I remember September 11th 2001. I didn't have a television, but I was at Bible college for one of the weeks when distance learners were present for introductions to courses. There was a television there, so like many people that day, I got to see those shocking images played over and over and over again.
This was one of those moments for which you remember where you were, because instinctively you felt that the world had changed. And indeed, many people today still live (or have in the intermediate time died) in the world that has been changed by the reality of 21st century Jihad, with many consequences.
Looking at the news today feels like a similar moment. I won't pretend to have known who Charlie Kirk was; from descriptions of his political prominence, it seems likely I probably did hear his name in the past, but I don't remember ever doing so. So, it's not for that reason that I say this. Neither is because I live, as sadly too many Christians who venture online appear to do, that whatever is happening today in the American news cycle is ipso facto "the big thing". The big thing for Christians is that the risen Jesus delivered us the Great Commission, and told us to make disciples, to form them into churches who are to shine his light out into the world, as we joyfully await his return, the day of judgment and the renewal of all creation. That's big, and transforms every day, and page after page of the New Testament tells us that we should strive to have that at the forefront of our minds, not the back.
Neither is political violence in America itself a new thing. Human nature in this fallen world can never make the dream, the myth, the ideal, actually be the reality - we will only ever, before Christ's return, gain glimpses of it (for which we should be profoundly grateful). "JFK" was shot and Reagan survived an assassination attempt; the attempts on the present president's life were far from unprecedented.
What then, do I mean? This: this was a 31-year old man, with two young children. He was not an elected official. He was (from what I understand from the reports) a public speaker, who positioned himself around the importance of civil debate with those who disagree with us. Not that he shied away from controversial views, or views that make some others very angry. But at the end of it, he wielded political power in only indirect ways, making his views, those of a private citizen, known, and trying to persuade other people of them in a civil manner. And for that - as far as we know at this point - he was brutally killed in broad daylight, by (again, as far as we can know) by someone who wished him dead for his success in spreading his views. Today some people made in God's image, wake up for the first time in their new roles as widow and orphans, because of political disagreement.
That's not very unusual in the context of world history. There are lots of places in which it's not so unusual today, throughout less direct means if necessary. But it's not the post-WW2 West that many of us grew up in. (Perhaps the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr six decades ago is the most recent analogous event?) "I may completely disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" was the cultural milieu - even if you suspected that this wasn't said so sincerely (history shows that few people will defend to the death even their own professed beliefs when it comes to it!).
Time will tell whether this really is an inflexion point in the cultural setting. If so, it is not unexpected. The signs have long been there. What binds us together has been progressively weakened; what makes us hate our neighbour has been strengthening. "Love your enemies", and Christ's dying for his enemies, are increasingly thought to be a sign of contemptible weakness (if they're even thought about at all), rather than the world-changing intervention that we need. Sadly, even in Christian/Christian-ish circles (if we may judge from what's on the Internet) the point of engagement appears to be increasingly thought of in terms of performatively humiliating your enemies (whether by doing so you achieve anything useful or not), "owning the libs", etcetera, and seeking or showing a better way is seen as a sign of weakness that can only lead to defeat. Better to slaughter your enemies and rejoice in their flowing blood as you mock their stupidity, than to let them crucify you, if it has to come to it in the end.
As I say, time will tell. When you look back at history, what has happened takes on the aura of inevitability. September 11th 2001 did not have to lead to all that it did; there was no required straight line from there, for example, to destablising Libya, plunging it into the still-ongoing civil war and all the effects that that has had across Africa and Europe. If we look back in 24 years time from waking up on September 11th 2025, what will we see about how the re-introduction of killing non-politicians for political reasons into the West changed things? One-off, or portent of many more changes to come, in the same direction?
As Christians, we are not bound to follow any current prominent political strategy, because we don't believe that the be-all-and-end-all is getting our preferred candidate into power at the next election. The next election is, once you've lived long enough you begin to notice the pattern, always proclaimed as "the most important election of our lifetimes". But actually, the most important thing in the next 4, 5, whatever years is: will Christians give their lives away in order to announce Jesus Christ? By word and by deed will they demonstrate the reality of the Holy Spirit, by following his death-and-resurrection pattern? Will churches take up the cross so that Christ can be made known to the most needy? Will they earnestly disciple their members to live for Christ and not in indifference or for self?
There are many ages and places in church history in which the church, we can now clearly see, was so terribly corrupted by a worldly spirit, that it was completely ineffective. If instead we are driven by the Spirit of the Crucified One, we will be held contemptible in the eyes of the world, and many self-appointed Christian political gurus will proclaim us to be pietists, obscurantists, and to have doomed-from-the-outset strategies if we were intending to have some real influence, real impact on the world.... but, I ask, should we be appointing the blind to be our guides in any case?
I'm grateful for Christians who are called to seek to speak for truth and justice in the political sphere. This is an honourable work. All of us share in it as we pray for our rulers and leaders too. It is, however, according to the Bible, primarily a limited and defensive work, aimed at restraining wickedness, and maintaining the freedom for us to do the real work. That is of proclaiming Jesus Christ, worshipping God joyfully, and demonstrating his love in practice to those who don't yet know of him so that they can join the group of disciples, as we expectantly await his return. This may often bring us into the spheres that people deem to be "political" or "social action", with those terms understood in various different ways; what they deem them doesn't really matter. What matters is that God has made people in his image, has revealed himself through his Son, and many of them don't yet know him, and are suffering in all kinds of ways - and we know how to help them. Let's get busy!
No comments:
Post a Comment