A Theology of Nations: Political Implications of God's Gift of Nationhood (Gen 10-12)

A Theology of Nations: 

Political Implications of God's Gift of Nationhood (Gen 10-12)

James M. Leonard, PhD

Note the purpose statement of this blog:

This blog attempts to beef up Christians' political perspectives. It is not about defending two or three moral issues, although such issues will not be neglected. What this blog is about is the promotion of a political perspective which is fully integrated with a mature Christian worldview while being entirely relevant to the current American political scene.

One of the key failures of our thinking is that we don’t have a well developed theology of nations. I suspect that books on Christians and politics are a dime a dozen, but books attempting to construct a theology of nations are quite rare (suggestions, anyone?). No doubt, Christians frequently arrive at wrong political conclusions simply because they fail to consider any theologically imposed obligations a country’s leaders might have. A well considered theology of nations would significantly impact a Christian’s political perspective.

Nations exist as a broad extension of the most basic sociological unit, the family. Families network with their neighbors, and neighborhoods develop associations with other neighborhoods, growing into ever larger units, tied together by common bonds such as geography, language, and other cultural considerations. Their mutual cooperation is designed to advance the common good of their constituent families.

This sociological perspective is compatible with a biblical model. Nationhood should not be dismissed as something arbitrarily conceived and thus dispensable; nor should nationhood be minimized as if it were opposed to Christian morality or even inherently evil.

A theology of nations begins at Genesis 10 and 11. Chapter 10’s Table of Nations provides a genealogical outline of postdiluvian civilization, united not only by genetics, but by language, geography, and perhaps even by divinely approbated conquest and intentional national development (see the commendation of Nimrod, vv. 8-12). Chapter 11 provides backgrounding information: nationhood was a consequence of God’s judgment at the Tower of Babel. There, the biblical author asserts that the families of the earth comprised a unity of culture and language in which nationhood was superfluous, at best. The attempt to prevent societal fragmentation and to establish a unified civilization independent of God was met by a divine scattering and the imposition of cooperative barriers inherent in variegated languages.

The two chapters are dischronologized. The nations are listed first in chapter 10, prior to the dispersion of chapter 11. Logically, the curse of chapter 11 had to happen prior to the existence of independent nations in chapter 10. What this dischronologization achieves is to juxtapose the curse of Gen 11 with the call of Abraham. The idea is that the dispersion and differentiation of nations will be remedied eventually by God as he works out the promises to Abraham and his descendents; through Abraham’s descendents (or rather, Descendent; cf. Gal 3:16), all the nations (מִשְׁפָּחָה) of the earth will be blessed (12:3).

Such is the beginning of a biblical theology of nations. It is one that recognizes that the division of society was a divinely imposed curse that will be remedied in the eschaton; thus, in Rev 22:2, the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations. Still, nationhood is nonetheless a gift; just as God blessed humankind with one day in seven to rest from the curse of work, God gives the blessing of nationhood to promote the general welfare of a people.

Much more needs to be said. The most important element of a theology of nationhood, however, is already evident, and leads to important implications. God’s gift of nationhood imposes certain responsibilities upon a nation’s leaders. From this we should infer that leaders must be just and rule their nations accordingly, assuring that each citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with all due recourse to the law. Likewise, we should infer that nations should relate well and cooperate with other nations, as good, reasonable neighbors. The goal, as articulated in 1 Tim 2:2, is that citizens may live peaceful and quiet lives, or, in the words of Micah, “Everyone will sit under their own vine, and under their own fig-tree, and no one will make them afraid.”

The gift of nationhood, then, entails a national defense and a just war policy. Nationhood entails a policy that protects the interests of its citizenry. While individuals are encouraged to divest themselves of self-interest for the sake of others (Phil 2:4), national application of the same ethic at an international level would constitute a dereliction of stewardship, comparable to a father gratuitously giving away all his wealth and possessions, thereby forcing his wife and children into slavery.

To be sure, a nation should make every effort to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. This desideratum, however, must be implemented with due concern for a nation’s own citizenry. 

Who Will Slay the Dragon? Santorum and the Mississippi Run-off

Rick Santorum was in Madison, Mississippi last week to support Chris McDaniel’s effort to unseat incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS). And for good reason.

We Constitutionalists and people who are Taxed Enough Already are distressed over the Federal government’s pedal to the metal spending over the last decades. Such spending feeds the growing and increasingly invasive Beast of federal government, and puts into peril the economic security and prosperity of ordinary citizens; it fetters and ravages our future generations with crippling and devastating debt from which there will be no remedy. Regions of the country that benefit from federal spending channel the resources from outlining areas to the Beast, much akin to the plot of The Hunger Games. This is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned, to say the least.

People in both parties are guilty for our present and coming tribulation, for different reasons. Democrats philosophically are committed to pedal to the metal spending and feeding of the Beast. Republicans are philosophically opposed to the growth of the Beast, but many of its members make no valiant effort to fight the Beast or to take steps to fix the problem. Sometimes, Republican members conspire and coordinate their votes with other legislators in support of projects that unduly increase federal spending. As the third ranking Senate Republican, Thad Cochran is one such legislator.

Thad Cochran deserves a great deal of praise for serving his state well in his 36 years as a US Senator. He obviously loves his country, and he has gotten so many things right over the years. Still, it’s a new day, and Cochran has done nothing to restrict the Beast’s diet. In 36 years, he has not stood up to fight against out of control spending. In no small measure, it is because of Republicans like Cochran that we are now $18 trillion in debt. It is because of complacent and entrenched Republicans like Cochran that people like Chris McDaniel are challenging Republican incumbents.

Santorum picks his endorsees carefully. He likely sees in Cochran an echo of his own battle with the Beast, going back to the 1995 Balanced Budget Amendment. Our present spending and deficit tribulation would not be ours had a particular uncommitted Republican senator voted differently. The amendment was one that Santorum had managed while in the House, and was the first bill he co-sponsored as a Senator. The vote failed by a single vote, and Oregon Republican Mark Hatfield should have been the vote to restore fiscal sanity to our country. Hatfield, however, as the Chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, loved to spend money and voted with the Democrats. Santorum’s well-placed indignation led him to call for Hatfield to resign his chairmanship, and Hatfield did not run for re-election the next year.

Ironically, Hatfield and Cochran have more in common than their spending habits. Cochran, too, served as the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which might account for his love of spending.

Tuesday’s run-off election between Cochran and McDaniel allows voters to get the fiscal issues right this time. Will Mississippi send a real fighter to Washington, or will it send Cochran back to cruise his way toward retirement and a 2016 gubernatorial appointment?

At the rally in Madison, McDaniel glowingly spoke about Santorum’s fighting spirit and ability to inspire. We see that same fighting spirit in McDaniel, and might even imagine a St. George fighting the dragon, and resisting its concerted effort to fundamentally transform the country into its image. 

Patriot Voices’ “Our Vision for America” Commentary, Part 1 of 6

http://www.patriotvoices.com/vision_for_america

Patriot Voices’

“Our Vision for America” Commentary

by

James M. Leonard, PhD

(part 1 of 6)

I engage in political writing as a pastor and theologian who has been watching politics since Nixon resigned, but only in the distress of these last ten years have I felt compelled to invest myself sacrificially into politics to support this grand and worthy enterprise known as The American Experiment, an enterprise which is now very much at risk. I think the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written by men who had a very deep and breathtaking understanding of the Christian religion and its scriptures, with equal acumen in human nature and national governance. I fear, however, that most Americans have only a superficial grasp of the Christian religion and perhaps even less of human nature and principles of governance. This realization has prompted me to harness the energy of social media in an effort to disseminate a deep consideration of these issues that are crucial to our way of life.

In the last two years, Republicans have been most expert in criticizing the Obama administration and even in identifying the searing issues. At the Republican Leadership Conference last weekend in New Orleans, there was no shortage of candidates capably criticizing Obama and articulating the conservative Constitutionalist message, while also decrying the Republican Establishment’s complacency. Such abilities are impressive, but not sufficient to assure victory. The essential ingredient for victory is the articulation of an inspirational and encompassing vision, one that addresses the present crisis while fervently upholding our foundational and guiding principles.

Sen. Santorum’s Patriot Voices’ “Our Vision for America” qualifies as a vision that speaks to our present critical need while espousing our core values reflected in the founding documents. More so, it is a manifesto which drinks deeply from Christianity’s fountain of knowledge and is not just a thoughtless repetition of run of the mill superficial Christianity that gets distributed on any given Sunday. Indeed, some of the statements are difficult and require serious reflection, but in my estimation, fall in line at all the right places.

The Santorum vision was not written to be red meat offered on the altar of delegate expediency. Nor was it written for those who spend much time watching Eurovision or The Simpsons reruns. The Vision is written for thoughtful Patriots. Let me invite you to follow the link to sign on. The country needs you. Patriot Voices' Our Vision for America

This article is the introduction to what will be a six part commentary. Check back soon.

Santorum Can Win

One of the most surprising echoes from the political past is the mantra that Rick Santorum cannot win. This was the presumption and assured prognostication of most conservative Republicans in 2012, but its echo inexplicably reverberates into our upcoming primary season.

The refrain Rick can’t win is one of the most unanalytical, most unthoughtful claims of the season. Its taunting melody wafts on as if Santorum did not win Iowa in 2012 and advanced deeply in the primary season as Romney’s main opponent. But if Santorum won Iowa in 2012 with no money and while completely dependent upon volunteers driving him around in their pickup truck, how much easier will Iowa flip back to Santorum in 2016 when he comes loaded with cash and army full of experienced volunteers? 

And if Santorum were to win in Iowa in 2016, how much easier would it be for him to win contest number three in conservative South Carolina, which Newt won largely because Romney shenanigans managed to delay announcement of Santorum’s Iowa victory? How much more debate time would Santorum have had in those many debates in which he was only asked one or two questions? And if Romney only barely defeated Santorum in his second home state of Michigan where he outspent Santorum 6:1, and similarly in Ohio, how much easier will it be for Santorum to pick up those two states, loaded with cash and an experienced army of volunteers, and with a blue collar conservative message that no other Republican candidate has?

No, the refrain has no truth in it. No truth in it back then, no truth in it now. Anyone who sings it simply is uninformed and resorts to it only when they have nothing else to say. The more accurate song to sing is, Game on.

RLC 2014 Round Up

RLC 2014 Round Up

He did not announce his candidacy, but Santorum’s presence at the 2014 Republican Leadership Conference was more than a cameo appearance.

In 2012, Santorum ran on the argument that Mitt Romney was the worst possible Republican candidate to challenge Obama. I’ll not review the subpoints, but in post-election reflections, all the pundits suddenly came to the same conclusion, and did so as if it were their own discovery.

Santorum was the last not-Romney candidate, and by the end of the campaign, he carried 11 states, despite party elitist meddling to prevent victory announcements in Iowa until after the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. The most frequently expressed complaint against Santorum was that he had no chance to win; what a difference the end result would have been if South Carolinians had seen Santorum victorious in Iowa.

Santorum had been labeled as a one-song candidate for social values. This was a marginalizing and tidy pigeon hole, a popular narrative that put Santorum into a precisely defined category for a media and an electorate focused more on Gangnam style in 2012 than on the future of the country. In reality, Santorum was the candidate most expert in the Middle East, the candidate with the most comprehensive economic recovery plan, the candidate whose balanced budget plan was projected for five years precisely so that he and the House and Senate members supporting it would be held responsible by the voters in a second term election. Indeed, it was by a single Senate vote that Santorum’s 1995 Balanced Budget Amendment failed, a day whose infamy should be altogether clear to Americans who now face an $18 trillion deficit with a clear path and a pedal-to-the-medal Legislature that will see that number double and triple by the time Hillary’s grandchild will be enrolled in NYC’s most prestigious elementary school.

What is Santorum up to now? He’s making sure that everyone knows him as the Blue Collar Conservative, one who consciously integrates his social values into a compelling economic message that should rebrand and re-vision the Republican Party. He capably explains how this is a winning message for Republicans and that it is a message which brings with it all the urgencies of conservative Constitutional Republicans. Santorum sang a different song at RLC, one which was dominated by this new vision, with red meat anti-Obama rhetoric served only in small portions so that the audience might grasp that one does not win elections by anti-Obama-ism alone, but with a message which each American’s name on it.