Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures

In discussions over the so-called Deuteronomic History, many recent scholars have put forth arguments claiming that the entire history of Israel was constructed at a time during the later monarchy in the southern kingdom (perhaps by Hezekiah or Josiah). Therefore, all of this history is filtered through the lens of a 6th-8th century Judean perspective. In these theories, the last one standing got to write and edit history. However, even if we point out weaknesses in this reductionistic approach to OT history, we cannot escape the fact that someone authored and edited these works commonly known as "histories."

Furthermore, in the ancient world, "history" was not seen as something to be "objective." Rather, one told "history" through one's unique lens and theology. There was no problem with mixing theological biases and historical claims.

However, as we think about today, we are really not all that different. We all filter our own history through our particular biases and beliefs. For example, our position as American citizens will naturally color how we approach history that involves the United States. Similarly, for those who are Christians, we will probably approach church history in a different manner than non-Christians.

Finally, even if we do not accept reductionistic claims about Israel's history-writing, we can at least accept their argument that the one with power, or the last one standing, has a significant impact on how the story is told. With that in mind, we need to be aware of ways in which we stand in positions of power. If it is true that such positions also carry with them the ability to shape the story of history, then we must act with great care and responsibility to ensure that our biases do not color our take on history in a way that is unrealistic or even harmful.

I was reading a book today and got to thinking about something. We've often heard the saying that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." And indeed, we can witness this fact from history. In the first 3 centuries of the church, Christianity saw exponential growth despite the fact that they were the minority, persecuted, oppressed, and executed. Even today, the church in China is one of the fastest growing in the world even though she endures harsh persecution from the government there. This got me to wondering: is the opposite true. What if, when the church gains prominence and power, does she become ineffective and die?

This certainly appears to be the trend. It's hard to deny that once Constantine legalized Christianity and mixed that faith and politics that church began to become less effective. Eventually, you'd end up with popes assassinating each other and atrocities like the Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch hunts. Not only did the church become ineffective, but it began to promote some of the cruelest violence in history, all under the name of the man who called us to "love your enemies and pray for your persecutors."

Perhaps that is what worries me the most about Christians who insist on America's Christian roots and the need to remake a "Christian nation." Should we desire protection? Should we seek these places of power and privilege to "Christianize the nation/world?" History (and Jesus) should tell us "no." Gregory Boyd puts this nicely when he compares the power that is wielded by governments and nations to the ring in Lord of the Rings. "The sword has a demonic power to deceive us. When we pick it up, we come under its power." Even if we could "take back" America from the top down, would we act justly. Would we be like Christlike? Or would we be corrupted as history shows time and time again. Unfortunately, we too quickly confuse the Kingdom of God with the Kingdoms of this world (namely America).

Why is it that Christianity explodes in nations like China, where persecution is rampant, but it dies in a nation where we are the majority, enjoy countless freedom, and hold a major voice in politics? Is this just coincidence, or is it something we should be wary of? If we truly listen to the words of the Bible, and especially of Christ, maybe sometime we will learn that the Kingdom of God does not come by gaining power over others, but it comes when we place ourselves under others. When we love others more than self, when we turn the other cheek, when we love our enemies, when we serve instead of take, when we live a crucified life, then the Kingdom comes.

I've been struck recently at how much of American Christianity is driven by a love of power, instead of a love of the Gospel. How much of what we claim to defend because of "theology" is in fact simply us striving to gain or retain power? For example, it seems that many of the political issues out there that Christians get involved in have very little to do with the Bible when you get down to it. Why do we so anathematize homosexuals and virtually ignore the sins of domestic abuse, murder, drug use, racism, pornography, and economic abuse within this same country? Why do we prefer certain sins to the near total neglect of horrors and evils like hunger, poverty, and genocide? Sadly, I think it has much more to do with demonstrating our power and influence within society. Sure, things like homosexuality are wrong, but why focus exclusively on these issues? Perhaps it is because everyone in society knows murder and poverty are wrong. However, one way in which Christians are unique is in their sexual ethic. Thus, if one wants to gain political or social influence and recognition (while keeping it away from the secular culture), the easiest way to do so is by pushing hard for the point that is unique to your group. Therefore, evangelicals may have pushed so hard against abortion and homosexuality in part because victories in these arenas are readily perceived as victories of Christians over the "evil culture."

A few days ago, I read an article about Obama's decision not to hold a prayer meeting at the White House this year for the National Day of Prayer. Many Christians have been greatly upset about this. I find this somewhat ironic. Many of these critics are the same people who so fiercely claim that Obama is not a Christian. So, if he's NOT a Christian, then why are holding him to Christian standards? You can't have it both ways. Yet, beyond that issue, why is it so important whether there's a prayer meeting in the White House or not? Surely it's not because we believe our prayers will be less effective (or do we?). In fact, such a public setting may even go against Jesus' sayings on praying in private places like your closet. The real issue is sadly less over prayer and more over control of society. The article I read remarked that over the past 8 years, the Dobsons have gotten to sit in seats next to the President. When Obama decided not to have a prayer meeting, he also decided not to make an appearance with prominent evangelicals. This led evangelicals to perceive (and I think rightly so) that they have lost influence over society, and this is a scary thought. However, if we follow the words of Christ and Paul, we will learn to be content in all situations, even when we're persecuted and stripped of power (Phil. 4). Following Christ will also bring a recognition that political or social power and influence is not where the wisdom and power of God is found.

Or to examine the issue from another angle-why are we as Christians so quick to look for Christian celebrities to hold up and honor? I remember during the Super Bowl hearing many Christians say that they were cheering for the Cardinals because "Kurt Warner is a Christian." That may be, but why not cheer for the opposing team because their second stringer lineman is a Christian. For all we know, Kurt Warner may have been the only Christian on his team while the other team could have had dozens of Christians. The only difference is that Warner was well-known. And perhaps, had the Cardinals won that game, Christians would somehow have felt empowered because a "Christian" just won the Superbowl. We would be able to say, "See, Christians are important," or "Christians are cool and can even win the Superbowl." This "celebrity-seeking" also reminds me of countless women celebrities whom have been hailed as good Christian role models: Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, Miley Cyrus, and most recently, Miss California. Yet, ironically, whenever we point out their "Christianess," they always seem to fall into scandal and the world just laughs at our claims.

I think that we so quickly run to these celebrities because they are in positions of power in society. Additionally, since they are "Christians," and we are "Christians," then we are able to somehow share in their honor when they succeed. Sadly, we've chosen to idolize these influential Christians in hopes of gaining prestige and power in our culture instead of seeking out the mature Christians who may be lesser known (or unknown).

If we were to truly take Paul's words in 1 Cor. 1 to heart, we would recognize that God's wisdom is not found in earthly power, honor, or influence. It is found in weakness and in the shame of a cross. If only we as the Church could learn this lesson and learn to trust in God. Until then, the world will continue to rightly observe our folly at grasping for power and laugh.