Today the logic goes something like this: "Calling a ruler 'Son of God' is out of style. No one really does that nowadays. We can support a president while also worshiping Jesus as the Son of God." But how is this possible? For one says that we must love our enemies, and the other says we must kill them; one promotes the economics of competition, while the other admonishes the forgiveness of debts. To which do we pledge allegiance? Surely, one of them must have the wrong idea of how to move history. Can a servant serve two masters? To say that we must kill our enemies and join the popular project to "rid the world of evil" is to call Jesus unrealistic. And that is possible desirable for many; surely his ideas do not resonate with any common wisdom. But can you call Jesus the Son of God and also say, "He just doesn't understand the world today?" How ironic is it to see a bumper sticker that says "Jesus is the answer" next to a bumper sticker supporting the war in Iraq, as if to say, "Jesus is the answer - but not in the real world." Remember, Jesus' followers were burned alive, beheaded, or fed to lions. They knew evil and the "real world." They would meet it face to face. If there was anyone who tried to deal with evildoers and terrorists, it was certainly first-century Christians.When the church takes affairs of the state more seriously than they do Jesus, Pax Romana becomes its gospel and the president becomes the Son of God. After all, what is the point in calling anything God if it does not also hold sway in every part of one's life...?(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 2008. 166)
Comments (1)
Ahhh....love that quote. ;) Are you enjoying the book thus far? I think I've read it three times now. LOL One of those you catch something new from each time. You should swing by and join in the JFP discussion on my page if you have the time. I would love to hear your thoughts!
Peace,
Jamie