“The events of Jesus birth and early years of life were couched within political intrigue, murderous plots, acts of genocidal rage, state intelligence activities, issues of immigration and covert border crossings, a visiting delegation of foreign dignitaries and the census and tax decrees of an empire. We must be aware of the actual introduction of the King into the earth and the drama which unfolded in a political and social context.”

“Herod’s first action was to gather the leaders of the church and ask them for the location of the birth of Christ, and Matthew records that they provided this without reservation. This is a church which has a complete lack of discernment; they are so blind, unaware and spiritually dull that they willingly participated in a political process that resulted in a bloody assault against the Kingdom of God! We must wonder: where was the insight of the Church regarding this fresh new Divine initiative being birthed into the earth? Weren’t they aware that a new move of God was at hand and required their participation? Did they have no discernment regarding the true nature of Herod’s request for information?”

Syncretism Matthew 2:8
He (Herod) sent them to Bethlehem and said… Syncretism is a word that means a mixture of things that are opposed, and we see this when Herod tried to use the wise men for his political purposes. His arrogance is manifest when he joined his purposes (seeking to find and neutralize the child) to the divine mission of the men from the East. Politicians from all sides of the aisle commonly engage in this unholy mixture, and the church has so diluted the message of the Kingdom of God that many have come to believe that “God and country” are one. However, the Magi went to Bethlehem not out of obedience to Herod but because they had spiritual sight and were sent by God.

“The Church must have a heightened and more insightful view of the Word of God. Seeing the Bible as simply a plan for individual salvation is to strip it of all of its richness, and this limited view has produced a people in the earth who are narrow and whose lives are segmented into quadrants that produce internal conflict and separation. For instance, Christians today would look to the Word of God for answers about sin and salvation, but they would not have been taught to understand economic principles and political leadership from a Kingdom perspective.”

Click here to visit Scott’s website. (Opens in new window)

Needless to say Dr. Boyd was “struck with horrified grief” and asks the following question: “How could Jesus’ people applaud tragic violence, regardless of why it happened and regardless of how they might benefit from its outcome?” An equally griping question he later asks is “Didn’t Jesus die for Iraqis as much as for Americans? Don’t they possess the same unsurpassable worth that Americans possess?” Of course the answer on both accounts is a resounding – Yes!

In examining this incident Dr. Boyd makes this statement. “We have come to trust the power of the sword more than the power of the cross. We have become intoxicated with the Constantinian, nationalistic, violent mindset of imperialistic Christendom.” He goes on to assert,

The thinking is that America was founded as a Christian nation but has simply veered of track. If we can just get the power of Caesar again, however, we can take it back. If we can just get more Christians into office, pass more Christian laws, support more Christian policies, we can restore this nation to its “one nation under God” status.

He then provides an excellent critique of the problem considering two questions: 1) “Did Jesus ever suggest by word or example that we should aspire to acquire, let alone take over, the power of Caesar?” and 2) How do we take back for God a nation that has never truly been His?

To the first question Dr. Boyd responds,

Unlike America, Israel was, in fact, called to be a “nation under God” in a unique way. God was supposed to be her King and, moreover, most of Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries wanted to “take Israel back for God.” This is precisely why they continually tried to fit Jesus into the mold of a political Messiah.

Of course Jesus would have none of that. In John chapter 6 we read, “When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.” Had it been His motive to take over the world through political means this would have been an excellent opportunity. And again in John 18:36 Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” Clearly, the kingdom of God is separate from the kingdoms of the world and the former will not come through the exercise of the later.

To the second question, Dr. Boyd provides many examples that remind us just how un-Christian the founding and building of this nation truly was. From the covenant-breaking, massacre of this lands native inhabitants to the slavery and brutality unleashed on millions of Africans to the greed-driven, inhumane industrialization that catapulted America into financial dominance…

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 to be Christlike.

The summation then of this chapter is that we, who profess the name of Jesus and who live in America, need to take a serious look at our internal position concerning nationalism and patriotism. For in continuing to believe the government of God will be achieved through political ends is as foolish as it is un-biblical. Consider Jesus’ words from Luke 17:20-21,

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here {it is!}’ or, ‘There {it is!}’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (NASB)

Indeed, Jesus is the kingdom. And as this passage goes on to say, there will be no question as to when His kingdom is manifest in the earth. Until that day, we His people, are called to manifest the true kingdom by our individual and corporate expression of His dominion over sin, sickness, pride, anger, malice and whatever else is contrary to His character and nature. We are called to further His kingdom by love, not violence or political posturing. We are called to bear one another’s burdens – and there are many burdens being suffered throughout the world by our brethren. But until the patriotic scales fall from our eyes and the nationalistic veil is lifted we will continue to identify more with the culture and spirit of America than the culture and Spirit of the kingdom of God.

These two sacred activities, or “sacraments,” held unique significance for the early believers. Baptism, by immersion, was originally the “believer’s initial confession of faith before men, demons, angels and God.” A “visible sign that depicts our separation from the world, our death with Christ, the burial of our old man, the death of the old creation and the washing of the Word of God” and, I might also add, the symbolism of having been raised to newness of life. The communal meal (Lord’s Supper, Communion, Eucharist) was an integral part of the greater common meal enjoyed by the saints at their gatherings which has become a somber, ritualistic activity generally relegated to the hands of the clergy. Sadly, these two activities which at one time symbolically expressed fundamental characteristics of corporate life have devolved into near ritual insignificance. I find the thesis of this chapter particularly striking in view of the Father’s work in this generation to restore our corporate foundations. We would do well to reevaluate both our paradigm and practice in these areas.

Regarding baptism, the authors assert that the recently invented “sinner’s prayer” has replaced the biblical role of baptism as the initial outward expression of a confession of faith in Christ. Citing both biblical and historical evidence they convincingly prove (at least for me) that this has greatly diminished the value of baptism in the life of new believers. It reminds me of the “bloodless sacrifice” and “cheap grace” Bonhoeffer wrote about, in that “repeat(ing) after me” with “every head bowed and every eye closed” to receive Jesus as your “personal Savior” creates an environment devoid of outward attestation to one’s confession of faith and reduces the work of the cross to ritual poetry. It may not be as convenient to baptize new converts as it is to have them repeat the “sinner’s prayer” but certainly their new commitment to Christ would take on much greater significance if it were followed by an immediate act of faith.

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, I appreciated the authors’ position, and supporting evidence, that it should be incorporated in a larger common meal context. In our faith community we share a common meal every other week and enjoy communion, but we have not yet tied the two together. I believe it’s time we did, for I concur with the authors that this is a more proper context. It is true that we should be reflective, but since our communion is with the Father and the Son, by the Spirit, we should eat and drink in celebration of that fellowship rather than in fear of not discerning the Lord’s body. Whereas once communion was a joyous remembrance of that which makes us one body spiritually, it has become a solemn affair where we reflect on the crucifixion rather than the resurrection. And one interesting bit of history the authors note is that the Council of Carthage, AD 397, actually forbade believers from enjoying communion without the administration of the clergy!

Clearly, baptism and communion are fundamental events that need to be recovered from ritual and religion to their rightful place and practice within the corporate body. May we be a generation courageous enough to do so.