5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

There is much to be said here. Verse 5 bridges the hymn back to what Paul has been talking about. The model that Messiah’s colony should follow is that of their Messiah. The Love and Humility that are to be the central virtues of the colony are shown in the gospel story, the story of Jesus. The relationships that make up the colony, not just personal relationships but those of business practices and those of commerce. This mustn’t be reduced to how one treats his friends or fellow Christians. It is the entirety of human life. The parent-child, husband-wife, employer-employee, teacher-student, business-client relationships must all be built around this narrative, this story. The king must rule and govern according to this narrative, the people governed by the king must follow the king according to this narrative. The whole society and community must be centered on the virtues this narrative glorifies.

The hymn itself contains so much to be digested. From Philippians 2:6 we learn that Jesus existed in form as Yahweh and yet distinct from the person Yahweh. We learn about the place of Jesus within the triune nature of God. He is equal with God in his nature and being and existence. And yet there are at least two distinct persons sharing this same nature, God. There is the father and there is Jesus, both God yet not the same person.

Secondly the hymn teaches the incarnation of God in the Messiah Jesus. Jesus, one of the persons who shares the nature (μορφή) of God, became a man. The hymn doesn’t say that Jesus ceased being God but rather became a servant to God, giving up his rank and status. Just as the Psalms say man is lower than the angels, so Jesus descended down to the level of human. But he didn’t just go down the level of human where he could have rightfully taken and/or established a throne to rule of the entire planet. The incarnation went farther and God became a servant. Not just some one who serves another person voluntarily or is paid for the service. Rather Jesus became a doulos, a slave (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών). He gave up all rights. He so humbled himself that he died the death required of him.

Thirdly the hymn gives us the justification of Jesus, the vindication of Jesus. God exalted Jesus to the highest place and gave Jesus the name above all names, Lord. Hidden in this exaltation is the resurrection. The spirit of Jesus didn’t receive this reward but the whole person, the God-man Jesus. He was raised from the dead and brought before God to receive his vindication before all of the world. Jesus is Lord of the world. He is lord over all lords, even Caesar.

Fourthly, the hymn gives the eschatological goal of Jesus’ mission: the bringing the world under the rule of Jesus. Every tongue confesses and every knee bows. He is their king, not Herod in Jerusalem. He is their Lord, not Caesar in Rome. Jesus, the one exalted to Lord, will bring all the world under his rule and dominion. And not in the providential rule of Jesus as God, but the kingdom of the Jewish Messiah and the Jewish God. And at the confession of Jesus as Lord by all of the world and all who live in it, the father of Jesus, God the Father, will fully display his glory in the whole world being filled with knowledge of him.

Fifthly, this eschatology of Jesus gives the church its mission, to declare to the world that Jesus is Lord–not Caesar. He is the rightful king. They must repent and surrender to him, bowing the knee and confessing the tongue. The church is to be the colony the brings Jesus’ lordship to the earth and shows the world what the lordship is to look like when Jesus bring the whole world under it. And by seeing that lordship on display in the church, God’s imperial colony, they will abandon the domain of sin and death and join the dominion and lordship of the Messiah Jesus.

Thus as individuals we must model our lives after the life of Jesus, being obedient to God to the point of crucifixion. As a community, the church is to be obedient to God to the point of crucifixion. The world must see what it looks like to be obedient to its Creator and Lord. It must see the true strength of humility and love, forsaking the self to look to the well-being of the other. By living lives of other-focused humility and love, the church completes its task of declaring that God has retaken his throne as king.

And when that task is complete, the world will be transformed into a world that not even the Garden of Eden could compare to. It will be the world that God had envisioned Adam and Eve to create. We won’t go back to the Garden because we will go forward to the heavenly city come down to earth with Jesus seated on the throne ruling as a slave to his God and to his people. And it is this slavery that we model our lives after, giving up all rights to any claims we might have in the knowledge that such abandonment will be vindicated with the greatest reward God will give. So let us figure out how to create a society whereby the virtues are not ambition at the cost of the other, but rather humility and love for the other at the cost of the self. Every level of that society will love the other above the self. That will be when we make heaven a place on earth, if I may borrow from a certain song.

3 I thank my God every time I remember you. 4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart and, whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me. 8 God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus. 9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.

The first thing I noticed as I read this passage was that the church is a partnership. Paul says he and the Philippian church are a “partnership in the gospel” (1:5). He says that the Philippians “share in God’s grace with me” (1:7). This imperial colony, established by Jesus, is nothing less than Christians partnering together in the gospel, declaring Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:11), defending (ἀπολογία, apologia, apologetics) his Lordship and confirming it. It is Christians partnering together, willing to suffer imprisonment with Paul to defend and confirm Jesus as Lord. There are no lone-ranger Christians out there doing it on his or her own. It is the church together who is most capable of this task. It takes men and women working together exercising their gifts, given by the Spirit, to carry the church forward. It’s the same mission that Roman colonies had, they defended and confirmed Caesar’s claim on the land. And we do the same, not for Caesar, but for the Messiah who is the true Lord of the world.

The second thing I noted in reading this passage was that the church’s mission was eschatologically focused. In 1:6 Paul speaks of God completing the work he began in the Philippians “until the day of Christ Jesus.” Again in 1:10 he talks about being pure and blameless “for the day of Christ.” Our eschatology drives us as Christians and the church. It is the kingdom that God will establish in the future breaking into the present through the resurrection of Jesus and now the people of his kingdom. On the day of Christ God’s reign over the earth will be consummated. What Jesus began God will complete. The church is here to bear witness to God having reclaimed his throne over the earth, and all that is in it. Hence we defend his reign and confirm his reign. We are the sign-post to the world of the future reality here in the present as we await God to complete his redemptive work.

Thirdly, the church is divinely energized and empowered. As Paul says in 1:6, “he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” Again Paul says in 1:11, [We have been] filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.” God is working through his kingdom-people to bring about the work of the kingdom. He began the work in Jesus and carries it forward through his people. And in each Christian, God works to bring about the work of the kingdom in a way that is unique to each person. Thus he paints a beautiful picture of the coming world that is fully redeemed and under God’s wise sovereignty. Thus we work to show the reign of God through Jesus in our own lives as individuals, but also as the collective colony established by the Messiah to declare to the world that he is Lord. Through us God shows what the world will look like under his wise reign–a world without sin in all of its manifestations. This has implications both politically and socially and economically as well as on the personal level of behavior and person-to-person interaction.

Fourthly, to be the kingdom people who declare to the world that God is now King and Jesus is Lord, and the world should look like with God as King, it requires us to be active in love. Paul prays for us to love (1:9). But that love needs to be “abound[ing] more and more in knowledge and depth of insight [αἴσθησις, judgment].” Our love must be an informed love that is able to discern and judge. And because it is full of knowledge and and correct judgments, love is able to examine and discern what is best (διαφέρω, be of more value), making us pure and blameless when Christ comes to consummate his kingdom work (1:10). The kingdom people declare God’s wise rule through loving this world in a wise and discerning way. The kingdom is shown to the world by the people of God loving the evil world it inhabits. The work that God has begun and will complete in the believer is the work of love.

Which brings to this conclusion, love grounds all things for the Christian and God’s church. It grounds our knowing. It grounds our relationships. It grounds our deeds. But the question that I am left wrestling with is how to articulate such a worldview. Love must be abounding in knowledge. What implications does this have on a person’s epistemology, a person’s way of knowing the world around them? How does one “know” through love? It moves beyond modernity and even post-modernity. But exactly how it does so I cannot figure out. It impacts our political decisions. We vote for which law and which candidates through the lens of love, as it is love which declares the wise sovereignty of God. Which laws and lawmakers run on a platform that will show God’s love for the world to the world? I’m not talking about some law that will create a “Christian nation” but laws to establish the world that reflects God’s reign over the earth. It’s tricky and it requires Christians to be informed and wise to approve what is best, as Paul says. But we seek to know through love how to vote, how to spend one’s wages and earnings and income.

It’s a concept that I have only began to think through and it’s one that I think the church needs to begin to reflect on and develop. We need to understand that our mission can only be accomplished through love. And to do that, to love in such a way that we discern what’s best and therefore be pure and blameless, we must rethink our entire worldview through the lens of love–shown must vividly and completely through the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. God’s love declares boldly God is King and Jesus is Lord. Let us learn how to reorganize our entire existence through the framework and worldview of God’s love.

Now on to the post.

I live with two political enthusiasts. One was a former political science major before he switched to apologetics. So as one can imagine, there are many a political discussion had around my apartment. Normal I land on the liberal side more than conservative, meaning I’m not afraid of the government taking an active role to care for the poor in programs like welfare and Medicare. I’m okay with that. I’m okay with raising taxes, especially on the upper class and wealthy to offset our increasing debt and to fund some of these programs. I’m against the war in Libya and want to withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as possible. I’m against abortion and I’m against the death penalty. You get the picture.

Recently, I’ve began to question the whole spectrum from which we derive our political theories and agendas. And the questioning comes from reworking my whole worldview from a Christian worldview. I’m not talking about verse X says I’m to be a Republican or a Democrat. Verse Y says I’m to be liberal and progressive instead of conservative. I mean reading the narrative Scripture, seeing where the Christian narrative began and where it is going, arriving at a worldview that moves the story God is telling in Christ Jesus forward.

And this brings me to Romans 13:1-7 (NIV),

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

My roommates seem to delve into an Enlightenment view of church and religion. Christianity is one valid religion to pick from of all out there. But it belongs with religion. Leave it out of politics, economics, science. The Bible gives us our doctrines and our ethics. Political theory comes elsewhere, namely “reason” and “progress.” Now let me say I understand where this “keep the church out of government and keep government out of church” mentality comes from. The church was very abusive of its relationship in the Middle Ages. But I’m having a hard time buying into this dichotomy.

I don’t think the Bible tells us what form of government we should utilize to govern ourselves. But it does tell us the relationship that government has to God and how those who are put in the place of ruler and governing authority should govern and rule. And that relationship, I think given to us here (among other places), is one of God’s servant.

Romans 13:1 (ESV) says that there is only God and his authority. He is the only one who possess true governing authority. Jesus died to demonstrate that God is on the throne, not Caesar. Any government that exists here on earth has been established by God and exercise his authority.

Furthermore, Paul uses two terms to identify governing authorities and rulers, like Caesar. The first is that of διάκονος (diakonos). It’s the term used to identify the office of deacon. Paul calls government God’s deacon. The other term is λειτουργός (leitourgos). It’s a term that means “minister.” In the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, it was used in reference to personal servants of kings and high ranking officials/persons. In other places in the LXX it is used in reference to people who work in the Temple, like priests and others. Paul uses it in Romans 15:15-16 (NIV) like this, “15 Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” The term “minister” is λειτουργός (leitourgos). The phrase, “He gave me the priestly duty” is the participle ἱερουργοῦντα (hierourgounta) saying that Paul being a “minister” is a “priestly duty.”

What do I make of this? The government, in whatever form, is to be God’s servant, his minister in priestly duty. And by that I mean government is to serve God and to actively participate in his new creation project began in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Thus there is to be a relationship between the church and state. Not the same relationship of the Middle Ages, where the church controlled the state. But one where the church informs the state of its task so that the state can carry it out. If the church is God’s voice, the state or governing authorities are his arm. Its legislation helps to create the new world that God will bring about in the Day of Christ. It is to exercise God’s authority in the world in a way that reflects the goodness and justice and love God. It creates and maintains this justice.

And thus the question one should ask when voting for candidates for the various offices and on the various issues. What vote enables the government to create God’s new creation here on earth. Who will seek to establish God’s justice here on earth. Who will participate in answering the prayer of Jesus, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”?

As a Christian, I would decry such a view in theory but never in practice. I find myself wanting to talk about “spiritual” matters, issues of “holiness,” and focus on “discipleship” as an individual. But when it came time to participate in the political discussion, on in the issues of homosexuality and abortion did I really ever muster my Christian worldview–and I have to say that was because I was playing follow the leader to those Christian teachers who said these things are wrong.

I would profess that Jesus was King of the universe. But what was Jesus King over in the universe? As I was taught, he was king over my “heart.” He was king in a providential way, guiding history the way he wanted it guided, upholding the laws of the universe to keep it from spiraling apart and everything is destroyed. Jesus kingship was to forgive sins and save people from hell. Christianity was a religion.

To justify this worldview, I would go read the Scriptures. But when the text would accuse Israel of idolatry by seeking salvation from Assyria or Babylon by turning to Egypt, I would take those symbols and turn them into metaphors for personal sins and idols. Now don’t get me wrong, that reading is valid when applying the text to an individual’s situation.

But I have realized that I missed out on the political implications. As I have stated elsewhere, recently I have seen that texts like Mark 10:35-45 aren’t focusing on the debates on atonement theology. Atonement is most definitely there but it is located inside a politically charged statement. In that text Jesus’ atonement is set as the model for exercising governing authority.

I truly believe that the Bible, God’s word, is the place to think about how to do government. In upcoming posts I want to explore, think out loud really, how to do government from. A decidedly Christian point of view. I seriously question much of the political divide in terms of the various ideologies at play in my political setting.

I’m not going to be call so much for a restructuring of the government, like abandoning the representative republic model the US follows. But how Christians should approach this governing body

There is one section in this paper that really caught my attention as a conservative evangelical Christian. Wright observes,

And then they turn the screw: If you let this man go you are not Caesar’s friend. Have you ever felt that argument in 21st-century America or Europe? I have: If you do this, the empire’s not going to like you. And that’s the point at which this great Jewish leadership says, “We have no king but Caesar.” Devastating denial of two-thirds of the Old Testament. You find the same scene — just leave John 18 and 19 for a moment and come to Mark 10. Mark 10, with James and John meeting Jesus, or coming up to Jesus as they’re going up to Jerusalem, Mark 10, verse 35 and following. And they know that Jesus is coming to Jerusalem to become king. And so naturally they want to be sitting at his right hand and at his left. And Jesus says, listen, you don’t know what you’re talking about, actually. And they didn’t, of course, because those who end up at Jesus’ right and his left when he comes in his kingdom in Mark and Matthew and Luke are the two who are crucified alongside him.

But he then says, “Listen, the kings and rulers of the earth lord it over their subjects and exercise a tyrannous authority over them. But it must not be so among you, because anyone who wants to be great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be king must be the slave of all, because the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” And you know we New Testament scholars and teachers, and you preachers, we have all often taken Mark 10, verse 45 and said, “There is our atonement theology — Daniel 7 plus Isaiah 53 equals Mark 10:45; “The Son of Man, who is the servant, who gives his life as a ransom for many.” And we wave it around: “Here is a nice bit of atonement theology.” And we fail to see that that atonement theology is the sharp edge of Mark’s political theology. It is the redefinition of power. It’s the reason why, though the rulers of this world do it one way, you’re going to do it a different way. And Jesus is leading the way in that redefinition of power, all the way to the cross, exactly the same point as the “What is truth?” question in John 18 and 19. You get the atonement theology — boy do you ever — but you get it inside that political theology. And I’ve sometimes said that, and people have said, “Surely this is all about Christ dying for me.” Absolutely, right on, but you get that inside; again, it’s like a Russian doll. You get this Kingdom of God theology, which is a redefinition of what power is all about; inside that you get the meaning of the cross, the full atonement theology; and inside that there is room for every man, woman, and child in the world to find that Christ died for their sins according to the Scriptures. Let’s have the holistic biblical theology.

As I read those two paragraphs I was stunned. Too often Mark 10:45 gets swallowed up in atonement debates between the various schools of thought (Penal Substitution, Christus Victor, Moral Example, Governmental, etc.). Before I get too far into this, let me be clear. When Jesus says, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many,” the “giving his life” is atonement. I’m not denying the use of the verse for debating the atonement, and neither does Wright.

But I do think conservative evangelicals have really missed out on what Jesus was doing in Mark 10:35-45, at least in my experience. Jesus, and thus Mark as well, is not debating the nature of atonement. Mark 10:45 must be read in the light of 10:42-44,

“You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.”

The subject is the exorcise of power within the kingdom versus that of the Gentiles. Jesus is playing a different sort of game than James and John, who ask to sit at Jesus’ right and left hands in the kingdom.

The kingdom that Jesus heralded did not operate the same way Rome did, or the empires before and after her. The King of this kingdom was to be crowned and enthroned by way of the cross and in the vindicating power of God in resurrection. This is to be our King:

I feel like this redefinition of power that Jesus preached in the kingdom, transforming the image of a cross from one of failed insurrection to that of God’s kingdom successfully inaugurated (cf. Mark 8:34-38), isn’t put in its proper place. It gets passed over by preaching on the need to have sins forgiven to avoid going to hell. It gets pushed to the side by the need to preach a moral sanctification.

Again, we need to preach to Christians the need to live out the moral standards that the New Testament has laid down. But it’s about more than that. It’s about a new way of doing things. As Wright would say, a new way of being human. To the sight of the beaten and flogged Jesus presented to the Jewish mob in John 19:5 we read, “So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, ‘Behold the man!’” John shows us the new way of being human, the new way Jesus uses power. He is the true King, only mocked as a failed insurrectionist. He is the true Human. That is the way not of just “Christian discipleship,” it’s the way of the kingdom of God, the new creation.

Now all of this my sound like preaching to the choir, even to my fellow conservative evangelicals. But really think about this. Wright uses the issue of voting and government, so let us continue in that vein. To my fellow conservative evangelicals, when you vote, how often do you side with the political right (aka the Republican Party) and play that power game? We have to be wholly Republican because of the issues of homosexuality, abortion, and marriage. But when one looks at the New Testament and at Jesus, there is a lot there about giving to the poor and “social justice.” Yet you find yourself voting against social justice because it’s liberal.

The government provides a real way to reach out and help the poor but because we have sold out to conservative politics and small government — a government that God has ordained — we vote down bills and representatives who will care for the poor and the orphans and the widows (cf. James 1:27; Galatians 2:9-10). We have power to help the poor, but we don’t use it because we have bought into theories of government not found in the kingdom of God.

All this to say that evangelism is, in a large measure, telling people that the narratives and lenses they use to view the world are wrong. It is the narrative of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (cf. Mark 1:14-15; Romans 1:2-4; 1Corinthians 15:1-4) that they must adopt. Paul makes that clear in Acts 13:13-51 and Acts 17:22-33. But then we must also live out that narrative–in part to show the world that the narrative is supremely more desirable than that of the world–to bring about God’s wise, healing reign.

The kingdom message transcends the “Me and My Sin” narrative that conservative evangelicals have locked in on. In Mark 10 Jesus was questioning not how religion was being done but how politicians were using power. And his reordering was centered around Jesus own death. Politics are done differently under God’s rulership. The traditional political spectrum is subverted by the enthronement of God in the Messiah.

Atonement and forgiveness is there, those who submit to the reign of God are forgiven from their sins. But we are about doing things, living life, differently. The old creation and way of living has passed away and the new way, the way of the Son of Man who became the Suffering Servant and was vindicated by God (note that Jesus combines the narratives of Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53 in Mark 10:45), has come. The Jesus presented by John in John 19:5 is the genuine human standing in Rome’s court charged with the political charge of being king rising up in opposition to Caesar.

It’s time to cast aside these narratives outside the realm of religion and embrace the full narrative the God’s reign through his Messiah. We must not only do religion differently, but politics and the various art forms, philosophy, all of life. As Wright said, we need the holistic message of the kingdom, not the modernist’s reductionism of “Me and My Sin” or the postmodernist’s reductionism “Authentic Spiritual Experience.”

PS: This ended up in a different place from where I started. Sorry.

Last week America had her off-year general election. A major change happened in that the Republican Party was able to convincingly retake the House of Representatives after losing it in 2006 to the Democratic Party. So now the Congress is a house divided in that the House of Representatives is a Republican, conservative controlled body while the Senate remains a progressive, Democratic Party. In the wake of such fervor over the direction of the country it seemed appropriate reread “Captain America: Two Americas.”

To get the comic review out of the way, this is a good read. Brubaker moves the plot along at a good pace. Each issue has a very good cliff-hanger to conclude the first three issues. The end of the story is nicely executed as the story is left open yet still has a sense of conclusion. The artistic team of Luke Ross, Jackson Guice, and Dean White do an excellent job of grounding the scenes in reality. They do an excellent job of keeping the kinetic energy of the story up even when it slows down for exposition.

Ed Brubaker uses this story to examine the country in the wake of President Obama’s election and the feelings of both sides of the election. And the reader is allowed to look at the country to the eyes of a mad man and central antagonist to the story, Captain America from the 1950s. In an experiment to recreate Captain America in the wake of his apparent demise and the end of World War II, the government seemed to be successful until the experiments drove the man insane. Now 50 some years later this Crazy Cap has returned in the wake of previous events to see what America has become.

Stephen Rogers, formerly known as William Burnside of Boise, Idaho, returned to his home town to find his home torn down and replaced by a strip mall that was itself out of business. During his trek from New York to Boise, in this modern America he saw the Great Depression all over again. Empty homes, long unemployment lines and unlike in the 1940s, the two wars being fought by America weren’t helping to fix the economy. In the 1950s when he was Captain America, America was strong under President Eisenhower. Schools were the best in the world and our workers were the best workers. The country was great. But that country is so long ago that it is almost mythological to him now.

Burnside returns to his home of Boise to find many Americans feeling the same way. The government is not on their side anymore, over spending to the point of the country becoming a socialist nation. The government is sticking its nose in their personal lives, telling them how to live it and thus perverting the American dream. That’s the image of one America. Trying to recover the strength of Eisenhower’s america that was lost at some point along the way.

The current Captain America is the old 1940s sidekick, James Buchanan Barnes, a.k.a. Bucky. He took the mantle when the original Steve Rogers, the first Captain America, was shot killed by the Red Skull. In Brubaker’s story Bucky is looking to bring this Crazy Cap in for treatment and to stop his terrorist plot. Bucky’s partner is Roger’s old partner, the Falcon, Sam Wilson. Wilson is an African-American from Harlem who grew up during the racist days of this country. He represents the modern America. Gone is the backwards thinking mentality that led to racism and the oppression of women. The government has stepped up to the plate and is fighting off social injustices, making sure all Americans have Medicare. The government isn’t socialist in the truest sense of the word. It’s doing what needs to be done in order to save this country from certain collapse. It might mean more taxes but it’s the price to pay.

So there are two Americas. One in power and one out of power. The older America knows it’s out of power and feels its loss. It feels ostracized and without a voice. It needs someone to rally around, someone strong to bring back the America it remembers and loves. It sees hippies and commies running the country. In Brubaker’s story, that symbol and leader is the Crazy Cap.

He has come to Idaho to begin his crusade to retake America. He has begun to draft an army and made plans to fire his “Shot Heard Round the World” reminding us of the country’s birth in the American Revolutionary War. Indeed Burnside believes himself to be launching a new Revolutionary War to retake the nation. He recognizes something that most people don’t. These two America’s are at war with each other. There is a war being waged in this country that is more important than the wars in the Middle East. For Burnside, winning the war is everything.

I think Brubaker is on to something in this story arc. His analysis of both sides of the debate as there being two Americas is pretty much spot on. The Conservative America does want to get back to the wealth and prosperity of Eisenhower America. They see moral degradation increase with the implementation of Liberal, Progressive ideals. They want to get back to a strong country in terms of its morality, politics, and economy. The only way to get back there is to get back to the ideals of America from the 1950s. Let each man

But the other America, the Progressive America, doesn’t want that. It means a return to racism and the oppression of women. It means taking back the rights of Americans it has fought so hard to win. It sees this America as wanting to take a step backwards in time. The answer to the problems that Burnside sees is not in going backwards but in moving forwards, with the government leading the charge.

Indeed these two Americas are fighting each other. Consider the election this past month. Republicans used Obama-Care as a rallying cry and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as piñatas to get their people into office. In Florida, President Clinton tried to persuade the Democratic candidate to bow out to keep the Tea Party candidate out of power. Some Republicans advocated the people to simply not vote to keep Democrats out of power. President Obama countered with saying that Republicans are stymieing the people’s rights as Americans because they know the people will continue to vote for Obama’s change. Republicans tell media outlets that they will refuse to compromise with the President to keep his policies from being enacted.

The problem that Brubaker identifies, quite correctly, is the extremism. In his story it’s Crazy Cap and his Watchdog militia that are so bent on their ideals and narrative that they were willing to actually start shooting guns. There is no compromise, no willingness to come to the table and negotiate. There is no debate and no getting the issues on the table. To them, this country is past the point of no return. Elections cannot help this country. It is up to them and the other extremist groups to rise up and force the change.

Even the Falcon is guilty of this extremism. Early on in the story, Bucky and Sam sees a rally protesting big government and spending additional taxes. Out of this community the Watchdog Militia arrises and so he assumes the community as a whole is part of the extremism. But then, after being captured by Crazy Cap, Sam meets Dave. Dave is a regular American who wants the conservative America of Eisenhower, but refuses to go the militant route. This is a gut-check for Sam who realizes that though they may disagree about the best way of doing America, the other side is not all crazy extremists. His prejudices are forms of extremism.

Brubaker’s solution to the problem, aside from Bucky and Sam defeating Crazy Cap and his Watchdog Militia, is for people to be like Dave. To have strong convictions but being willing to sit down at the table and debate, which is truly doing America. The best solution lies in rational Americans leading the country, not the extremists. The views of the extremists will be well represented. But the prejudices will be left where they belong, outside of America.

Captain America and the Falcon save the day. America will live on. But we have to be on guard for extremism and our prejudices. Just as the demise of the Crazy Cap couldn’t be verified, so the threat of these enemies are still out there. We must be on guard and unite together and forge a new way forward, one that will bring about the best of the two Americas in one glorious USA.

Some good news has come out of the NFL, namely that the Philadelphia Eagles have signed Michael Vick to a two-year deal. Vick was recently released from prison, not too far from where I lived in KC for a while, having been convicted of dog-fighting and torturing animals. He served a two-year sentence and missed the 2007 and 2008 seasons. Many players and teams and fans–including myself–felt that Vick should be given a second chance, and he was. Erik, from the IrishCalvinist blog, makes a very keen and deeply troubling observation. That is cruelly torturing and killing dogs put Vick in prison for two years (and I’m not disagreeing with that sentence that Vick served nor am I saying the crime wasn’t horrible; I love my dog) but no one goes to jail for murdering humans because abortion is a choice. Why do humans value the life of animals more the life of their own species? That is backwards in a very fundamentally flawed way. Why is that?

What a country we live in.

8 May he have dominion from sea to sea,
and from the River to the ends of the earth!
9 May desert tribes bow down before him,
and his enemies lick the dust!
10 May the kings of Tarshish and of the coastlands
render him tribute;
may the kings of Sheba and Seba
bring gifts!
11 May all kings fall down before him,
all nations serve him!
12 For he delivers the needy when he calls,
the poor and him who has no helper.
13 He has pity on the weak and the needy,
and saves the lives of the needy.
14 From oppression and violence he redeems their life,
and precious is their blood in his sight.

The psalm consists structurally of three prayers. Verses 1, 8, and 15 all contain jussive verbs that express the psalmist’s pleas to God. Verses 2-7, 9-14, 16-17 contain imperfect verbs that communicate the results of Elohim granting the wish of the jussive verbs. But I think that the prayers found in 72:8-14 and 15-17 must be understood in light of the prayer of 72:1-7. The things that he does in 72:12-14 is a restatement of 72:2-7 where the king who has received Elohim’s righteousness defends the poor for the oppressed and violent. And 72:15-17 restates what has been prayed for in 72:1-14.

Now from this prayer in Psalm 72:8-12 the psalmist prays for king and his kingdom in two ways: the extent of the kingdom to expand world-wide (72:8-11) and that the right decisions and just decisions with which the king judges Israel will have the same freeing, liberating, enemy-destroying, prospering effect on the whole world (72:12-14).

The psalmist envisions a messianic kingdom as he prays for the extent of this king’s authority and dominion to be from sea to sea. It is similar to what the prophet Zechariah states in Zechariah 9:9-10, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you…and he shall speak peace to the nations; his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

The king will rule the whole earth and bring righteousness and justice to all of the earth. The poor not just of Israel is seen here but the oppressed of the whole world will be delivered. The psalmist is very missions-minded (for lack of a better term). In praying for the glory of the king, in praying for Elohim to bless the king, the psalmist is forced to pray for the whole world to be delivered from the violent, wicked oppressors. If all the nations of the world were to submit to Elohim’s king, then by necessity the whole world would experience the fair and just decisions that free the poor and oppressed and cause the land to prosper.

Again I come back to idea that if the Christian were to pray for Jesus to show his glory, if the Christian were to pray for God to show his glory, and for the King to extend his honor throughout the whole world it is a good thing. The people are blessed as a result. The expansion of the King’s dominion shows how powerful and mighty he is. But that expansion frees the poor and liberates the oppressed, crushing their enemies. I cannot escape that to pray for God to display his honor and glory as King means that I am praying for the people of God to be blessed. I am not seeing how some people think it is so horrible to pray for this. When one boils it down, a person is praying for God to bring food to the hungry through is church, alleviate the financial woes of the poor, the shelter the homeless, to graciously touch the lives of sinners and bring them into the kingdom of God. Praying for God to show his glory and honor is to ask God to put an end to hunger and poverty, to destroy death and remove injustice from his creation. This is what happens when God brings forth his glory for all to see.

Thus I join the psalmist and pray for my King, King Jesus, to expand his dominion over all the earth and bring all the nations in subjection to himself, and therefore bring honor to himself. Because for the King to be honored means that the poverty is done away with, disease is wiped out, the homeless are sheltered, and the gates of hell are torn down and Hades is destroyed.

Once the people were established at Mount Sinai, they set off for Canaan. Yet during this trek, the people repeated complained against I AM and his chosen leaders of the people (e.g. Moses, Aaron). Aaron was challenged as high priest, and I AM demonstrated his choice of Aaron. Moses was challenged by Aaron and his sister. The people complained that Moses was trying to kill them and they were better off in Egypt as slaves. Moses sent spies into Canaan to survey the land. Ten of the twelve spies reported that the people could not take the land, demonstrating the same rebellion Adam and Eve only in a different expression, convincing them they were hopelessly dying in the wilderness. The people were sent wandering in the desert to allow this disbelieving generation to die off.

Then Joshua and Caleb lead Israel into Canaan. Aside from the first battle of Ai and Achan’s sin as well as the treaty by the people from Canaan who deceived Joshua for self-preservation, the invasion was a success. Joshua defeats all of the armies from the cities in Canaan. However, Israel fails to completely drive out the remnants of the Canaanite peoples and their false religions and false gods. On top of that, when Joshua dies there was no strong central leader to guide the people in their relationship with I AM. Instead the people do what is right in their own eyes, worshiping whatever god they choose. This starts a spiral into depravity that will take centuries to recover from.

When Israel does not maintain her covenant relationship with I AM, reverting to the pagan ways seen in Egypt and in Canaan, I AM allows neighboring nations to conquer the land. This in turn leads to a period of enslavement that brings out from the people a cry to I AM for deliverance. A specific individual is raised up by I AM to throw off the shackles of the conquering nation and frees Israel. A period of faithfulness ensues before they fall back into rebellion and reject I AM again. Many call this a cycle, the Deuteronomic cycle. I prefer to think of this as a spiral because every leader that is raised up, called a judge, is progressively more depraved than his or her predecessor. Upon the conclusion of this period of Judges, civil war breaks out where Benjamin commits a sin so perverse it resembles what happened to Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Genesis 19). The priesthood too has become perverse, no longer teaching holiness and sacred from the profane and common. Eli’s sons abuse their status as priests for selfish gains while Eli fails to intervene. The people are so perverse, the Ark of the Covenant, the piece of furniture that is placed behind the veil and contains the Decalogue, manna, and Aaron’s budded staff, is taken off. One woman names her child Ichabod, “Glory has departed.”

The people then ask I AM for a king, not so that someone can help them be the people I AM made them to be and bring back shalom, but so that they can be like the nations around them. I AM sees the rebellion in their request while still granting their request. But the king that is chosen will be a godly man, a Benjaminite named Saul. However, Saul’s godliness lasted only so long. He too failed to live according to I AM’s covenant stipulations, forfeiting peace. He is rejected by I AM so that Saul’s entire family is killed.

The monarchy falls to the house of David, son of Jesse. He is a man after God’s own heart who also happens to commit adultery and then covers it up with murder. His family then falls apart one son raping a daughter. Solomon, son of the woman whom David had an affair with, takes the throne. He builds the Temple and takes the expansion his father David began and took it to its apex. Then he fell into idolatry because of the hundreds of foreign wives and concubines. His son refused to look after his people so that I AM divides the kingdom established by Saul and David from the nation established by Moses and Joshua. The northern kingdom falls into a paganism that no even Elijah and Elisha can redeem her from. The multiple monarchs that held the throne barely held it for more than two or three generations until the kingdom was wiped out in 722 BCE by Assyria.

The southern kingdom remains the most faithful because of a promise made to David by I AM to always leave a son of David on the throne. Yet these men more often than not led the Judean people into sin and idolatry, choosing the might of Egypt and Babylon over I AM. Hezekiah, one of the best kings in terms of godliness was boastful. Uzziah, a godly king who preceded Hezekiah, tried to perform the function of the priests out of his own pride. Josiah, grandson or great-grandson of Hezekiah, found a portion (if not all) of Deuteronomy and led the people in a reformation. Josiah removed the pagan alters and restored a spiritual fervor for I AM that hadn’t been seen since Samuel’s time before David’s reign. Yet he was inexplicably killed by Egypt at Meggido. His successors undid all that Josiah had done and led the country to her demise at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

The community that was established at Mount Sinai, with its laws and sacrifices, did not bring the people back to shalom. Psalm 72 records a prayer for the king to lead the people to peace, reigning in righteousness and justice and liberating the oppressed while defeating Israel’s enemies. While the historical setting of this text is not known to me, the longing for the king to bring about peace, both within the community and abroad, is there. The Psalmist knows shalom is missing to some degree.

So we are right back to where we were before the creation of Israel in Genesis 12, is humanity doomed to suffer from God’s wrath? This past week I was reminded of what happened when shalom was taken from humanity because of its rebellion. A co-worker finally succumbed to a rare form of cancer. He was diagnosed just before Thanksgiving (2008) and passed away just before his 42nd birthday (04-08-09), having been buried the day after (that is today). He was so skinny from the cancer eating him from the inside out. His oldest child wasn’t even 15 years old yet. But that isn’t the end of life without shalom. It goes on for forever. There needs to be something done to bring back I AM and the shalom that comes with him. The question is, what?

By the way, I love Piper’s smile when he speaks of an African American president. He really wants to see this happen. And he is right, Obama needs to address the issue of 12 million African American babies dead because of Roe v. Wade. Why is it this way? Tears well up just trying to grasp the breadth of that number, let alone the total number of people who are dead because of abortion. Here is the video and I know that certain readers of this blog will squirm at Piper’s comments and probably want to dismiss everything else he has to say about the election.