Worship Beyond Nationalism. Rob Hewell
Читать онлайн книгу.
can be reversed by means of repentance. But where are the voices of the prophets? Where is Rabbi Friedman’s “nonanxious presence”? Where are the pastors who will lead us with courage through the maze of our dual citizenship in the kingdoms of Heaven and earth?
Enough sidestepping and polite walking away, enough of silence in the name of differences of opinion and taste, enough simultaneous shouting; Rob Hewell has shown up with the Bible (all of it) in his hand and “Jesus is Lord” (all the time) in his heart and mind. There is clear thinking here; unusual, hopeful, clear thinking. Further, there is hope to be found in the hearts of Christian patriots in America who really do want to worship aright the one true God, even though they have been caught up in the current rage and fury, and even though to worship God without a flag seems strangely vulnerable and un-American. The hope lies in clear-minded study of scripture, earnest and humble prayer, and worship that bows low enough before God to rise above 24/7 televised shouting matches, grief for a lost “Christian America” past (real and imagined), and fear of a reordered future. One last thought: The absence of the flag in worship is not enough. It must be explained by the presence of the cross.
Terry W. York
George W. Truett Theological Seminary
Baylor University
Waco, Texas
Fall, 2011
Introduction
Listen to the conversations at just about any gathering of Christians, regardless of the purpose for the gathering, and at some point the topic of worship is likely to come up. There is plenty of fuel for those moments, since worship is considered to be so central to our understanding of faith and life and there are so many dimensions to be considered. It is a much-studied facet of the church’s internal atmosphere and external identity. Any review of pertinent websites or available titles from online or on-the-shelf suppliers affirms that reality. The discussion of worship nears the level of sport in many quarters of Christianity.
While everyone seems to have an opinion as to what worship is or is not, or a preference for how it should be expressed, one truth seems evident: worship is in danger of being misunderstood or misappropriated. If worship truly is in any danger, it is so at least partially because of our readiness to be satisfied far too quickly with something that seems suitable even though it may not be complete or anywhere near correct.
There is no attempt here to get at the full range of possible perilous misunderstandings or misappropriations; the possibilities are far too numerous. This book does, however, seek to provide some perspective on one such possibility: to offer clarity regarding worship in light of the politics of God’s reign in Christ. In other words, this book is about worship as a political act.
Faithfulness to the triune God in worship is in and of itself a precarious proposition since it challenges our affections and loyalties for all things temporal and worldly. Such faithfulness is at stake on this count. A distinct word on this matter is crucial if confusions and misperceptions are to be minimized—if not avoided altogether.
Getting at this subject adequately requires some grasp of concepts regarding the church’s witness and history, the gospel, worship in its many dimensions, and culture. It also requires some understanding of the way power is leveraged for the strength and sustenance of nation-states and partisan political entities, and how religion, and even the church and its symbols and narrative, are sometimes used (and even abused) for those ends. Drawing these concepts into the same discussion with the nature of worship necessitates caution, finesse, nuance, and no small amount of courage.
Indeed, the interrelatedness of politics and religion is a timely subject in our world, particularly in the United States (U.S.), and specifically among evangelical Christians in this country. Calls for specifying the U.S. as a Christian nation in some quarters, matched by calls for the firm separation of church and state in others, enjoy daily media exposure. Without a doubt, the nation’s founding documents—definitely political in their own right—afford Christians the freedom to worship freely and openly. The same freedom is cast to groups and persons who choose other religious persuasions, or who prefer to ignore or even defame religious practice altogether. In theory at least, all faith or faithless expressions have equal opportunity to participate in the broader society.
Although lacking formal terminological cachet in America’s founding documents, the separation of church and state is the customary defining boundary between the two institutions. It is valuable and worth sustaining, and is deeply embedded in the doctrinal DNA in many quarters of evangelicalism. It is a functional dichotomy, however, belying an arguably weightier reality—politics and religion entwine enthusiastically in the open marketplace of pluralist ideologies. The passions stirred by each become hard-to-resist compelling forces, drawing each toward the other with magnetic abandon.
From its earliest inception, this nation’s patriotic demeanor has readily invoked a religious tenor. The story of national essence is emboldened by what is generally accepted as divine providence in its founding and flourishing. No doubt nationalism is a powerful force, propelling the U.S. through its headiest days while sustaining it through its darkest nights. Even further, the tendency toward America’s well-intended hegemony has generally fostered a forceful partisan political practice within virtually all of its spheres of influence.
Evangelicalism’s penchant for institution building is a reflection of its participation in Christendom in general and in American culture in particular. The church as institution in the U.S. has been well schooled in such tendencies, seeking to exercise its will by trading on the influences of partisan clout. Arguably, these influences generally lack deep consonance with the gospel of Jesus Christ. While not always overtly anti-gospel, they nonetheless give ultimate priority to the fitness and maintenance of the American statist agenda. Even when components of this nationalized agenda appear on the surface to be compatible with biblical mandates, jingoistic intent tends to insist on the subjugation of the gospel to that intent. It is no stretch to suggest that these dynamics are at least partially responsible for the compromise of faithfulness in worship among evangelical congregations within the American experience.
When nationalism propagates itself through a cross-pollination of the stories, symbols, and celebrations of religious groups with the nation-state, the stage is set for a national history bearing the character of sacrosanct myth. The stage is also set for confusion within the life of the church. Such civil religious activity is likely to create dissonance for Christ’s followers between what they understand to be biblical and what civil religion supports as religiously valid.
I am certainly not alone in a deepening conviction that the faithfulness of communal worship in the evangelical tradition in America has been compromised in various ways, this lack of clarity about politics being just one concern. The dilemma might be stated this way: How is it possible for Christ’s followers to worship faithfully in a nationalistic environment where religion and politics enjoy a vigorous affiliation while the separation of church and state is celebrated as the standard for the relationship between nation and faith?
No doubt religion in the U.S. exists in a highly-charged political environment. Political activity is certainly a necessary element of civilized society. Being political is part and parcel of American citizenship—no less for Christians who live in this country than for anyone else. Turning a collective back on political activity is a tempting option. Yet leaving politicality to a realm outside of faith is unsatisfactory for various reasons, not the least would be the danger of diminishing the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Absent an appropriate balancing influence, the political character of the life, teachings, and ministry of Christ falls too easily into worldly maneuvers that are inconsistent with biblical faith. (So also the witness of Christ’s followers.) The kingdom of God exists in, but not of, this world and has political responsibilities that are yet distinct from the machinations of this world. It is my conviction that the necessary balancing influence for the political character of God’s reign in Christ is liturgical. In spite of modernity’s ability to deftly separate elements of life into sacred and secular dominions, what appears to be two—political and liturgical—may indeed be more nearly one in the economy of the kingdom of heaven.