Recall that the Constantinian church explained away the self-sacrificial love and humility of Jesus and the early church in just this fashion. Instead of constituting the essence of the kingdom of God, the self-sacrificial and humble example of Jesus and the early church was understood to be merely a provisional inconvenience. Now that God had supposedly given the church power to rule, they reasoned, it just made sense to use it. For they, being the people who knew the truth, obviously knew best how to rule others.
Yet what did this line of reasoning accomplish? It produced centuries of barbaric bloodshed—in Jesus’ name. Beyond the tragedy of millions of people being brutally murdered, the fact that this was done under the banner of the cross has harmed global missions for centuries. What is more, wherever this line of reasoning was carried out, it inevitably damaged the church.
Can you find any region where Christians once ruled where the church has prospered over the long run? Scan the whole of Europe: England, Sweden, Denmark, and so on. Could anyone dispute that these countries are today on the whole more secular and less open to the gospel than regions that have had little or no contact with the gospel? And while there are pockets of vibrant kingdom gatherings in these countries, don’t the mostly empty, large church buildings in these countries testify to the long-term damaging effect that Christian rule has had on the church?
What does this tell us? It teaches us that whenever Christians have gotten what so many American evangelicals today are trying to get—namely, the power to enforce their righteous will on others—it eventually harms the church as well as the culture. The lesson of history, a lesson the Devil has known all along, is this: The best way to defeat the kingdom of God is to empower the church to rule the kingdom of the world — for then it becomes the kingdom of the world! The best way to get people to lay down the cross is to hand them the sword!
While this conclusion may seem paradoxical to the Constantinian kingdom-of-the-world mindset, it makes perfect sense within a kingdom-of-God mindset. For the kingdom of God is not about coercive “power over,” but influential “power under.” Its essence is found in the power to transform lives from the inside out through love and service.
When kingdom-of-God citizens aspire to acquire Caesar’s authority to accomplish “the good,” we sell our kingdom birthright for a bowl of worldly porridge (Gen. 25:29–34). To the extent that we pick up the sword, we put down the cross. When our goal as kingdom people becomes centered on effectively running a better (let alone Christian) version of the kingdom of the world, we compromise our calling to be faithful to the kingdom of God.
John Howard Yoder eloquently makes the point when he writes:
The vision of ultimate good being determined by faithfulness and not by results is the point where we moderns get off. We confuse the kind of “triumph of the good,” whose sole guarantee is the resurrection and the premise of the eternal glory of the Lamb, with an immediately accessible triumph which can be manipulated, just past the next social action campaign, by getting hold of society as a whole at the top. What in the Middle Ages was done by Roman Christianity or Islam is now being attempted by Marxism and by democratic nationalism….
We may well prefer a democratically controlled oligarchy to some other kind. We may well have a choice between Marxist and Islamic and other statements of the vision of the good society. But what our contemporaries find themselves practically incapable of challenging is that the social problem can be solved by determining which aristocrats are morally justified, by virtue of their better ideology, to use the power of society from the top so as to lead the whole system in their direction.8
The unchallenged assumption is that society’s problems can be solved by getting the right version of the kingdom of the world—the right aristocrats—in power at the top of the society, and that if only the right people acquire the power to lead society in the right direction, then all will be well. This “power over” kingdom-of-the-world assumption has dominated much Christian and Islamic thought throughout history, with catastrophic consequences, and it obviously continues to influence the thinking of many Christians and non-Christians today. If only Matthew’s conservative program or Simon’s radical program can win, then we will fix the world and God will be glorified.
It is understandable that secularists would accept this assumption, for they can conceive of no other solution to society’s problems, but kingdom-of-God citizens are empowered to have keener vision. Indeed, the assumption that society’s problems can be solved by empowering the right ideology, whether this be a democratic, Marxist, Islamic, or Christian ideology, constitutes a fundamental denial of the lordship of Christ. As such, it constitutes a rejection of the reality of the kingdom of God and the distinctive call of the disciple of Christ to manifest this reality.
This kingdom-of-the-world assumption—to conquer the world for the glory of God—is in essence the very thing the Devil tempted Jesus with. What makes the assumption so tempting is that it makes so much sense. How could society fail to be better off if we who know the truth are empowered to get our way in society?
The point is so obvious, it seems, that we might be inclined to accept Christendom’s traditional rationalization that the only reason Jesus and the early church didn’t try to gain power over others was because they couldn’t. Yet as plausible as this way of thinking may be from within the world’s “power over” paradigm, it is utterly absurd when we view it from within God’s “power under” paradigm.
Think about it. The Son of God couldn’t exercise “power over”?! He certainly could have, for this is precisely what the Devil offered him! Even apart from this, Jesus had legions of angels at his beck and call and the power of God Almighty at his disposal. Had he wanted to, Jesus could easily have become a victorious Caesar rather than a crucified Savior.
Jesus refused to call on these angels not because he and his disciples hadn’t yet acquired enough power from Caesar, such as Augustine had in the fourth and fifth centuries, but because doing so would have violated the heart of the kingdom he came to establish. To reveal the holiness of God’s kingdom, Jesus voluntarily “emptied himself,” “humbled himself,” and took on the form of a servant, allowing himself to be crucified for the sake of others and for the glory of God (Phil. 2:6–8). In doing so, writes Yoder, “Christ renounced the claim to govern history,” choosing instead to win the world through sacrificial, loving submission.9
This is the heart of God’s kingdom, and this is the mind of Christ that all who claim to follow Christ are commanded to have (Phil. 2:5). Thus, to the disciple of Christ, the power of the sword must be forever viewed as a demonic temptation, not a viable, let alone Christian, solution.
The age-old temptation to seize “power over” is exacerbated for American Christians by virtue of the fact that our government invites us to participate in running our version of the kingdom of the world. Christians living in communist or totalitarian regimes don’t have this option or this temptation. In my opinion, the ability to participate in the running of a country is a wonderful kingdom-of-the-world privilege—arguably the best privilege any version of the kingdom of the world can give its subjects. But as valuable as it is, kingdom-of-God citizens must consistently resist the temptation to identify our ability to influence government by voting or serving in a governmental office as our distinct authority as kingdom people. We are kingdom people who happen to live in a context where we may exercise some authority, but the governmental authority we may exercise is not our distinct authority as kingdom people.
To be clear, a kingdom person may be called by God to serve in a certain governmental capacity, and in this sense their individual calling may be manifested in how they carry out their office. But their unique authority as a kingdom person cannot be equated with their governmental authority, just as it cannot be equated with our ability to vote. Rather, our unique kingdom-of-God authority resides exclusively in our ability and willingness to come under people in sacrificial love, a unique a
uthority that cannot be given by Caesar and cannot be taken by Caesar.10
Our unique kingdom authority and calling is given by God, and it looks the same whether we are a governor or a plumber, whether we live in America, North Korea, Iran, or Sweden. It may take a million different forms, but it always looks like Jesus Christ, dying in love for the people who crucified him.
TAKING “BACK” AMERICA FOR GOD?
The first question we needed to address in response to the popular “Take America Back for God” slogan concerned the precedent of Jesus, and in this light we must judge that the slogan can lead us into temptation. The second concerns the meaning of the slogan itself. I, for one, confess to being utterly mystified by the phrase. If we are to take America back for God, it must have once belonged to God, but it’s not at all clear when this golden Christian age was.
Were these God-glorifying years before, during, or after Europeans “discovered” America and carried out the doctrine of “manifest destiny”—the belief that God (or, for some, nature) had destined white Christians to conquer the native inhabitants and steal their land? Were the God-glorifying years the ones in which whites massacred these natives by the millions, broke just about every covenant they ever made with them, and then forced survivors onto isolated reservations? Was the golden age before, during, or after white Christians loaded five to six million Africans on cargo ships to bring them to their newfound country, enslaving the three million or so who actually survived the brutal trip? Was it during the two centuries when Americans acquired remarkable wealth by the sweat and blood of their slaves? Was this the time when we were truly “one nation under God,” the blessed time that so many evangelicals seem to want to take our nation back to?11
Maybe someone would suggest that the golden age occurred after the Civil War, when blacks were finally freed. That doesn’t quite work either, however, for the virtual apartheid that followed under Jim Crow laws—along with the ongoing violence, injustices, and dishonesty toward Native Americans and other nonwhites up into the early twentieth century—was hardly “God-glorifying.” (In this light, it should come as no surprise to find that few Christian Native Americans, African-Americans, or other nonwhites join in the chorus that we need to “Take America Back for God.”)
If we look at historical reality rather than pious verbiage, it’s obvious that America never really “belonged to God.”12 As we’ve said, when the kingdom of God is manifested, it’s obvious. It looks like Jesus. But America as a nation has clearly never looked remotely like Jesus. There was nothing distinctively Christlike about the way America was “discovered,” conquered, or governed in the early years. To the contrary, the way this nation was “discovered,” conquered, and governed was a rather typical, barbaric, violent, kingdom-of-the-world affair. The immoral barbarism displayed in the early (and subsequent) years of this country was, sadly, pretty typical by kingdom-of-the-world standards. The fact that it was largely done under the banner of Christ doesn’t make it more Christian, any more than any other bloody conquest done in Jesus’ name throughout history (such as the Crusades and the Inquisition) qualifies them as Christlike.
In fact, we should view the fact that Europeans conquered under the banner of Christ to be just another typical kingdom-of-the-world behavior. As noted in chapter 1, kingdom-of-the-world armies have usually fought under the banner of their nationalist religion and invoked their tribal deities as they fought. Indeed, most kingdom-of-the-world warriors have believed they were killing or dying for a “manifest destiny.” They believed God, or particular gods, were on their side and would give them victory. Most conquests have had a religious dimension, if only because it’s hard to motivate one group to kill another and be willing to be killed by others without convincing them that there’s a religious dimension to their tribal cause.
The European conquering of America was simply another all-too-typical version of this kingdom-of-the-world behavior. From the kingdom-of-God perspective, the fact that Christ happened to be the national warrior deity invoked to carry out whites’ “manifest destiny”—inspiring them to kill, cheat, marginalize, and enslave native Americans and Africans (as well as other nonwhite groups)—simply means that this particular kingdom-of-the-world episode was more damaging to the cause of the kingdom of God than others.
This, of course, is not what most American Christians (especially most white Americans) who love their country want to hear. I completely understand this. Yet if we simply stick to the truth that only what looks like Jesus qualifies as kingdom-of-God activity, there is no way to avoid this conclusion. Slaughtering, enslaving, cheating, conquering, and dominating are not the sort of activities Jesus engaged in!
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
Those who want to enlist the power of Caesar to “take America back for God” usually appeal to the alleged fact that the founding fathers were stalwart Christians who established America as “one nation under God.” The notion is that the founders intended America to be a Christian nation, established on Christian laws and exemplifying Christian morality. This is what many want to take America back to.
There has been a great deal of debate about the extent to which the founding fathers were Christian in any historic orthodox sense of the term. My own research inclines me to conclude that most were more deistic than Christian, and that they collectively had no intention of founding an explicitly Christian nation.13 At the very least, it’s significant that the Declaration of Independence proclaims truths that the founding fathers thought to be “self-evident” to natural reason (a very deistic idea), not truths that are scriptural. Also, our country’s Constitution is based on reason, not the Bible. It is, in my estimation, a truly amazing document, yet it owes more to John Locke than it does to the Bible.
But the issue of what various founding fathers personally believed is really irrelevant to the issue at hand. For even if they believed they were in some sense establishing a Christian nation, as some maintain, it remains perfectly clear that it never has actually looked like Christ. We have only to listen to the voices of nonwhites throughout our history to appreciate this fact.
Just listen to Frederick Douglass, a nineteenth-century slave who taught himself how to read and write, as he expresses his view of how Christian America was:
Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt and wicked…. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity.14
When we suggest that this nation was once Christian, we participate in the racist and demonic deceit that Douglass poignantly exposes. To avoid this deceit, it is also helpful to remember that most of the violence and dishonesty carried out against the native Americans occurred after America was founded as a nation “under God.” Likewise, the Supreme Court’s decision that blacks were only three-fifths human came long after America was purportedly established as a Christian nation. The list of ways that early America didn’t look remotely look like the domain in which God is king—indeed, the ways America has often looked the opposite—could be expanded indefinitely.
But even the un-Christlike behavior of America as a nation is not the most fundamental issue. The foundational issue is whether any “power over” kingdom could ever be Christian—even if it wanted to. We have argued that being Christlike is not, and cannot be, an ideal to which any version of the kingdom of the world can aspire, let alone claim for itself. As much as God wants governments to operate justly, Jesus didn’t come to establish a perfect worldly government. He came to establish the kingdom of God as a radical alternative to all versions of the kingdom of the world, whether they declare themselves to be “under God” or not
.
When we misguidedly loop Christian talk into American kingdom-of-the-world talk, we do great harm to the work of the kingdom of God. Among other things, we leverage the credibility of God’s kingdom on someone believing that it was God’s will—“manifest destiny”—for whites to carry out the barbarism they carried out toward Native Americans, Africans, and a host of other nonwhites in the course of American history. We compromise the purity and beauty—the holiness—of the kingdom of God by associating it with the typical “power over” injustices that this country has largely been built on. And we encourage the sort of “power over” behavior among religious people that we see today as they attempt to “take America back for God” by political means. Allegiance to the kingdom of God is confused with allegiance to America, and lives that are called to be spent serving others are spent trying to gain power over others.
THE GOOD AND THE BEAUTIFUL
When we clearly and consistently separate the kingdom of God from all versions of the kingdom of the world, we are in a position to affirm the good as well as the bad of American history without having to defend it as Christian. For example, insofar as one could argue that it served justice, one could argue it was better that America won independence from England, despite the massive bloodshed the fight for independence required. But neither the outcome nor the bloody process that led to it were Christlike. It didn’t manifest the kingdom of God, for Jesus never killed people to acquire political freedom for himself or others. Hence, July Fourth is not—or at least should not be—a Christian holiday, however meaningful it may be to some Americans.
The Myth of a Christian Nation Page 10