Epilogue I: 3 Months Later...A Barrage of Emails

Ryan and Anthony hugged and parted ways at the end of their reunion weekend and hit the ground running. Ryan had loads and loads of pastoral duties and Anthony had an Orange Bowl to defend. Although they hadn’t connected, both were reminded from time to time of different aspects of their weekend conversations. The ‘historic’ 2008 Presidential Election came and went as Obama repainted the electoral map. He earned only ¼ of the Evangelical vote, though, mostly because of his pro-choice stance on abortion and fears that he was ‘the most liberal member of the Senate.’ Anthony and his wife drove 25 miles into Kansas City in October to an Obama rally of more than 75,000 people. He was shocked at the outpouring of devotion, the hope for change in the diversity of faces: white, black, Latino and Native American.

Ryan, meanwhile, privately prayed with his pastoral staff for a McCain victory. For the leaders of Grace Evangelical, this was a crucial election. They were lukewarm on McCain until he named pro-life superhero Sarah Palin to be his VP. Palin was the young-working-mother-Governor-of-Alaska who just gave birth to a Down Syndrome son just a few months earlier. This energized Evangelicals like those at Grace. If McCain could win and appoint a couple more pro-life Supreme Court justices, then 35-year-old Roe v. Wade could be overturned and babies would be saved.

Of course, the other major item on the ballot was the controversial Proposition 8, which would specifically define marriage as ‘between a man and woman’ in the California Constitution. It won 52% of the vote and it sparked a wave of protest against mostly Evangelicals and Mormons.

Anthony was overwhelmed with the football season, but tried to stay abreast of what was going on. He has always been an avid reader not only of his Bible but also of the Lawrence Journal World. He didn’t get to watch TV at all, in fact, his Monday night church community committed to dumping their TV’s as a practice. They wanted to be more intentional with how their minds were formed.

Ryan and Kimmy had a TV and they tried to stay fair-minded when it came to how they received their news. They flipped from CNN to MSNBC to FOX to local stations. Recently they watched a broadcast that sparked Ryan to connect with Anthony.

11.12.08

To: jayhawkquarterbacks@kufootball.com
From: pastorryan@graceevangelical.com
Subject: Check out Rick Warren!

Anthony,
It’s been way too long. So sorry for the silence. So much has happened in the past few months: the economic melt-down, Joe-the-Plumber, the election! Our oldest just started high school and he’s playing freshman football! You should see him in pads. I’ve thought of our time together often—great memories, great conversations. I continue to wrestle with some of the theological and political notions that you’ve brought to my attention. Your position is very unique.

I saw Rick Warren on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes last night. I have the utmost respect for Warren’s creativity and fervor to see people come to Christ and for what he’s trying to do with social justice in Africa, but I wondered what you thought of him. He seems like a very unifying figure. After all, I’ve heard him say multiple times, ‘I’m not right-wing. I’m not left-wing. I’m for the whole bird.’ Anyways, he raised some interesting points that I think could lead to some more theological/political dialogue. You can YouTube it right here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqVdKGR8_u8&feature=related

Say ‘hi’ to the wife and good luck in the big game against Texas on Saturday!

In Christ,
Ryan

11.16.08

To: pastorryan@graceevangelical.com
From: jayhawkquarterbacks@kufootball.com
Subject: re: Check out Rick Warren!

Ryan,
Thanks for the update and the link to Warren’s interview. Maybe you can send me some YouTube clips of your boy on the gridiron! As I’m sure you saw, Texas blew us out! We’ve got our revenge game with Missouri to prove to the bowl committee that we belong in the post-season. We’ve been really busy out here in this red state, so I too apologize for being silent the past few months. I finally got a chance to watch the Warren interview this afternoon. Here are a few of my thoughts:

I don’t really know too much about him. I’ve, of course, heard about Purpose Driven Life and even read a couple chapters, but I had no idea that he sold 35 million copies of it! He seems like a very likeable leader. I see why McCain and Obama would agree to start the general election campaign with an interview with him. But he certainly doesn’t come across as being for ‘the whole bird’ in this interview. His positions are definitely ‘right wing’ through and through: free market ‘wealth creation,’ protecting ‘traditional marriage,’ and crediting Obama with earning evangelical votes ‘simply because he was actually campaigning like Reagan’ with 95% of the population receiving tax cuts. This may not even phase you out there in the OC ‘where every good Republican goes to die’ [classic Reagan quote], but coming from out here in Lawrence, he just sounds like a FOX News anchor. Am I being fair? There are two parts of the interview that I want to comment further on:
(1) Here’s his answer to the question about Prop 8: ‘I absolutely believe in loving everybody, giving respect to everybody, and giving everybody the freedom of choice. I just am opposed to redefining marriage. For 5,000 years that term, marriage, has represented a man and a woman.’
You know I disagree with him in regards to his ideas about the relationship of the church and the state on this issue—he’s choosing the Constantinian approach: sanctify society by legislating Christian morality, no matter how contested the issue of ‘marriage’ is. But I also disagree with his claim that marriage has been a term that refers to a man and a woman for the past 5,000 years. This isn’t true. Even in the Bible, we see King Solomon [and plenty of other men] with thousands of wives—that’s marriage between a man…and many women!

Honestly, I’m a bit confused about Warren’s die-hard support of Prop 8. Something just doesn’t add up. Like I said, I don’t know too much about him so I googled ‘Rick Warren, Bible, Homosexuality’ and learned that he and his wife have been hosting these wonderful AIDS conferences and it seems like they saturate gays and lesbians with a lot of dignity and respect. The Warren’s have gotten a lot of heat from uber-conservative Christian groups calling them full-fledged gay rights activists! Now, I know that’s not true, but my hats off to all they’ve done, leading the Body of Christ in this very important arena.

But then, I found the video blog that Warren made a couple of weeks before the election, valiantly endorsing Prop 8. He proposes that the Bible is clear about the issue and proclaims, ‘If you believe what the Bible says about marriage you need to support Proposition 8.’ Going back to the Bible, I think it is important that we remind ourselves humbly that famous Christian leaders have been famously wrong when they’ve confidently quoted the Bible against some of the complex issues of their day. Martin Luther said, ‘This fool Copernicus wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture in Joshua 10:13 tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.’ Not only does this Luther quote remind us to humbly weigh what our leaders are saying, it also reminds of how not to read the Bible. Luther was assuming that the author of Joshua got it right in regards to everything, including astronomy. But, of course, the author of Joshua was writing a book about God and His people, not about exact science. The author of Joshua did not have categories for which object in space orbits around the other: the earth or the sun.

In similar ways, the legendary Princeton theologian Charles Hodge found himself waffling in the middle of the 19th century with the moral question of his day: slavery. He wrote, ‘The fact that the Mosaic institutions recognized the lawfulness of slavery is a point too plain to need proof, and is almost universally admitted. Our argument from this acknowledged fact is that if God allowed slavery to exist, if he directed how slaves might be lawfully acquired, and how they were to be treated, it is in vain to contend that slaveholding is a sin, and yet profess reverence for the Scriptures.’ This biblical reading strategy, among other things, failed to take into account the vast differences between chattel slavery in the US and debt servant-hood in the Roman Empire. It’s a huge cultural gap. And now, of course, we all look back and say, ‘Yeah, of course slavery in the US was horrifically un-Christian!’ But it takes a nuanced Bible reading strategy to get there. If we just quote Bible verses, then the sun revolves around the earth and slavery is God-ordained—and we’re just getting started! Likewise, Paul did not have a category for homosexual orientation—homosexuality did not exist in that culture like it does in ours. Is it possible that Warren and many others will be corrected, just as Luther and Hodge are now, as we continue to learn a lot more about our complex world and follow the Spirit’s prodding? I think so.

(2) Here’s Warren’s answer to whether evangelicals are changing the way they are voting:
‘in this particular election, the economy trumped literally everything else. People were worried about the bread and butter issues…I don't think evangelicals have changed on any of their core issues at all, not at all. But I do think that, in this particular election, the economy came up at the top.’
I also googled ‘Rick Warren, political issues’ and listened to a recent NPR interview he did. He sent out a list of 5 non-negotiables to thousands of Christian leaders before the 2004 election: abortion, gay marriage, human cloning, stem-cell research and euthanasia. He says these are still his convictions even though he didn’t send out the letter during this election cycle.
My experience talking with evangelicals, especially younger evangelicals [18-29] who were two times more likely to vote for Obama than they were for Kerry in 2004, is that many are indeed expanding and shifting their core issues. Check out Donald Miller’s blog at donmilleris.com. He recounts his political testimony, from his the days of his youth, listening to Rush Limbaugh and his pastors who embraced the religious right right up to his participation in Obama’s campaign. His is a dramatic shift and, trust me, it’s happening, albeit slowly, all over America. We are re-thinking what it means to think biblically about American politics.
Many Evangelicals that I talk to are pro-life across the board: inside the womb, against the bomb and around the slum. Many Christians resonated with Obama on war and poverty issues, as well as his diplomatic posture with the rest of the world. Certainly, his stance on abortion was a hang-up with most evangelicals, but there are some compelling evangelical voices that are rightly emphasizing progressive economic policies that will financially allow more young pregnant mothers to keep the child. Did you know that pregnant mothers living below the poverty line are 3 times more likely to have an abortion than those who aren’t? I’m convinced that something needs to change in the economic structure of our country in order to reduce the number of abortions. Those who live below the poverty line need help. And remember, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will be decided by state legislatures, and, no doubt, California will continue to give abortion rights to women. On top of this, many evangelicals are taking more ‘biblical’ stances on the protection of the environment, extending affordable health care to everyone and giving dignity to undocumented workers in our economy. This is not only what I’m experiencing but also what polls seem to be saying…and I’m very hopeful about these trends. The pull toward Obama cannot simply be chalked up to the faltering economy.
Much Love in Christ,
Anthony

11.18.08

To: jayhawkquarterbacks@kufootball.com
From: pastorryan@graceevangelical.com
Subject: Following Up on Warren
OK, just a couple follow up questions:
1. Would you say Paul was flat-out wrong about homosexuality?
2. If so, then couldn’t anything be wrong in the Bible…even the resurrection of Jesus?
11.22.08
To: pastorryan@graceevangelical.com
From: jayhawkquarterbacks@kufootball.com
Subject: re: Following Up on Warren
1. I would not say Paul was flat-out wrong, just flat-out out cultural. This cultural aspect makes Bible reading a little more nuanced, but remember, even full-fledged biblical literalist fundamentalists have a ‘cultural filter.’ Everyone has to pick and choose what applies to our Christian faith today and how we live out the stuff that does…but I don’t want to sound like it is just a consumer experience like going to the grocery store and picking out my cereals for the week. This task needs to be prayerful, intellectually engaging and humble, and it needs to involve a variety of voices in community as we all weigh the issues and their implications.
2. Of course, anything could be ‘wrong’ in the Bible. We have got to be humble about that. 500 years ago, Copernicus was right and Luther’s Bible was ‘wrong’ [at least an aspect of his strategy was]. 150 years ago, the abolitionists were right and Hodge’s Bible was wrong [at least an aspect of his strategy was]. The Bible isn’t read…it is interpreted. And that’s where faith, conviction and humility all must intersect. As we talked about during our reunion weekend, I’ve rejected the philosophical need for an inerrant Bible. Many Christians use this biblical ‘doctrine’ to bolster certainty. The inerrant Bible gives them ‘proof.’ Philosophers call this understanding of the world ‘foundationalism,’ and it has ruled the roost during the Modern period since Descartes in the 17th century. Part of the problem with Biblical inerrancy is that the Bible is interpreted by fallible humans. Another part of the problem is that the Bible is simply not that kind of text. It’s a book of stories, poems, sermons, letters and apocalyptic literature [don’t get me started on how difficult it is to understand Revelation]. I subscribe to what’s called a ‘post-foundationalist’ epistemology. OK, I know this phrase is way too intellectual-sounding, but what it simply means is that many folks living in Western culture have given up the project of the perfect, provable system of coming to truth and knowledge. I’ve given up the theological game of Jenga, where we mine out of the Bible timeless truths and universally proclaimed principles to build up our perfect ideas about God and the world. The Bible, instead of being a perfect encyclopedia of truth and belief, is a script for faithful performance. I don’t believe in the dictation theory of the Bible—the idea that God dictated the exact words through all the biblical authors. Instead, these very human authors were inspired to write about who God is and what it means to be a part of what he is doing to redeem the world. Did Jesus rise from the grave? Of course. This is the bold conviction that propelled all the New Testament writers who wrote absolutely convinced that Jesus continues to live in their presence [and ours], empowering, guiding, comforting and reminding them [and us], through this same Spirit that raised him from the dead.
I hope this makes sense. These are rather simplified answers to your very important and rather complex questions. These ideas have been quite paradigm-shifting for me and it has taken a lot of time hashing through a lot of questions and concerns like these.
11.23.08

To: jayhawkquarterbacks@kufootball.com
From: pastorryan@graceevangelical.com
Subject: Rapture?

OK, I don’t claim to know precisely what you were saying in your last email. I read it and re-read it a few times and I think I kind-of-understand where you are coming from, but the paradigm-shift is a little too HUGE for me to accept right now. It just makes my head spin. I’m sure I’ll have questions for you later.

I have thought about you a few times in recent weeks when certain members of our congregation have shared their concern with me about Obama. Usually, they just commit to praying and trusting God during this ‘worrisome’ time of gay marriage, the economic melt-down and a President of dubious character and background. But some go even further, asking me if Obama might be the Antichrist. I’ve even overheard one of our members proclaim jubilantly that Obama’s win might just be the last straw before the Rapture!

Anthony, I know that many Christians have been unfair towards Obama in the past year or so, but do they have some reason to be concerned about him. Is it possible that he could be this world leader that is a ‘false prophet’ as described in Matthew: a wolf in sheep’s clothing? All politics aside, do you concede that these Christians could be justified in some of their fear?

I know you’ve got a big week ahead of you with Thanksgiving on Thursday and the Missouri game on Saturday at Arrowhead. Go Jayhawks!

11.25.08

To: pastorryan@graceevangelical.com
From: jayhawkquarterbacks@kufootball.com
Subject: re: Rapture?

Reading Revelation and other ‘apocalyptic’ biblical literature [like Mark 13 and Daniel] can be quite taxing…especially when attempting to make sense of it in light of contemporary events and world leaders. Many Evangelicals read Revelation as an ‘end-times map.’ I prefer to read it as a ‘political resistance document.’ Again, I want to preface my choice of words: by ‘prefer,’ I don’t mean that it is just a consumer choice. I mean that I have tried both reading strategies and understand the implications. I am far more compelled by approaching Revelation as a political resistance document, what apocalyptic literature originally was. When we read Revelation in light of the historical circumstances of small Christian communities faithfully witnessing and worshipping as minorities in the Roman Empire and when we read Revelation with even a novice understanding that apocalyptic literature was written as a metaphorical critique against powerful, oppressive governments, then we can take a couple steps closer to understanding more fully how these original communities understood these Spirit-inspired words. The document was not so much about what was going to happen ‘at the end of the world,’ but instead about what was going on in the Roman Empire back in the day. The Empire had an oppressive effect on these communities, a constant threat towards their witness. During some periods of time in the early days of Christian faith, they endured particularly harsh persecution. Other times, the Emperor and his cronies were more indifferent to the strange Christians. Revelation is written to 7 Christian communities in 7 cities of the Empire. These communities are referred to as ‘lampstands,’ sources of kingdom light that are supposed to illuminate the dark Empire. Instaed, complacency and idol-worship are both at the forefront of how the powerful Empire is disrupting these communities. The bottom line is that Revelation is calling these communities to follow ‘the Lamb who was slaughtered’ into faithful witness…sometimes this meant martyrdom [martus is Greek for ‘witness’]. These communities pledged allegiance to King Jesus, not Caesar. Though many were citizens of Rome, they were primarily citizens of the ‘reign of Christ.’ This was a difficult vocation. Revelation is best interpreted by Christian communities who are actively and creatively resisting the Powers that threaten their faithfulness to God’s reign.

I share all of this because I think all of this talk about Obama possibly being the Anti-Christ is sheer nonsense according to the reading strategy I find most compelling. The title ‘Anti-Christ’ actually isn’t in Revelation—it’s in I and II John. I’m compelled by scholarship that interprets that term, as well as ‘the beast’ and ‘666’ in Revelation, as referring to the powerful seduction of the Roman Empire, and by implication, governments, economies and rulers who have consistently oppressed Christian minorities throughout the centuries since then. The idea that Obama is the Anti-Christ that will come before the end of the world is not worth speculating. What is worth speculating is all the ways in which Christian communities in North America are getting seduced by the Powers through economic complacency and idolatry: the pull of advertising and consumerism, militaristic patriotism, instant gratification, the cult of celebrity [in and out of the church] and ecological degradation [to name a few]. Surely, Christians should be critical of how Obama’s Administration, like all of our leaders in all three branches of government, makes decisions and guides the United States in ways that are counter to ‘the kingdom of God.’

As far as the Rapture is concerned, I believe that when Christ returns to this earth, what the New Testament refers to as his ‘reappearing’ [parousia], he will establish his kingdom on earth forever and ever. Our hope is not that he will save us from the earth but that his reign will be rooted firmly on earth. In I Thessalonians 5, where Paul writes about how Christians will meet the Lord in the sky when he returns, he is again using the language of Rome. When Caesar would travel to towns in the Empire, the citizens of these colonies would leave the city and meet Caesar on the road in order to escort him back into their hometown and throw him a grand festival. So, too, when Christ returns will there be a giant redemption party on earth, just as it is in heaven. These early Christians were eagerly expecting King Jesus to return, to fully set up his kingdom on earth. Again, their hope was in the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth, not the militaristic and glorified Caesar of Rome. So, too, should we be expectant and hopeful as we live out the radical kingdom lifestyle until he reappears. No need to worry about being ‘Left Behind.’ No one is going anywhere. God has always been about putting the world back to rights, redeeming the entire creation. He would never consider abandoning his creation to total destruction. His covenant with his people assures that the entire world will indeed be released from its bondage to sin, death and decay [Romans 8:18-25].

12.20.08

To: jayhawkquarterbacks@kufootball.com
From: pastorryan@graceevangelical.com
Subject: Back to Warren!

Anthony!
I’m sure you’ve heard this week’s news that Rick Warren is going to be giving the invocation at the Obama inauguration. Most media outlets seem to be spinning this as a very ‘controversial’ move on Obama’s part, mostly because of Warren’s outspokenness over the gay marriage issue in California. It seems to be a strange pick considering Warren represents the conservative evangelical world, one of the only groups that overwhelmingly did not vote for Obama. What are your thoughts?

12.21.08

To: pastorryan@graceevangelical.com
From: jayhawkquarterbacks@kufootball.com
Subject: re: Back to Warren!

As I type this email in my pajamas, sipping on some hot coffee with snow on the ground outside, you are probably getting ready to preach a few sermons. I just wanted to remind you of some of the perks of having our church meeting on Monday nights!

Oh, yes, Rick Warren. After I heard the news this week, I’ve been checking various news websites for reactions and more information on Obama’s decision. Here’s where I’m at:

First of all, this Warren phenomena is becoming more and more the classic example of Constantinian Christianity in our day. Remember, from the 4th century onwards, the Pope and the Emperor blessed each other, gaining more and more power for their respective causes. In this relationship, the church gives the public realm [politics/economics] over to the state in order to claim the private realm [spirituality] for itself. Yoder called it ‘the Constantinian concubinage’: when the church ultimate prostitutes herself out to the state. This is about as harsh as Yoder gets with his language, but let me explain. Obama is, no doubt, courting the white conservative evangelical vote that he failed to gain over the past 20 months of campaigning. He is trying to reach across the aisle to find some common ground because, let’s face it, these folks are not going to like decisions that he’ll make in the next 4 years regarding abortion, stem cell research and homosexuality. Warren has been ‘progressive’ on issues like AIDS, Africa, global warming and poverty, so he’s the evangelical leader who is most visible and most characterized by liberals and seculars with comments like ‘he’s doing a lot of good in this world.’ Bill Maher recently said that he liked Warren because, let’s face it, he’s A LOT better than Jerry Falwell!

Warren sees this opportunity at the inauguration as yet one more bolstering of his own ministry—a phenomenal opportunity to change hearts and lives for Christ. I did a little on-line research and came across a very illuminating email that Warren wrote to his church after it was announced that Saddleback would be hosting the Civil Forum with Obama and McCain back in August. Warren tells his congregation that ‘since the founding of our nation, no church has ever been given this kind of opportunity’ and that ‘both men have been friends of mine since before either decided to run for president,’ adding that both Barack Obama and John McCain had participated in Saddleback’s Global AIDS Summit in November ’07, and, in addition, both officially support his worldwide P.E.A.C.E. Plan and have given written endorsements for the P.E.A.C.E. Coalition. In addition, Warren wrote that it was necessary for Saddleback Church to come up with $2 million to upgrade their cameras, lights and mixing boards to high def digital in order to host the event. He proclaimed, ‘We need a miracle.’ Honestly, this email was a bit abrasive for me to read, mostly because it opened my eyes to how this leader thinks about being a witness to God’s Kingdom.

First of all, Warren emphasizes the association both he [as a ‘friend’] and Saddleback have with these powerful political leaders. He believes that both he and the church get credibility by this association. This can only lead to a fundamental understanding that a church community’s success can be defined, not by what it knows or what it does, but by who it knows. Second, Warren’s focus is on the church’s opportunity to serve the United States. Saddleback is one of the few churches in America that has a venue that seats 4,000 people. Saddleback, following their own logic, believes that they should, of course, take this opportunity to allow the State and its media outlets, to use their facilities and their facilitating pastor. This can only be construed as an opportunity for Warren to serve as yet another, in a long line of chaplains to the State. Third, he homes in on the church’s opportunity to influence. He twice mentions Saddleback’s opportunity to influence viewers not only in the nation, but the entire world. This points to a key component of their theology of mission. They believe that they can best be a witness to the wider world through the various mediums of our culture. In this case, through privileged participation in the political process and through free access to all the major networks, a huge audience will know about Saddleback Church—at least, its pastor and its facilities. Only this sort of understanding of mission could warrant spending $2 million on high-end video equipment.

It’s hard for me to understand all of the attention that Warren is getting right now—from Fox to the Today Show to Dateline to MSNBC to CNN. They are asking about his convictions on everything from the economic crisis to the auto industry bailout to gay marriage to Obama’s impending Presidency to the real meaning of Christmas. He’s quick-witted and commonsensical and that makes a lot of Americans feel very comfortable with him. It seems like the gay community is very angry right now with the loss in the Prop 8 battle out there in California. The decision to appoint Warren as invocation speaker can only be construed for them as pouring salt into their collective wounds. One thing I’m convinced of is that Warren just doesn’t seem to understand how hurtful his comments on Prop 8 and gay marriage have been to the gay community. I found multiple interviews this week where he equates gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. In one of the interviews, the interviewer even asked Warren to clarify [‘So, you equate gay marriage with these things’] and Warren affirmed it [‘Oh I do.’]. Warren, of course, is lumping gay marriage and incest and pedophilia into the big-tent category of sin and claiming that they are all the same. But this is tremendously insensitive, not only to the gay community whose love for one another is consensual, but also with the contested nature of homosexuality and the Bible. Time and time again Warren says in interviews that ‘the Bible clearly says’ or even ‘God says’ that homosexuality is a sin. He should really watch his language because a lot of Christians would disagree with him. But let me reiterate: I think Warren is just a bit ignorant about the ongoing debate about this issue [and many others]. He is busy with running a church, a family and bringing his Purpose Driven message to the world. He consistently gives confidently concrete answers to questions that are way above his pay grade—forced to confront topics that he is really not that informed about. The world we live in is far more complex than how Warren describes it. But since Warren’s strategy is to use all the means of power—from TV networks all the way up to the President’s Administration—to win the world to Christ, he’ll continue to accept these interview requests. I have a hunch we’ll be seeing quite a bit of him in the years to come.

12.22.08

To: jayhawkquarterbacks@kufootball.com
From: pastorryan@graceevangelical.com
Subject: re: Back to Warren!

OK, I get your take on Warren, but don’t you think he should use all the means of communication possible to be ‘a light to the world’ for the gospel? How would you do it if you were in Warren’s shoes?

12.24.08

To: pastorryan@graceevangelical.com
From: jayhawkquarterbacks@kufootball.com
Subject: re: Back to Warren!

Again, as I type, you are conducting a Christmas Eve Service and I am looking out the window at a soon-to-be white Christmas!

Thanks for your follow-up question. My answer involves about conversations about the Anabaptist perspective I’m coming from.

From its origins in the 16th century, Anabaptists have been quite wary of the association of the local community of Christ followers and the powers-that-be that enforce government laws and control the economy. They have emphatically rejected the Constantinian project of the 4th century Roman Empire that married the power and influence of Church and State and that continued with the nation states of the 16th century onwards. These strange bed fellows have poisoned the wells of Christian faith, leading to varieties of coercive, compromised Christian faithfulness in a multitude of settings. This Constantinian Christian dirty laundry is long indeed: forced conversions, inquisitions, genocide, crusades, colonization and ruthless expansion of Western powers. Instead, the Anabaptists have adamantly believed that ‘if Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not,’ [this is actually Reformed Anglican N.T. Wright’s phrase!] which points to a radical trust that Jesus Christ sits ‘at the right hand of God’ controlling history [Psalm 110 is the most quoted OT passage in the New Testament]. To be a ‘light to the world’ is to practice God’s alternative politics as a model of faithful living. The practices of loving the enemy, sharing possessions, advocating for the poor and downtrodden, refusing violent solutions, telling the truth, listening to others with humility [etc] are what sets the Body of Christ aside and gives us a platform to be a witness. God’s Empire, not America’s, is what guides history and this means that Christians are called to be obedient, to live according to God’s kingdom, not to be guided by what is most ‘responsible’ or ‘effective’ according to the kingdom of this world.

As we talked about a few months ago, Anabaptists render Paul’s ‘principalities and powers’ as the structures that order our lives [family, government, economy, education, etc], instead of what was emphasized during the Medieval period— angels and demons in a separate spiritual realm. These ‘powers’ have been created by God to serve us, but, too, are fallen and work to enslave us. The strategy to transform these created-yet-fallen powers is not primarily to change the hearts of individual leaders within those structures who will then work to change the structures. On the contrary, Anabaptists believe that God works through the church as a social institution to discern, critique and redeem these powers by being a faithful witness to Christ’s Lordship and unmasking where the powers use lies and illusions to deceive humanity. God’s kingdom is a social reality working through his alternative microsociety, the church.

Anabaptists have a firm belief in being on mission from the margins, just as God did in the incarnation, in Jesus the messiah from nowheresville Nazareth [not from the ‘metropolis’ of where God was expected to reign: Jerusalem]! This geographical exclamation point symbolizes a much deeper understanding of how Anabaptist messianic communities define success and faithfulness to God’s will. To missionally embrace marginality means that the messianic community will prioritize practices like serving and sharing possessions with those who are lacking, giving voice to the powerless, loving and forgiving enemies and embodying virtues like humility, empathy and patience. As Bryan Stone writes in a great book called Evangelism After Christendom [2008], ‘What the gospel needs most is not intellectual brokers or cultural diplomats, but rather saints who have taken up the way of the cross and in whose lives the gospel is visible, palpable, and true.’ A community that pledges allegiance to God’s reign will be a witness to the wider world by its kingdom lifestyle.

Veteran Anabaptist missionary Linford Stutzman has posited that Christian communities who ‘occupy a position within a society which is fundamentally different from that of Jesus’ will be destined to use ‘inauthentic methods of proclaiming the good news,’ as well as ‘restricting the prophetic content of the message.’ Stutzman has critiqued marketing, target groups and meeting felt needs, as well as aligning the community’s missional outreach to ‘the Establishment minority who represent institutional and social power within society.’ When a messianic community starts from this ‘Establishment’ social location, where power and resources are abundant, it ‘tends to ignore, condemn, or ‘evangelize’ individuals’ in marginal situations, leading to what Stutzman calls a ‘fundamental mutilation of the gospel.’ Instead of following a strategy that pursues positions of power that inevitably leads to the status quo, Jesus, the early church and the Anabaptists started from the margins where people have a deep longing for justice, peace and goodness—‘a longing for the kingdom in all of its forms.’ This mission success is explosive as the Spirit of God intersects with desperate human longings for the kingdom. This strategy has historically led to an authentic witness of communities that eventually attract participants from every slot on the population spectrum.

The argument can certainly be made by conservative evangelicals throughout North America that Anabaptists are simply arguing for a ‘bottom up’ missional strategy that they have carried out for the past 500 years because they have had to. It is, perhaps, ‘sour grapes’ missional theology! Since Anabaptists have always been the outvoted minority in society their approach has, inevitably, had to be on the side of the marginalized of various forms—they haven’t had access to a ‘top down’ mission of the establishment or power elites like Rick Warren has had. Indeed, neither McCain nor Obama were interested in accommodating a few thousand Anabaptists during a campaign that will need millions to win. If Rick Warren has the rare opportunities to be a voice for Christ on news network shows and to give the invocation at the Inauguration, shouldn’t he then seize this opportunity and shouldn’t we construe this as ‘missional?’ The Anabaptists would say ‘no.’ Anabaptists have been historically, and rightly, skeptical of power, as Yoder writes: ‘the only way in which faith can become the official ideology of a power elite in a given society is if Jesus Christ ceases to be concretely Lord.’ In other words, Christian communities who participate in power-plays as their chaplains sacrifice the radical message of the gospel. When the most powerful Americans, whether political leaders or financial gurus or movie star celebrities, embrace the label ‘Christian,’ or simply ask a chaplain to bless their ceremonies, inevitably some other ‘lord’ takes over, whether power, fame, wealth or efficacy—these are what Yoder would say end up being ‘the new functional equivalent of deity.’

Ryan, this was a lot, but as I’ve shared with you before, I’ve put a lot of time into thinking through these things because Anabaptism is and has been such a minority position throughout the history of Church and State.