What Room Does the Church Have for the Word Nation?
In the aftermath of the South Korean Sewol ferry disaster my pastor was preaching a sermon from the book of Psalms on comfort. In some of his opening remarks he made the following statement: "We are a nation in mourning." Now this seems rather innocuous as a statement in itself, and perhaps these weren't the words he meant to use (however I think pastors ought to generally be careful about words especially in a national tragedy), but the context here I think is important. My pastor is a Korean-American, married to a Korean (if I remember correctly), and is pastor of the English speaking ministry at Onnuri Church in Seoul, which means Global Church.
Various nations like Thailand, Madagascar, Canada, Nigeria, and others are represented on any given Sunday at one of two services. The statement quoted above caused me to wonder (especially since my pastor is fond of calling us to pray for "this nation" to have it return to being a "Christian nation", what does he mean by nation? It also caused me to ask the very fair and real question is any nation actually Christian?
First I want to talk about the question of meaning. What does "nation" mean when mentioned from the pulpit? When referring to South Korea, one often means the ethnic group of people having originated from Korea, whether North or South. When my pastor used the word "we" in his phrase suddenly I had to recognize that I was not included in this statement about mourning. I was not part of "we", which when at church is a rather odd thing to hear. It felt as though the pastor was saying "I am different from you and morning in a different way than you do. I am a Korean and you are not a Korean so you cannot understand." I know that is not what he is saying at least consciously, but this is the cultural narrative a foreigner often gets coming from white privilege into a culture and society where they are constantly aware they are different, especially in connection with the word "we" or "uri".
If the stereotypical Korean definition of nationalism is based on ethnicity, my question is what place do ethnic-nationalistic concepts of belonging have in church? Clearly the Bible's answer is none:
"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."
- 1 Corinthians 12: 12-13
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
- Galatians 3:28
"Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."
-Colossians 3:9-11
Now notice it is not only ethnic distinctions Paul is talking about here, he also mentions slaves, or free men, which suggests a kind of status under civic law. All kinds of nationalism are guilty of making this mistake of distinguishing as such, whether it be on ethnic or civic grounds. Is God involved in national affairs? Surely he is. Should the church seek the good of the nation? Of course it should. The question I ask is not should the church do these things, or is God involved in these things but how is God involved in these affairs, and how therefore should the church think about and get involved?
One reason Paul repeats himself on the issue at least three times in the New Testament, and James also mentions this is because ethnic and class discrimination was a problem in the early church. I will suggest that it is still a problem as this kind of thing is part of the fallenness and brokenness of human beings. Focusing too much on a particular nation, social class, or other segment of the world and society in my mind seems to hinder one's ability to see the Gospel of grace as available to all. One might say "Of course the poor need the Gospel, but what about the rich? Are they any less deserving of God's grace? Of course Koreans need the Gospel, but what about the Japanese? Are they any less deserving?" God is concerned with the nations, not just one nation.
I think perhaps in an effort to promote our Christian values and tell ourselves how God has redeemed us we might neglect to try to look and see where we might easily fall into the sin of partiality, and especially in this context, when it comes to national identity. If Paul wrote three separate people groups, and confronted Peter on the issue we ought not to think that any of us could easily surpass them in our ability to avoid making distinctions.
Having said that, what are the implications for an English ministry in Seoul. An English ministry in Seoul will perhaps be more culturally diverse, including nations with a shorter history of cultural interaction than those Paul was dealing with and so more care is needed when attempting to address and include people from all the various nations represented.
The church is not for Koreans, or Canadians, or Thai, or Nigerians, the church is for Christians, of all kinds of backgrounds, and that should be the primary identity of the people being addressed on any given Sunday. It poses specific challenges to communicate this in a multi-ethnic church however if we make the Bible the touchstone and not parables from personal experience this should not be as big of a problem as one might think. Can we go overboard on being oversensitive and can we fail at trying to please God when trying to please everyone? Yes we can. That is why staying close to the Bible's narrative is safest, that way one has to argue with and wrestle with Scripture when one disagrees, rather than a pastor's personal emphasis on certain topics, or certain anecdotes or choice of words.
As to the question are there any Christian nations? I would have to say emphatically no. Theocracy as a political system was the corrupt system Christ came to abolish, the Pharisees attempted to uphold and used for their private gain, and partly what brought the conflict to a head resulting in Christ's crucifixion. - More on this in my next post.
Various nations like Thailand, Madagascar, Canada, Nigeria, and others are represented on any given Sunday at one of two services. The statement quoted above caused me to wonder (especially since my pastor is fond of calling us to pray for "this nation" to have it return to being a "Christian nation", what does he mean by nation? It also caused me to ask the very fair and real question is any nation actually Christian?
First I want to talk about the question of meaning. What does "nation" mean when mentioned from the pulpit? When referring to South Korea, one often means the ethnic group of people having originated from Korea, whether North or South. When my pastor used the word "we" in his phrase suddenly I had to recognize that I was not included in this statement about mourning. I was not part of "we", which when at church is a rather odd thing to hear. It felt as though the pastor was saying "I am different from you and morning in a different way than you do. I am a Korean and you are not a Korean so you cannot understand." I know that is not what he is saying at least consciously, but this is the cultural narrative a foreigner often gets coming from white privilege into a culture and society where they are constantly aware they are different, especially in connection with the word "we" or "uri".
If the stereotypical Korean definition of nationalism is based on ethnicity, my question is what place do ethnic-nationalistic concepts of belonging have in church? Clearly the Bible's answer is none:
"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."
- 1 Corinthians 12: 12-13
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
- Galatians 3:28
"Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."
-Colossians 3:9-11
Now notice it is not only ethnic distinctions Paul is talking about here, he also mentions slaves, or free men, which suggests a kind of status under civic law. All kinds of nationalism are guilty of making this mistake of distinguishing as such, whether it be on ethnic or civic grounds. Is God involved in national affairs? Surely he is. Should the church seek the good of the nation? Of course it should. The question I ask is not should the church do these things, or is God involved in these things but how is God involved in these affairs, and how therefore should the church think about and get involved?
One reason Paul repeats himself on the issue at least three times in the New Testament, and James also mentions this is because ethnic and class discrimination was a problem in the early church. I will suggest that it is still a problem as this kind of thing is part of the fallenness and brokenness of human beings. Focusing too much on a particular nation, social class, or other segment of the world and society in my mind seems to hinder one's ability to see the Gospel of grace as available to all. One might say "Of course the poor need the Gospel, but what about the rich? Are they any less deserving of God's grace? Of course Koreans need the Gospel, but what about the Japanese? Are they any less deserving?" God is concerned with the nations, not just one nation.
I think perhaps in an effort to promote our Christian values and tell ourselves how God has redeemed us we might neglect to try to look and see where we might easily fall into the sin of partiality, and especially in this context, when it comes to national identity. If Paul wrote three separate people groups, and confronted Peter on the issue we ought not to think that any of us could easily surpass them in our ability to avoid making distinctions.
Having said that, what are the implications for an English ministry in Seoul. An English ministry in Seoul will perhaps be more culturally diverse, including nations with a shorter history of cultural interaction than those Paul was dealing with and so more care is needed when attempting to address and include people from all the various nations represented.
The church is not for Koreans, or Canadians, or Thai, or Nigerians, the church is for Christians, of all kinds of backgrounds, and that should be the primary identity of the people being addressed on any given Sunday. It poses specific challenges to communicate this in a multi-ethnic church however if we make the Bible the touchstone and not parables from personal experience this should not be as big of a problem as one might think. Can we go overboard on being oversensitive and can we fail at trying to please God when trying to please everyone? Yes we can. That is why staying close to the Bible's narrative is safest, that way one has to argue with and wrestle with Scripture when one disagrees, rather than a pastor's personal emphasis on certain topics, or certain anecdotes or choice of words.
As to the question are there any Christian nations? I would have to say emphatically no. Theocracy as a political system was the corrupt system Christ came to abolish, the Pharisees attempted to uphold and used for their private gain, and partly what brought the conflict to a head resulting in Christ's crucifixion. - More on this in my next post.
Comments