An article appeared a couple of years ago in USA Today that revealed the number of people claiming “no religious affiliation” had almost doubled, going from 8 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008. All signs point to traditional religion being on the decline. I, for one, think this is a very good thing.
Don’t get me wrong, I want to be on the winning team. Most do. Recalling the famous quote popularized by Jack Kennedy, “Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan” – few want to be orphaned by failure or siding with the losing team.
When this attitude infects our faith the results are costly.
Read the teachings of Christ. The breadth of his entire communication was devoid of the hubris associated with a conquering king. On the contrary, he had a difficult time persuading his disciples that following Him would be, in the short term, a losing proposition.
By “short term” I mean the time between when He was crucified and when He promises to return. By “losing” I mean that following Him will require the willingness to lose so much on so many levels – loss of personal comfort, loss of financial security, loss of friends and family – oh yea, and perhaps the loss of your life. If you lived during the few centuries after the death of Christ, often it meant the loss of your life and the lives of everyone you knew who admitted to being a follower of Jesus Christ.
What a disappointment then, that institutional Christianity has become preoccupied with winning. Not that the New Testament doesn’t discuss victory. Jesus talks about our victory over the desires of this world (For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.)
Paul talks about our victory in Christ. However, this victory refers to our victory over death (O death, where is thy sting, oh grave, where is thy victory.”)
Nowhere do the Gospels refer to victory within any given culture, whether defeating Rome, unseating Herod, or even dismantling Pharisaic Judaism. God alone dealt with these empires according to His sense of Justice and in His good time – often diametrically opposed to what His followers wanted to see happen.
Fast forward to the United States in the late 1980’s; I too cheered our team onward. I too had been intoxicated with the lust for victory over everyone and everything that contradicted my narrow view of how I believed God would work in the affairs of man. I buoyed myself with the thought of “winning a nation for Christ.”
After all, we were like a football team deep in our own territory with our backs against our own goal. To please God, we needed to fight for our faith. We needed to transition from a slow lumbering ground game to a dramatic passing offense and “go deep” for Jesus.
We used a short list of issues that defined the battle lines. We became determined to elect candidates who ran on “family values” themes. The thought was that if we could just elect enough “Christian” politicians, hire enough “Christian” teachers, listen to enough “Christian” music – we could somehow usher in Christ’s return, providing Him a ready-made platform where all the heavy lifting of His second coming had already been done.
Again in a demonstration of our devotion to God, we segregated ourselves from the rest of the world, thinking our faith demanded we be removed from anyone who did not share our viewpoint.
I had a good friend who returned to the United States after living abroad for 20 years. His English wife observed this about America, “ We have too much “god” and not enough love.”
An “us” versus “them” attitude results in those who belong to the “them” category having no difficulty discerning what the agenda of the “us” is. This segregation goes further to even make distinctions within the community of Christ. The need to be described as “evangelical” presumes that Christians who don’t share our worldview are not “evangelical,” neglecting the fact that the very essence of being a Christian includes a desire to persuade all to embrace Christ’s love. In the eyes of the Evangelical Christian – other Christian sects don’t cut the mustard.
The consequence of a theology hyper-focused on speedy conversion is rooted in dispensational theology that emerged in the late 19th century through leaders like John Nelson Darby. Darby, as did many who followed, espoused the belief the “end times” were eminent and therefore the focus of the church should be to convert as many people as possible before the world ends.
The long term consequence of this perspective results in a community of Christians acting as if their spiritual training comes from the business world, where success is measured in numbers. Sales need to be made and they need to be made quickly. The success of all spiritual endeavors is measured in the numbers attached to their “soul winning.”
The problem with this strategy is that it relies on the most superficial methods of social engagement to accomplish short term goals based on an eschatology that was a radical departure from the Christianity that existed the previous 1800 years.
I believe it was no accident this brand of Christianity emerged alongside the industrial revolution. In nations like England and the United States, the demands of production became so inculcated in our culture that even the church became conformed to an assembly line approach to growth.
How very different is faith expressed among non-industrialized nations, where the seasons of life are not measured between 9am and 5pm nor the business quarter, but by a much slower more patient calendar.
This was the landscape in which Christ emerged; one where he could spend days, weeks, even years dining with, sleeping with and working with a few men he would transform into His likeness.
There is no shortcut to the deep intimacy required to produce relationships where one is willing to die for another, let alone the willingness to die for those who oppose us. Yet this is exactly the path demonstrated by Christ – and utterly rejected by conservative evangelical Christians.
What proof do I have of this sweeping accusation that conservative evangelicals are unwilling to die for their faith?
Look no further than their opposition to key social issues. Instead of a strategy that welcomes the sacrifice of our own lives as a commitment to demonstrating our love for those who disagree with us, they are convinced that a strategy that protects them from all perceived dangers will win the day.
Consider today’s social hot-button: Gay Marriage.
The argument is basically this: No society that endorses homosexuality survives for long. Allowing gay marriage will end the institution of marriage as we know it. The end of marriage as we know it will lead to a breakdown of society. A breakdown of society will inevitably lead to the end of civilization as we know it.
Hmm. This sounds familiar. Where has the end of a civilization occurred before?
The year is 312 A.D. Emperor Constantine inherited an empire that, throughout the last several hundred years, attempted to eradicate Christianity through unmatched brutality and murder.
Amazingly, the new Emperor who began his reign with a similar agenda has a miraculous spiritual encounter that leads him to not only tolerate Christians, but prefer Christianity above all other competing religions. Christians soon found seats within the halls of power and participated in Roman governance. After Constantine, all the Roman Emperors to follow were Christian.
The amazing spiritual transformation of Roman culture from polytheism to Christianity was truly miraculous. Surely such an embrace of the faith would seal their favor with God as a nation and an empire.
Unfortunately, within the same century, the Roman Empire that lasted half a millennium came to a catastrophic end as the nation disintegrated under the onslaught of marauding Vandals, Visigoths and Huns – all of which were non-Christian.
Yet the Christian faith not only survived – it thrived.
What I have been telling my evangelical friends lately is this:
Let’s suppose what you say is true. Let’s imagine that your worse fears about the “homosexual agenda” become a reality.
Let’s say that your rights as a Christian are not merely limited, but terminated altogether.
…and let’s go even further…let’s say they bust down your front door and lay waste to you and your family.
Sound like a horrific future?
Welcome to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D, because this was exactly what life was like for most Christians in the Roman Empire.
What did these Christians do? They did exactly what Christ did. They rejoiced that they could demonstrate the same sacrifice made by the founders of our faith – the same sacrifice made by their savior. They influenced a culture because of their selfless sacrifice for their cause. Instead using their physical might to persuade, their persuasion came solely by their willingness to sacrifice themselves wholly at the whims of others. This proved too impressive to resist.
Where do we as Christians get off thinking we have somehow been relieved of this mandate? How exactly is it we think we will influence anybody when we have so retreated from any notion of self-sacrifice that our last refuge is using our government as a proxy for a job only an intimate enclave of Christians can accomplish?
If the government has become an arbiter of morality – my God – talk about lowering your standards:
You can get drunk – so long as you don’t drive.
Overeat until you can’t walk.
Gamble to your heart’s content.
Lie at will, just not in a court of law or to a law enforcement official.
Cheat on your spouse.
Get a divorce
What queer lines Christians choose to draw regarding legislating their world view. Why such abhorrence of one issue whilst countless other immoral endorsements are so completely overlooked.
Personally, I believe if there is one issue that IS abhorrent to God, it’s a nation whose Christians have become so enmeshed in their culture of entitlement that they would prefer another die for their cause than they should die for their own.
Shortly after 9/11, during our invasion of Afghanistan I heard General Patten’s quote bandied about with glee – even within the church – that says essentially the same thing, “Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
This bravado is antithetical to the teachings of Christ.
Could God’s warning against idolatry be in full force when we allow our personal insecurity and fears to direct our theology?
Contrary to our worst fears, we may discover that it is us, not those we point the long craggy finger of judgment towards who are closer to provoking “the Wrath of God.”
I believe God’s “win” column has little to do with “cultural transformation” and everything to do with eternal transformation – to elevate the individual from being earthly focused to becoming heavenly focused.
When others view the sacrifice of Christ – not in the symbolic or abstract – but in full force among His followers, I believe there will indeed be a cultural shift: One where there is less “god” and a whole lot more Love.
