Of Babylon

This post is long. The first two-thirds are more of the theological backing for the last little bit. If that doesn't really interest you, or if you don't have the time, you can skip straight to ----THE POINT--- and still get enough for some contemplation, discussion, and argument (all of which are highly encouraged) Now...

There are two points that I must clarify, to the best of my ability, before diving into the first phase of my deconstruction of the prevalent political polemic (forgive the shameless alliteration) of our day. They are as follows:

1) I am decidedly NOT dispensational. That is to say, I believe that God has interacted, interacts, and will continue to interact with his people under the same covenant. This covenant is mediated throughout three different epochs, namely, creation (or commission), fall, and redemption. While there may be slight differences in appearance, that means that God related to Israel and the Church in much the same way. That is an admittedly overly simplistic explanation, but I'll come back to it later.

2) I believe that in order to truly understand Christianity and what it is to live as a Christ-follower, you must have a proper understanding of the Exile. (Not to say that my understanding of either is perfect) This is directly related to the first point, but still distinctive enough within itself to be mentioned.

When the Israelites returned from exile, they returned to a Kingdom that was barely a shadow the one they left. Those who survived the exile and were back in the province were in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem was broken down, and its gates burned with fire. (Nehemiah 1:3) Moreover, they were living in Jerusalem, but Jerusalem had become merely a province of another kingdom, whether it be Persia, Babylon, or Rome. He we are presented with the first motif of the redemptive epoch of the covenant. (For those of you who are familiar with the already, but not yet... the already) We have God's people returned from exile, but to a Kingdom that is not yet fully restored. This motif is picked up with the arrival of Jesus and the announcement of the nearness of the Kingdom. In Jesus, we see the theological and, for our purposes, more importantly ecclesiological importance and relevance of the exile and return therefrom.

Hebrews tells us that the priestly system of the Old Testament was insufficient and in its insufficiency pointed to Jesus. Not merely that, by pointing to Christ as the ultimate, it immediately declared itself penultimate and therefore, essentially obsolete. Historical Israel, the physical people of God, enter into a similar category. Physical Israel, as a people and a kingdom, pointed to the ultimate Kingdom and people, namely the catholic, apostolic Church. (note: this is where most classical dispensationalists will disagree. I believe that in the same manner that pointing to Jesus as ultimate made the priestly system of the OT penultimate, the pointing to spiritual Israel as ultimate made--makes--physical Israel penultimate. It's probably easier just to say that Israel, spiritual Israel, has always and will always only be the faithful covenant community. There is only one tree... see Romans 8-11) All this to say that we now, through Christ, identify ourselves with Israel. We are grafted onto the tree; naturalized into the Kingdom of God.

Now up until now, most would agree with the concept of Israel as pointing to the Church and the priestly system and pointing to Christ. There is, however, a third major thread prevalent through Scripture. Since the fall, God's people have found themselves exiled in a foreign land. This is a major theme in the narrative of historical Israel. Time and time again, they find themselves in another kingdom. In Egypt, Babylon, and Rome (as well as a number of other kingdoms) they find themselves in the predicament of being a Kingdom, God's people, living in another kingdom. The third arrow is pointing to the other kingdom, the kingdom at enmity with God's kingdom. Sometimes they appear to be at war, other times they appear to coexist. Throughout the prophets, this other kingdom is know simply as Babylon. However, as we can see using the same system of ultimate-penultimate, Babylon is not merely physical, historical Babylon, but rather spiritual Babylon, the entire second Kingdom. This, I believe, is a fair assessment because we see John refer to the spiritual enemy of the Kingdom of God as Babylon. I don't want to get too much into Revelation but when John talks about Babylon he's referring to Rome and the entire kingdom against God. He's talking about the same "kings" who conspire to rise up against God in Psalms, the kings/kingdom of the world. We are Israel in Babylon, a Kingdom already, but a Kingdom not yet.

-------------------THE POINT-----------------

So, if Israel is the Church, who is Babylon? I think Paul makes this clear when he reminds us who our battle is with. It's not with flesh and blood, he says, but with the powers of the earth, the principalities of darkness. It is a spiritual foe, but it controls the physical rulers, the kings of the earth. That means that believers in China are living in Babylon just as much as believers in Africa, or Europe, or the United States. Since, I assume, everyone who reads this is American, I will make this as specific as possible. We, as Christ-followers, find ourselves citizens of the Kingdom living in Babylon, America. America is under the control of the enemy. It was never and can never be a Christian nation. (if you live or move to another country, substitute America with that country's name) The secularization of any nation is simply the fleshing out of the greater spiritual reality; that all worldly kingdoms are under the control of spiritual Babylon. So then the greater question becomes how are we to act as citizens of the Kingdom of God living in Babylon. That is something we will continue to wrestle with and explore on this blog.

...Hopefully Get Better

So after a short hiatus, Exclusion and Embrace is back with yet another format. My reasoning for breaking from the blog world was two-fold. The primary reason was that it was the end of my semester and I was flooded with a wealth of other writing assignments as well as exams I needed to prepare for. The second reason was that I had no idea how to format the blog to suit my hopes. This has never really been a whats-going-on-in-my-life type blog. For that you can go to my wife's blog, here. I've wanted it to be a forum for social dialogue. I specifically wanted that dialogue to focus around a critique of the Church, both doctrinal and ethical. In other words, my goal was to wrestle, along with some friends, with what it is to be a follower of Christ in the West and, specifically, in the United States. I have come to believe that our primary role as a follower of Christ is peacemaker. I also believe that understanding what it is to be a Christ-follower will force us to renounce certain social allegiances we formerly held as well as broaden our scope of social concern. Those social issues are what I hope to wrestle with from here on out. I also hope to do it more collaboratively. I will be dialoguing with theologians, both past and present, as well as asking other people to write articles for this blog. My hope is to eventually for a league similar to Burnside Writers Collective but with a slightly more theological bent. If you want to be involved, email me at listenthinkactlive@hotmail.com. That's all for now.

Peace and Love,
Shaun