In answering the question “is the church to police society” we have looked examples from history and the Bible. Drawing from these examples, I believe we can state that:

• Biblical:
  • God doesn’t want a physical, political kingdom in this age
  • God allows for individual choice between good and evil
• History:
  • Christendom did not work
  • Retreating into ‘holy-huddles” also did not work

Where does that leave us?

In my view, these examples show us that the Church should not be trying to force society to adhere to Biblical morality by passing laws to stop the ‘sinful’ behavior. The end result has always been a nation and a people that are disenchanted with Christianity while claiming to know God.  Or in others words, Christendom always creates nominal believers who claim to be Christians but who do not live it or understand it. [@more@]

Yet what does this mean for us practically, in the United States of America?

It means that we, as the Church, need to understand the difference between human rights abuse and morality.  Issues that concern human rights should be regulated and governed by all nations to protect human lives. A prime example of this would be abortion.  Abortion is murder and, therefore, is a human rights issue and should be stopped (with the exception of extreme life/death medical issues with the mother, in which case the family would choose who lived and who died).

On the other side, when an issue arises in our nation that is NOT a human rights abuse but is contrary to Biblical morality, the Church needs to allow for individual choice and not try to outlaw the sin.  Think about it, if God allowed the human race to have individual choice between good and evil, shouldn’t the Church allow individuals to have the same choice?

Continued tomorrow…

The million dollar question becomes: “How does this third view of the kingdom changes things?”

It changes everything because “now” God wants full control over every area of your life. No longer can we justify spiting our lives into “secular” and “sacred” bubbles – either we under his reign and rule or we are not.

As I was pondering this question over the weekend, the judges of Israel came to mind.

To briefly recap, after Moses died, the leadership of the Jews fell to Joshua (Moses’ right hand man). Joshua was a military leader who led the people through a series of military campaigns to conquer the land promised to Abraham. When Joshua died, the Lord choose not to set up one individual as the main leader of the Israelites, but allowed each of the 12 tribes to rule themselves – thus ending the centralized government of the time.

Enter the judges.[@more@]

These guys and gals were raised up by God at different times and places as the need arose. Otherwise, God was happy being the Lord and King of all the people Israel. It is noteworthy to me that when the Israelites reconstructed a centralized government, God was unhappy with the people. For some reason, God was happier ruling His people through a lose network of judges, prophets, and priests then He was in ruling through a “royal” individual.

Or to put in another way, God’s original plan for the nation of Israel was to rule each person and tribe Himself. Yet the people of the land wanted to set up a political kingdom where morality was guarded through the kingly family.

In hindsight, we see that this didn't work out too well as the royal family had some crooked branches. (pun intended)

Continued tomorrow…

Over the past fifty years, modern scholarship has come to recognize a third view of the Kingdom of God. This view takes into account the mindset of the first century Jews as detailed in the writings between the two Testaments. This may sound like a small detail, but, as all meaning is context depended, it has made quite an impact upon the Church.

No longer is the “kingdom of heaven” described purely as a physical, political land or as individual salvation. It is the realized eschatology of the reign and rule of God in our lives.

The age to come that was prophesied by the men of old has come into the world today. Yet at the same time, we are still waiting for the fulfillment of God’s promise. Today is the time between the ages; a time when we see glimpses of the Kingdom in between the darkness of war.

In regards to the question of whether the Church should police society, this third view of the kingdom changes everything:

• If the kingdom of God is not a physical, political land, then Christendom must die.
• If the Kingdom of God is not just individual salvation, then the Church must refocus it’s outlook on life.

Continued tomorrow…

Jesus was faced with this same issue as he walked the deserts of Judah. Rome had conquered the Middle East and was busy spreading it’s view of morality or lack thereof. The faithful Believers responded by either retreating into the wastelands and building ‘moral’ forts to keep out the negative influences. Or they joined the growing political movement of regulating society’s morals through “laws” and “regulations”.

The Carpenter from Galilee called them both on the carpet: why do you white wash your tombs? Or clean the outside of a mold infected cup?

The Man called for a deeper change – a change of water from salt to fresh. This change can not be forced or regulated. It has to come from a life changing meeting with the Creator of the Universe….

The interesting part is no one would agree with the above statement. In fact, the Church over the years has used similar statements as a presupposition to their view of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ followers, who heard him first hand, took his statements and looked towards a physical, political kingdom that regulated the morality of society based upon the teachings of Moses, the prophets and Jesus.

Yet, as I ponder the question of whether or not the Church is to police society in the area of morality, I can’t help but wonder what was the meaning of Jesus’ teachings? How would he respond to this question in this country at this time?

Continued Monday….

The next step in history was the social revolution of the mid-nineteen hundreds with large portions of the population throwing off the rules of society and embracing anarchy. This upheaval in the moral fabric of the nation disturbed the delicate balance between the two views of the kingdom of God in the Church. In the end, the first view of Christendom prevailed led by coalitions of church leaders actively influencing the formation of governmental policies.

Yet something happened that the Church was not prepared for: the globe shrunk.

With a rise in immigration and the beginning of the digital age, new ideas and religions flooded into Western society like the Mighty Mississippi after a monsoon. Christendom rang the bells of war and began to build retaining walls throughout society. These walls were the Church’s view of morality that all people, believers and non-believers, should follow. Only the water did not stop. More sand was thrown on the walls as the Church fought to save Christendom and it’s position as society’s moral leader.[@more@]

For the first time in eighteen hundred years, the Church in the West is fighting against a foreign worldview without the aid of the sword or the threat of excommunication. The result has been the death of Christendom in Europe and the fatal wounding of Christendom in the United States. The Church now faces some huge questions:

• Does it continue to fight on behalf of Christendom?
• Does it re-adopt the second view of the kingdom and focus again on the personal salvation of others?

Or perhaps is there a third view of the kingdom of God that will help guide the Church into this semi-new period of history?

Continued tomorrow…

I have been pondering this question for some time with mixed feelings. On one hand, the Lord has given us some clear morality guidelines. Yet on the other hand, how far to we push to make others around us obey those guidelines?

Solomon once said that “what has been done will be done again” – so it with this question.

Starting around the time of Constantine, the Church adopted the position that it was called to police morality in society through the control of government. The view persistent for many, many years as the Pope in Rome ruled Europe with threats of excommunication and death by torture for all those who disagreed. The result of this view was the creation of “Christendom” – or, in other words, the creation of the kingdom of God on earth through which mankind would usher in the millennium age of Christ.[@more@]

As history continued it’s forward march, this view of Christendom continued to dominate western society. Only now instead of being ruled by the Pope, the Church was ruled by various kings and queens in their respective countries. However, we also see a different view slowly growing in the remote parts of Europe. This view said that the kingdom of God referred only to one’s personal salvation; therefore, the Church should stop trying to “rule” or police society and focus solely on preaching the gospel.

Growing up in a “free nation”, the church in the United States of America adopted this second view of society for the first few hundred years. Everything the Church did was focused on “winning souls” for Christ – to the extent that life afterwards was either forgotten about or heavily regulated. In a fit of irony, the areas of the nation where the church heavily regulated the lives of it’s people, a form of Christendom emerged with the local pastor at it’s head.

Continued tomorrow…