In which our regular writers toss around
subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Tom: Globalism is officially out of the closet, Immanuel Can. The Economist declares: “The danger is that a rising sense of insecurity will lead to more
electoral victories for closed-world types. This is the gravest risk to the
free world since communism. Nothing
matters more than countering it.”
“Nothing matters more.” That’s pretty
clear. So tell me, IC, is it possible to be a Christian globalist? Can we hold
such an ideological position coherently and biblically?
Immanuel
Can: Two opposite considerations occur to
me: Firstly, of course, we have in Genesis the Tower of Babel, which in its day was the prototypical globalist initiative. But conversely, we
have in Revelation a new kind of globalism, don’t we? So I suppose we
might say that it depends on what we mean by the concept. What’s your
first thought, Tom?
Tom: Right. The first sort is man setting himself up against God (“Let us build ourselves a
city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves”). It’s all about us. The second sort is entirely of God (the Lamb is worthy because he has “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation”, and has made them a kingdom and priests to God). So we have one sort of
globalism we’d never want to get behind, and another sort that we’re absolutely
delighted to get behind.
I guess the question arises whether the
sort of globalism contemplated and promoted by the EU, by Hillary Clinton and
Justin Trudeau and a zillion others is of the first type or the second.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream
IC: The “how” is crucial, isn’t it? A global political order is only as
good as the means used to bring it about. If it’s the King of Glory, then hallelujah. If it’s human efforts to
combine the iron-and-clay of the nations into some putatively solid and healthy
whole, then yikes!
Tom: This would be the iron-and-clay version, and I can think of plenty
of reasons for Christians to be opposed to it. After all, from Daniel to
Revelation, scripture tells us to expect that at some point in human history
mankind will do exactly this, and that it is slated to end very, very badly for
them. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome all prefigured it, holding sway
over much of the world in their day. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream statue hinted at it
and what’s the first thing he does? Sets up his own statue and tries to force everyone to worship it. So I can understand Christians looking at
the globalist agenda and looking at their Bibles and saying, “Hey, we want no
part of this nonsense”.
But in practice many Christians seem to be
very much on board with it. What sorts of intellectual and interpretive
contortions might enable a believer to do that?
Rationales from Prophetic Interpretation
IC: Well, Amillennialism, for one, and Postmillennialism for another.
Once you get the idea in your head that
there’s only one return of Christ, and thus no difference between the Rapture
of the Church and the Second Coming, and that the Tribulation is not the
intervening event but a fait accompli
from 70 AD (or some other past period), you’re already in trouble. The
temptation is to start thinking that the job of the Church is to improve
conditions on earth so as to make possible the Second Coming. And just as the
secularists want to see the World unified so as to be subject to their agenda,
we can start thinking that “getting everyone together” could be the first step
toward ushering in the kingdom of God.
Tom: That’s not looking terribly likely at the moment in anything more than a very, very superficial way.
IC: It’s the same mistake being made by both
sides: the delusion that globalization is bound to turn out to be morally
“tame” and practically open to their particular agenda.
Rationales from Old and New Testament
Tom: So in the first case globalism is rationalized eschatologically.
But we’re also seeing it rationalized theologically. One of the major tools in
the globalist toolkit is mass immigration, which is now being openly defended
as a key part of the globalist program and vigorously championed by various
evangelical groups as being consistent with: (i) the Old Testament
instructions to Israel to treat sojourners well; (ii) the teachings of Christ, particularly the parable of the Good Samaritan; and (iii) the teaching of Paul that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
All three of these are significant misuses
of scripture, but they’re very, very common.
IC: Yes, they are. There is a sort of wide-eyed stupidity among liberal
Westerners today, Christian as well as non-Christian. Mass migrations are taken
to be virtuous. Every person who comes
to the border is assumed automatically to be a true “refugee” and “victim”. And
no questioning of this narrative is tolerated. Any questions about that are
automatically “racist” or “unchristian”, so far as popular thought
is concerned.
Sojourning Forever
Tom: Exactly. But the problem with the first example is twofold:
Firstly, a “sojourner” is by definition a temporary visitor, not a permanent resident. In ancient Israel he did not receive full citizenship and a right to engage in remolding the country to conform to his own culture and taste, though he was certainly well treated.
Secondly, Western democracies are not ancient theocracies. God was personally present in the midst of Israel, and the Law was a precondition to that Immanence. Modern secular nations have neither the mandate given to Israel, nor the protection of Jehovah’s presence.
Firstly, a “sojourner” is by definition a temporary visitor, not a permanent resident. In ancient Israel he did not receive full citizenship and a right to engage in remolding the country to conform to his own culture and taste, though he was certainly well treated.
Secondly, Western democracies are not ancient theocracies. God was personally present in the midst of Israel, and the Law was a precondition to that Immanence. Modern secular nations have neither the mandate given to Israel, nor the protection of Jehovah’s presence.
The Good Samaritan
Tom: Right. The problem with the use of the Good Samaritan is that the
Samaritan voluntarily spent his money for a brief period for the very valid purpose of restoring an injured man to health.
He was not forcibly taxed to provide for him for the rest of his days. More
importantly, he did not invite the robbers to move in next door!
IC: Yeah, I don’t see that parable as teaching us to accept the robbers
as “travelers” or “victims” …
All One in Christ
Tom: And the problem with the “all one in Christ” meme is that Western
democracies are not the Church of God. Their citizens are wholly incapable of
the sorts of sacrifices necessary to live side by side with people of other
cultural backgrounds and inclinations, and Christians have no right to demand
it of them. We’re already seeing major pushback against mass immigration in the
U.S. No matter what the media says, Donald Trump did not create that sentiment.
It was already there simmering. Those who push hard for dumping more
“ingredients” into the “melting pot” in this political climate seem unclear
about how dangerous that could well become.
IC: The flip side to the “open borders” policy is also the dissolution
of nations. And there are a fair number of people — Christians and secular
liberals — who would argue that national boundaries and distinctions are,
if not mere artifacts of racism or apartheid, at least oppressive and
illegitimate. How would you respond?
Borders are Oppressive and Illegitimate
Tom: Well, I’m responding
here as a Christian in the interest of suggesting to my fellow believers which side of the issue they ought to be on in a democracy, where their opinion
is (at least nominally) taken into account. That’s my only purpose. I can’t
prove anything to the secular liberal, who does not accept our terms or our evidence. But
Christians have lived — and Christianity has thrived — in the most
harsh and abusive of political realities. If we have to go back to that, so be
it, provided it is the will of God.
That said, for a Christian to maintain that
national boundaries and distinctions are oppressive and illegitimate is to fly
in the face of the Lord Jesus himself, who accepted the punishment meted out to
him under Roman law despite its manifest injustice, who instructed his disciples
to “render unto Caesar” that which was Caesar’s, who said, “My kingdom is not of this world” when the answer of today’s globalist believers would be, “Yes, I’m the king of everything, and you’d better fall into line right now. Here come a few legions of
angels to sort you out”.
If our Lord did not in any way invalidate
nationalism, even when it was terribly inconvenient for him personally, who are
we to claim it is oppressive or illegitimate? “The authorities that exist” (not the
ones we would LIKE to exist) have been instituted by God.
Identity Politics
IC: Yes, I think I
agree with you there. Nationhood is both an OT concept and a NT one.
Christ himself says that “nations” will remain a fixture in the future until
the very end times, as does the Spirit speaking through John in Revelation. So it would seem daft and unbelieving for a Christian to invest hope in eradicating national identity in the name of some global ideal. Better to get
preaching the gospel among the nations than campaigning for the elimination of nationhood.
Tom: National identity
is neither good nor evil; it is simply a fact of life in our present age, much
like the fact that we do not get to choose whether we are born male or female.
It’s one of those essentially neutral things that seems to get the blame
whenever something else goes wrong. The secularist says, “I see we are always
fighting; it must be nationalism”. That’s a misdiagnosis. Sure, it’s nations doing the fighting, and nationalism is
promoted by each government involved in order to get its citizens to take up
arms in the first place, but the actual root cause of the conflict is nearly
always something else.
As long as we are sinners, we’ll find something to fight about even if you could
eliminate borders entirely.
No comments :
Post a Comment