Gospel Politics: Part 1.

The church is a political being. It functions as a political being, because the church is a community of people, who live in a different Kingdom, with a different ruler, with different ethical values. Aristotle defined politics (polis) as such: a creation of people who are better than they would be without the aid of the polis. The word for church in Greek is “ekklesia” which literally means “called out”. This word implies more than just an assembly of people. The word ekklesia was a political term not a religious term. In the church, Jesus is king and the Bible used the term “ekklesia” for a good reason. In fact, in classical Greek “ekklesia” meant “an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly.”

The church today, still has the same call, the same King, the same vision, and the same Gospel. However, the church has muddled its “politicalness” and is confused on what is primary in its methods to be a community that shows the world that is alien and foregin, and that the message she (church) bears is indeed Great News!

In the post “Gosple Credibility” I mentioned that the church, or some Christians, think that if we coerce the government into voting into some specfic Christian values, or elect more Christian officials, than we can change the world into being a better place for all or make it a bit more just. I believe, that we have ample evidence that this form of Christian politics is dangerous and wrong. For instance, today it appears that all people in America know what two buttons to push in order to get the church hot and bothered: homosexuality & abortion. It appears that this is Christian politics. If we can get the American government to vote our way, the nation will be more Christian. It is necessary to notice that in order to follow this line of thinking, many other Christian values are put on the wayside (poverty, unemployment, debt, war, school, medical, etc.).

Gospel Credibility…

How do we make the Gosple credible to a post-modern world? In the last post, I ventured into what is the Good News and wondered if it includes a culture beyond “coming to Jesus for Salvation only.” It does… to kill the suspense of the question. Jesus always paralleled the good news with a kingdom. That kingdom is political because it deals with a new people residing in a earthly realm, that kingdom has different values and morals, and the people of that kingdom are all considered to be ambassadors of the King. To live out, to proclaim, and to administer the good news, which that King (Jesus) did thousands of years ago. So, this begs the question, why isn’t Jesus’ Gospel credible anymore? I think this is a bad question to ask. Maybe it is better to ask, why doesn’t the church/Christians prove that the gospel is credible anymore? Or maybe we should be thinking how to make the post-modern world credible to the Gospel?

Within the good news of the Kingdom of God, a culture is formed. The sad news of this fact, only two types of cultures can be developed: The authentic culture of the Good News or man’s implied interpretations of Jesus’ good news. It doesn’t take much to see that is the later that is observed more than Kingdom culture. This is why the Gospel has little credibility to influence change in society for the better. This is why the church is slowly dying of a selfish disease and more and more people are getting a sour taste in their mouths about Christianity. The church has lost its influential voice in America (also in the main 1/3 of the world), and I’m willing to bet it is because we have adopted our own interpretations of Jesus’ Gospel (this is not a profound opinion, it is an obvious fact).

What Gospel…

What is meant when we say “Gospel”? “Oh yes! it is God’s good news for us poor sinners.” “Jesus died so that you may live.” “You need to give your life over to Jesus, confess your sins, and then live for Him.” Is this all there is? Not to sound too cold. Did God send His one and only beloved Son, to come down to earth to simply die so that we can then live for Him (whatever that really means…could this be the answer?). Does this limit the good news? Can the news only then be good if you confess your sins and then live for Him? Is it that conditional? I think that people need to look at again at the four letters that were passed on to us that show the Life of God in Jesus in order to understand the full Gospel, the why to coming to earth.

In most fundamental or evangelical churches today, the Gospel is usually presented in a half-watered down version. What I mean by this is that they explain the means for salvation and stop there. That is Good News! Do not get me wrong. But it is only half of the Good News. Every now and then, you will hear or read a message about the other half, but it slowly fades into a rumor (a debateable one if that). What is the other half?

Tension

It is a silent distinction that runs through our churches that segregate people. The most damaging segregation that occurs is that between the church and those outside the church. These distinctions are so audibly silent. Doctrine. Politics. Traditions. All are necessary. All are excellent. All appear to be a necessary evil. Can a church survive without doctrine? Can a church survive without being on the left or being on the right. Is being on the right right? Is being on the left evil? What traditions are excellent and right? Do they matter? Why do they exist? Where do some originate? Are the things that are coming to the surface only youthful rebellion in the church (emerging vs. emergent)? Why do fundamental churches clash so violently against the liberal churches? It is doctrine. It is politics. It is traditions.

My heart aches over this situation. I look at the American church as it presently stands and it breaks my heart. This tension exists. Are you a conservative or a liberal. From here many would then peg you as a Christian or a non-Christian even if you say you are one. It is more the political. I just watched a video of a lady (soon to be on this blog) blasting the emerging movement because it tends to be lead by Calvinist’s (a specific church doctrine). It was a very intolerant message. I look at the Full Gospel that Jesus gave us and these distinctions never came into being. In fact, He never spent anytime on them. Why? Because it brings in segregation…the whose in and whose out mentality. Can a woman who has had an abortion be a Christian? Can a homosexual be a Christian. Can a Calvinist be a Christian? Can an Arminian be a Christian? Can a democrate or a republican be a Christian? When we ponder these ridiculous questions we quickly form the distinctions of whose in and whose out?