go. Certainly Jesus' warning in Luke 21:20-24 echoes this idea.
Mark Van Steenwyk
· 1 year ago
Even if I took a full futurist approach (and i disgree that the first two centuries were futurist), I still don't see how coming out of Babylon means a geographical leaving of a place.
Just like I don't believe that even the most literalist views of the "kingdom of God" are referring to a place.
I agree that we must shake the dust off of our feet at some point. I'm just not sure when that is. The early church, almost universally, had such a strongly developed belief in witnessing to the point of death. So, in my mind, as long as there are some who are receptive I believe we are called to stay put. Even if the majority of a place wants us dead. That seems to be the New Testament witness on this.
So, to use the Las Vegas analogy, even if 95% of the city is against God, we would stay for the 5%. Or the 1%. And only move on if no one will take us in.
Mark Van Steenwyk
· 1 year ago
Just to clarify, Casey. I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate reasons to leave a country or place. I'm just saying that I don't think Rev 18 is talking about that.
SaraHarding
· 1 year ago
Revelation makes more sense if you date the book during the reign of Nero. (Some date it during Diocletian's persecution, but I've read that these can be traced to one source, a comment of Iraneus' which could be interpreted to mean that John himself was alive during Diocletian's reign, and not that he saw his vision then.)
Both the harlot riding the beast and Babylon, then, are descriptions of Jerusalem, and these chapters are about the city's coming destruction. They closely parallel Jesus' own prophecy of this event, especially with the references to the blood of the prophets and martyrs in 17:6 and 18:24 being found in her. (The OT also contains prophetic words identifying unfaithful Israel as an adulterer.) The beast is Rome, which the unbelieving Jews "rode" to aid them in their persecution of Christians. Incidentally, every last Christian had fled Jerusalem as Jesus had warned well before the siege. There is a great study on this by David Chilton called "Paradise Restored", and though there is some unsavory theonomist stuff in there, he explains the book in a way that makes far more sense to me than anything I've ever heard. It's been a long time though, so I might think differently if I read it again, I don't know.
I like the way N T Wright explains the apocalyptic phenomenon as investing the political events of the time with their full theological significance. There are other Jewish writings of the first century that fall in this category as well. One is Enoch 4 (I think) which is a retelling of Daniel's vision of the four beasts, only this time the fourth beast is an eagle, a clear reference to Rome.
How is all this relevant to this discussion? Well, if we read these earthly events as a sign that the Son of Man reigns from heaven, we are going to have a really optimistic hope for the Kingdom. We also inherit a language for identifying modern "beasts" and a criteria for judging the course of history.
The "coming out" theme, I think, in St. John's Hebraic mind, echoes of the Exodus. God is forming a new people that would not share in the plagues (or deeds) of her oppressors. If this is our story too, then it says a lot about how we identify ourselves in the midst of modern empires. And if I do identify myself with Jesus and the martyrs where is it showing?
Casey Ochs
· 1 year ago
Whether the early Christians were futurists or preterists is a discussion that we'll have to defer. From what I've read they were futurist in their perspective and the shift to a more symbolic interpretation occurred around the time Christianity became the state religion of Rome.
I would like to touch again on the subject of WWII Germany. The fact is that Germans who remained in Germany thru the war and survived its devastation have been held collectively guilty by the rest of the world. That is why today Germans are still paying reparations to Israel and will be for a long time to come. What can we learn from this?
The case of Bonhoeffer, I believe, actually illustrates the potential dangers of physically staying in any system that is manifestly evil (be it the Mafia, Sodom or end-times Babylon). All systems are worldly, however, there may be a time when, in order to protect our spiritual integrity, we have to leave a place. This I think is one of the lessons of of Matt 10:14. Bonhoeffer returned, saw the evil that Hitler was causing Germany and Europe and determined the only "solution" was to ally himself with violent conspirators. As Shane Claiborn has correctly pointed out, the failure of the assassination attempt actually may have prolonged the war; Hitler survived the attempted assassination with even more sense of divine mission. After Bonhoeffer returned to Germany he was faced with an excruciating moral dilemma. Now Bonhoeffer was a great man; if he could succumb to the very systemic violence he opposed would we fare any better? Sometimes prudence is the better part of valor.
Mark Van Steenwyk
· 1 year ago
I think it is interesting that you assume that "futurist" equals "literal" and "preterist" equals "symbolic." I kinda see it the other way around. But that is a big discussion for another time.
It sucks that faithful Germans are held guilty by the rest of the world. Though I think most people are more nuanced than that. But I'm not sure what difference it makes. God knows the difference. And I suppose that the decedents of Shindler and Christian non-violent resisters and other saints are lumped in too...does that mean that it would have been better if they had left? I don't think so at all.
Part of the sticky wicket with today's "empire" is that we can't extricate ourselves through relocation. Ours is an empire of global consumer capitalism that has little to do with location. It is like the speech given by the evil CEO in the movie Network. He asserts that there are no more nations...only money. Not precisely true, but it gets at a truth that the rich and powerful are connected throughout this world. Extricating myself from Empire means a whole lot more than relocation in a world where Empire is so portable.
Back to Nazi Germany. I don't believe that it ever got so bad as to require leaving the place. That isn't to say that it wasn't a cesspool of horrible evil. But it is to say that there were always faithful still there. And, to be biblical about it, one of the more common ways of leaving an evil system is by dying at its hands (like Jesus and almost all of the Apostles).
Mark Van Steenwyk
· 1 year ago
Casey sent me an email asking for clarification. One of my statements above comes off WAY more insensitive than I meant it:
"I don't believe that it ever got so bad as to require leaving the place."
That statement came out completely wrong. Let me clarify:
It got bad enough…meaning unsafe enough…to certainly justify fleeing.
But it didn’t get bad enough…in the Sodom and Gomorrah sense of there being no righteous left…to indicate that the just should shake the dust off and leave. That was the point I was trying to make.
It seems as though these two things are getting mixed together (the idea of personal safety and the idea of withdrawing witness) in a way that is never presented in Scripture. Scripture, actually links death and witness in an almost positive way. It never seems to indicate that lack of safety is a justification for withdrawing witness.
Perhaps a distinction could be helpful. Instead of simply asking the question: "When is it bad enough for me and my family to leave?" We should also ask: "When is it bad enough for the Church to turn its back on a nation?" Those aren't always the same question. This is a very nuanced issue.
I hope I’m making a clear point. And again, we’re talking about this in a very abstract logical sense. When it comes down to the messiness of situations like this, it isn’t nearly so clean.
All Comments
I mostly agree, but disagree on a key point (or two). I believe that the cross is a witness to the fact that the dividing wall between us and God is broken down, but the words of Jesus as well as other scripture imply to me that the forgiveness of the cross does not relieve us of the duty of seeking forgiveness from each other.
Jesus instructed us that if we realize that our brother has something against us, even while doing our religious duty, we should go resolve it. The entire book of Philemon is a letter trying to reconcile two people who have an unreconciled conflict by appealing to both justice and mercy.
The problem is that there is unreconciled confict in our society. Groups that we are a part of have wronged other groups, and as a group we have rarely sought forgiveness. It's easy for us to seek justice (eg giving people rights that they have been denied, abolishing unjust laws, etc), those things make us the hero, they make us the good guy. Seeking forgiveness is harder, because it makes us feel bad, and forces us to admit that we and/or the group that we are a part of, have been the bad guy.
But the way of Jesus is to admit when we have done wrong, seek forgiveness for it, and go forward and do right by demonstrating our relentless, healing and guilt-free love.
So, it is ok for those affiliated with the Church, to seek forgiveness for acts done by those who claim to belong to the Church in the name of the Church, would that be correct?
Similarly, would it be ok for people who are members of the Australian government apologizing for the acts of those affiliated with the Australian government done in the name of the Australian government?
In a similar vein, if Australians in the past have done wrong in the name of Australia, would it be ok for Australian Christians to apologize for that since they share the identity of Australian? Or are you saying that once someone is a Christian they are no longer Australian?
The sad reality is that, as a white dude living in America, I was born profoundly privileged...even though I grew up in the lower class or at least lower-middle class. My place in the world--and in the Church--is lofty. I live at the pinacle of a great mountain that is made of the bones of the oppressed. Native Americans and African Americans and Latino Americans and others died to give their bones to my mountain.
I was born on this mountain...so in a certain way of thinking, its existence isn't my fault. But I notice that the decedents of those entombed in my mountain are all much worse off than me. When White America was being created on the backs of African, Native, and Latin Americans, it left fewer resources for them to pass onto their children. So when my ancestors sailed across from Europe and were able to cheaply and easily buy farm land to start their towns and farms, there were entire dispossessed and struggling ethnic groups already here who couldn't buy that land--for a variety of reasons.
Not my fault, I suppose. But I live on the mountain. And I can't help but think that it sucks that Natives and African Americans and Latin Americans and others live at the foot of my mountain. And I can't help but think it sucks even more than I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and my brothers and sisters live below.
So what can I do? I can be downwardly mobile. I can live in solidarity. I can be hospitable. I can be generous and place my spiritual kinship about ethnic ties and racial ties and even family ties. I don't do this out of guilt, but because I honestly believe that I can experience more of the Kingdom this way, and experience more of Jesus this way. And I can recognize that the American Empire is a white-washed Nation. Underneath the lime-wash is an ocean of blood and oppression. Not that America is a bad empire as far as Empires go.
As I read the post, one thing became very clear to me, far too many of us cannot draw a separation between the Church and world governments and nations (even when those nations committed atrocities under the guise of being 'Christian' though their fruit spoke otherwise).
On a more personal note, I have seen this issue first hand where an older black couple so hated white people for the sins of the past that they said they could never accept a white orphan child into their home, and somehow when I said that children are not responsible for the evils of the past I became the bad guy. Yet if I followed their logic I would have to hate myself because I am of British and Irish descent (no need to go in to detail about the history there), I am also Swedish, Swiss-German and Polish (the Vikings committed horrible atrocities against much of Europe). Being of European descent primarily, I am also Native American (and I definitely do not have to talk about that history). That being said, my wife is German and Native American primarily, but some of my ancestors were killed in concentration camps in Poland by the Nazis. Is my wife answerable for that sin? Must she confess the sins of the entire German nation of the 1930's to me? (Read Ezekiel 18:20 in contrast to what was cited in the post. Is there a tension related to this issue?)
The point I am making is that where the Church recognizes it has sinned whether in the present or the past, it must confess and repent to God, but no human nation is the Church, and therefore, biblically speaking God has his own way of bringing them to judgment for their sins (read Romans 1-2 for one example).
While I don't disagree with what you are saying, I think it doesn't address part of the problem. The issue for me isn't simply the sins of the past, but the way in which I benefit or are harmed by those sins.
In other words, we can agree that the white baby isn't responsible for the sins of his parents. But being white in America means that he is likely to benefit from the old sin of slavery. A black baby is likely to suffer for that sin.
The issue isn't about repenting for past wrongs, but striving for a future where the such inequities are reinforced by the church. When big affluent white churches spend all their resources on reaching out to affluent whites while the minority churches down town struggle to make ends meet, they don't need to repent for slavery. They need to give up the power that is granted to them by the society built upon slavery.
Redistribution...perhaps, but only in a Christian sense of sharing of resources. Not as a payment for sins. Nor out of self hatred. But out of a desire to live faithfully as the Church.
I'm sorry if I'm misreading you, but I can't help but sense a bite in your last statement, James. There is no need for that.
What do you recommend? Is there a balance between repentance for the sins of the past and dismissal of the unjust state of things?
Tibet Han and Muslim Chinese are being harmed because of their ethnic background, even if they have no particular influence on government policy.
I have found it is easier to forgive when someone apologizes to me, even if the person apologizing really doesn't understand the consequences of their actions. I have also benefited from apologies from people who apologized on behalf of others even though they personally didn't harm me. True forgiveness is difficult and I'll take any help I can get.
I am not sure how to deal with the issues related to the fact that my ancestors immigrated to this country to flee war, economic hardship, etc. Many of the institutions and sinful social structures were already in place by that time and had been abolished or changed long before I was born. I guess the fact that my ancestry is so culturally and ethnically diverse and that I am well aware of the oppression and/or persecution they faced after coming to this country that I can only say, like Jesus did, Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
The root of the problem is that the Church historically and in contemporary culture has relegated its duty to care for the widow and orphan, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, bandage the persecuted, and call the outcast to his/her inheritance in the Kingdom of God to human governments, which because they are creations of man are sinful fallen social structures (even the best of them) and they usually end up making things worse. I am not sure how to get that genie back in the bottle on any large scale. That is why I think we are witnessing the shift to more incarnational, missional type Christian communities which are modeled after the example of the early church. This is perhaps the best way to begin to address such a big issue: one neighborhood at a time.
So, why I mourn for the sins of the past and pray that God will forgive us for what we have done to others who are also created in the image of God, I try not to develop a messiah complex where I begin to think that somehow I am personally responsible for saving the world from its sin. Jesus already accomplished that and all we can do is point people to Him through our words and our actions, and trust that He has the power to conform people to His image and in doing so these issues should disappear within His community. I think sometimes we just get in the way of the work entrusted to His Spirit, so that we can have a community built in our image that does the things we want it to do and looks the way we want it to look.
Christians like the Bruderhofs and even the Von Trapp family are now considered heroes, but Germans who remained in Germany during the second world war came out of the conflict assuming collective guilt for their passivity and failure to stand against fascism and genocide.
Revelation 18:4 gives us a sobering warning. "Come out of her MY PEOPLE (emphasis mine) so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes." As Christians do we understand this in a spiritual sense only, or should we be looking at this literally?
I had a professor describe the Christians relationship to the world by comparing the world to a pool full of dirty water in which every human being is swimming. Some really enjoy swimming in the water and do not recognize that it is dirty. Others see the water for what it is and want to get out. The point he was making is that none of us remain untouched by sin in this world.
One last point. In all of this discussion I see little reference to Jesus. We have a tendency to only view Jesus' crucifixion as saving the individual from personal sin. God's work of salvation in Jesus means that Jesus conquered sin in all of its forms from the individual who sins to the social structures that are enslaved to sin. However, that final defeat is not a full reality in the world in which we live but I believe a glimpse of it is intended to be seen in the church, which is Christ's community. I think that is the point being made in Rev. 18:4: the church is supposed to exist as a glimpse of the new creation where none of this stuff exists which illuminates the significance of statements like there is no longer Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. We are all one in Christ and the sin of the world has no dominion over the Lord's church even though Christians may stumble due to the fact that we still live in the pool.
Really, what we all must do is use our resources to bear witness to the Kingdom. The Rich Young Ruler, for example, wasn't called to burn his resources, but to share them with the poor. We, who have been given much, must use our resources and privileges for the cause of Christ, not for our own purposes.
Now, we Brits are responsible for most of the world's problems as everyone knows. Our colonial exploits set in motion many of the conflicts which still reverberate today, we were closely involved in the slave trade and all that stuff.
Ultimately it can be argued that the basis of our national wealth is our history of raping and pillaging around the planet. Given that I am sitting on a huge pile of cash - to the extent that 90% of the planet's population is poorer than I am - I have benefited from that terrible harvest.
But I cannot offer repentance to those millions who have been affected by the actions of my forefathers - because I am not in a position to put right the wrongs. Just as I have friends stuck within a cycle of poverty which keeps them poor, I am stuck within a cycle of advantage which it is difficult to break out from.
The best I can offer them is an awareness of the collective guilt I carry as a man, a European, a Brit, a white person, a middle class person etc, and to commit myself to their welfare in the future along with a continued battle with the wealth I am saddled with. I appreciate that isn't good enough, but I honestly cannot see how I could repent enough to those affected by my ancestors.
I used WWII Germany as an extreme example, but it is a real example nonetheless. Many groups left Germany in the 1930's (like the Anabaptist Bruderhofs) when they saw the fascist writing on the wall. The storied Von Trapp family left Austria before Captain Von Trapp was forced to report for duty in the German navy. Many good German Christians remained in Germany delivering mail, (to SS officers), running the trains (with human cargo headed to death camps) and growing food (for the advancing German armies). Those who remained after the war assumed the collective guilt of the nation. Even today Germany pays reparations to Israel for crimes committed 70 years ago. Had we lived in Germany in 1938 what would we have done?
It's interesting that the Anabaptists were brought up in an earlier comment. Probably no Christian group has been more prone to "witness with their feet" whenever persecution or conviction called them to "come out".
I tend to think that the Anabaptists were somewhat hasty in their "witness with their feet." When people withdraw from the world in order to be separate from its corruption, they all too often leave the missional impulse behind.
It is amazing how missional Anabaptists can be in places like Congo or Columbia, yet sometimes miss things when it comes to the US.
If we are going to "come out" from Babylon, then we must also, as a next step, embrace a sense of being "sent" to Babylon as Kingdom people. This, it seems to me, is about attitude, practices, and convictions more than it is a change of location.
Maybe the lesson we need to learn is that we are called to carry our cross daily and follow Jesus. He did not flee or come out of his nation or the Roman Empire but instead offered a counter-cultural community and way of life that actually resisted that social structure in a nonviolent manner.
Casey, I pointed out the the church IS the coming out of Babylon spoken of in Revelation. Contrast the statement with the initial letters to the church in order to develop some context for that statement.
As far as context is concerned I tend to view Revelation as a futurist, so much of what happens after Rev 4:1 I would classify in the category of "unfolding events". I do not claim to be a Bible scholar, however.
Well, clearly Rev 18:4 is to be taken in more than a spiritual way in the sense that we have to actually do something about Babylon. But the language isn't literal. It says: "Come out of her" which is poet language referring to Babylon as a woman. And even the use of the word "Babylon" is prophetic poetry.
So, if I read it as "come out of Rome" I suppose I could take it literally...that I should actually leave Rome. The problem is that I don't get any sense from any of the research I've done that any Christians at the time took it as a call to geographically leave the Roman Empire.
If I take it one step further and try to equate Rome with "the USA"--which one can easily do, though not in a 1:1 sense--I could maybe take it as a call to leave the US. But I don't see that in the scripture at all. Throughout all of Revelation (and throughout Paul's writings) I get the sense that our "coming out of Babylon" is indeed a relocation: a relocation to the Kingdom of God.
In other words, coming out of Babylon involves living as Kingdom citizens. Not participating in pagan worship, pagan economics, pagan values. As USAmericans we have to do a bit of imaginative work to figure out what that means (which is what Jesus Manifesto is all about). Jesus Manifesto is, in a sense, an exploration of just that: what does it really mean to "leave Babylon?"
I say this as a partial preterist (meaning that I don't think Revelation has very much to do with future events. Most of the scholars that I trust who understand early Christian origins and history and literature tend to see it the same way.
The church in every age has had to explore what it means to leave Babylon. Could that, in some way, mean leaving the country you live in? Sure, but I don't think that is what is being talked about here. And it seems to me that the best way we can "come out" of Babylon is to nonviolently resist her, rather than relocating.
This is filtered through my opinion that the big Empire we need to struggle against in our day isn't the USA, but the entangled mess of governments, business, consumer-forces, and individualist values. And for Chinese Christians the Empire is something different. And for Christians in Pakistan it is something different.
So, do we symbolically come out of Babylon? Yes, absolutely. Should we engage in worldly practices? Clearly no. We need to live as citizens of God's Kingdom in the here and now.
Nevertheless, Scripture gives us a number of examples of people called out of a place (Abraham from Ur, Lot from Sodom, the Israelites from Egypt). Even Jesus tells us that there will be times when we will have to physically leave a place unresponsive to the Gospel and shake the dust off our feet. He also warns that the judgment for such a place will be harsh. (Matt 10:14).
I'm not saying here that we must now leave Minnesota (den of iniquity that it is), or that Christians need to get our of New York or Las Vegas. My point is that we need to listen to what the Holy Spirit says and if He says "shake the dust off your feet and go" then we need to go. Certainly Jesus' warning in Luke 21:20-24 echoes this idea.
Just like I don't believe that even the most literalist views of the "kingdom of God" are referring to a place.
I agree that we must shake the dust off of our feet at some point. I'm just not sure when that is. The early church, almost universally, had such a strongly developed belief in witnessing to the point of death. So, in my mind, as long as there are some who are receptive I believe we are called to stay put. Even if the majority of a place wants us dead. That seems to be the New Testament witness on this.
So, to use the Las Vegas analogy, even if 95% of the city is against God, we would stay for the 5%. Or the 1%. And only move on if no one will take us in.
Both the harlot riding the beast and Babylon, then, are descriptions of Jerusalem, and these chapters are about the city's coming destruction. They closely parallel Jesus' own prophecy of this event, especially with the references to the blood of the prophets and martyrs in 17:6 and 18:24 being found in her. (The OT also contains prophetic words identifying unfaithful Israel as an adulterer.) The beast is Rome, which the unbelieving Jews "rode" to aid them in their persecution of Christians. Incidentally, every last Christian had fled Jerusalem as Jesus had warned well before the siege. There is a great study on this by David Chilton called "Paradise Restored", and though there is some unsavory theonomist stuff in there, he explains the book in a way that makes far more sense to me than anything I've ever heard. It's been a long time though, so I might think differently if I read it again, I don't know.
I like the way N T Wright explains the apocalyptic phenomenon as investing the political events of the time with their full theological significance. There are other Jewish writings of the first century that fall in this category as well. One is Enoch 4 (I think) which is a retelling of Daniel's vision of the four beasts, only this time the fourth beast is an eagle, a clear reference to Rome.
How is all this relevant to this discussion? Well, if we read these earthly events as a sign that the Son of Man reigns from heaven, we are going to have a really optimistic hope for the Kingdom. We also inherit a language for identifying modern "beasts" and a criteria for judging the course of history.
The "coming out" theme, I think, in St. John's Hebraic mind, echoes of the Exodus. God is forming a new people that would not share in the plagues (or deeds) of her oppressors. If this is our story too, then it says a lot about how we identify ourselves in the midst of modern empires. And if I do identify myself with Jesus and the martyrs where is it showing?
I would like to touch again on the subject of WWII Germany. The fact is that Germans who remained in Germany thru the war and survived its devastation have been held collectively guilty by the rest of the world. That is why today Germans are still paying reparations to Israel and will be for a long time to come. What can we learn from this?
The case of Bonhoeffer, I believe, actually illustrates the potential dangers of physically staying in any system that is manifestly evil (be it the Mafia, Sodom or end-times Babylon). All systems are worldly, however, there may be a time when, in order to protect our spiritual integrity, we have to leave a place. This I think is one of the lessons of of Matt 10:14. Bonhoeffer returned, saw the evil that Hitler was causing Germany and Europe and determined the only "solution" was to ally himself with violent conspirators. As Shane Claiborn has correctly pointed out, the failure of the assassination attempt actually may have prolonged the war; Hitler survived the attempted assassination with even more sense of divine mission. After Bonhoeffer returned to Germany he was faced with an excruciating moral dilemma. Now Bonhoeffer was a great man; if he could succumb to the very systemic violence he opposed would we fare any better? Sometimes prudence is the better part of valor.
It sucks that faithful Germans are held guilty by the rest of the world. Though I think most people are more nuanced than that. But I'm not sure what difference it makes. God knows the difference. And I suppose that the decedents of Shindler and Christian non-violent resisters and other saints are lumped in too...does that mean that it would have been better if they had left? I don't think so at all.
Part of the sticky wicket with today's "empire" is that we can't extricate ourselves through relocation. Ours is an empire of global consumer capitalism that has little to do with location. It is like the speech given by the evil CEO in the movie Network. He asserts that there are no more nations...only money. Not precisely true, but it gets at a truth that the rich and powerful are connected throughout this world. Extricating myself from Empire means a whole lot more than relocation in a world where Empire is so portable.
Back to Nazi Germany. I don't believe that it ever got so bad as to require leaving the place. That isn't to say that it wasn't a cesspool of horrible evil. But it is to say that there were always faithful still there. And, to be biblical about it, one of the more common ways of leaving an evil system is by dying at its hands (like Jesus and almost all of the Apostles).
"I don't believe that it ever got so bad as to require leaving the place."
That statement came out completely wrong. Let me clarify:
It got bad enough…meaning unsafe enough…to certainly justify fleeing.
But it didn’t get bad enough…in the Sodom and Gomorrah sense of there being no righteous left…to indicate that the just should shake the dust off and leave. That was the point I was trying to make.
It seems as though these two things are getting mixed together (the idea of personal safety and the idea of withdrawing witness) in a way that is never presented in Scripture. Scripture, actually links death and witness in an almost positive way. It never seems to indicate that lack of safety is a justification for withdrawing witness.
Perhaps a distinction could be helpful. Instead of simply asking the question: "When is it bad enough for me and my family to leave?" We should also ask: "When is it bad enough for the Church to turn its back on a nation?" Those aren't always the same question. This is a very nuanced issue.
I hope I’m making a clear point. And again, we’re talking about this in a very abstract logical sense. When it comes down to the messiness of situations like this, it isn’t nearly so clean.