god and country
Supposedly speaking about religion or politics do not make for polite dinner conversation. Perhaps because it causes some to become defensive, which causes others to become uneasy, which causes the defensive folks to attack with more tenacity, which causes those who are uneasy to feel threatened, and, as Vonnegut says, “so it goes.”
The only thing worse than religion or politics is religion and politics. Tangle these two things together and you may just be in for it. Or you may have the foundations of an empire. It is interesting to note that since the inception civilizations, countries, kingdoms and empires, there has been the entanglement of religion and politics.
In ancient Egypt there was a boy king named King Tut. He lived an ruled for roughly a decade in the 2nd Century in the North African Empire. His full name was Tutankhamun. This was more than the name his mother used when he was in trouble, it was a name with deep religious significance. The name, literally translated, meant “The living image of Amun,” or “He is who is like [the god] Amun.” Amun was a one of the chief gods in Egyptian Mythology.
For the Egyptians, the king of their Empire was not just a person, he was the image of god. If you wanted to see who god was, go see the king. This was an important idea. For the people of Egypt when the king issued and edict, it was not just a concept of a man, it was the word of god. In Egypt religion and politics collided.
The Romans chose to do the same thing. Octavian, who later was named Augustus, told the world his Great Uncle, and the Caesar who ruled before him, Julius was a god. This then made Augustus a son of god. From this point on, Caesars had the title, DIVI FILIUS, or son of god. One Caesar, Domitian, demanded that all people address him in written and spoken word as “Lord and God.” The myth was told that the god Jupiter indwelt the Caesars. They were not just Romans they were gods.
Why is this? Why do empires feel it necessary to connect the two in the most overt ways? One could argue that it is not because of one’s religious convictions. Roland H. Worth, in his book The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse & Roman Culture, said that announcing Caesar as a god “functioned as a religiously garbed expression of political loyalty to Rome.”
For the ancient people, to cloak politics in religion was a powerful tool to win the hearts of their people. Those in power knew that religion involved the heart and soul of a person in ways that politics cannot. Rather than try to engage them with simple political ideology, they chose to use religious propaganda to win the loyalty of their people.
Religion also united the people. Citizens from all over the empires would gather together for large festivals honoring the god-kings. People from every class, race, language, background, region would unite under the banner of the gods. Whatever your political allegiance, you could put that aside in order to honor the god-king.
Religion was powerful. Political leaders gained the power and loyalty they needed to strengthen their empires, build their military, and amass wealth on the back of religion. This idea that existed in the ancient world, is still alive and well today. It is rare in the West to believe our political leaders to be gods. If anything, we would have an easier time convincing people that they are the devil. However, consider the deep connection that religion and politics still have.
In the last U.S. Presidential election, some pundits said that the losing candidate may have faired better if he used more “religious language” persuading more people of faith to vote for him. Consider the winning candidate. He not only used religious language, he quoted Bible verses, but substituted the USA in place of the name of Jesus. While he never claimed to be a god, he insinuated that the United States can serve as the person of Jesus. This is powerful rhetoric. It is religious rhetoric used to gain the loyalty of citizens.
In politics today we see many who invoke the name of Jesus or speak of the Kingdom of Heaven in order to gain loyalty, further their own political means, and/or excuse their horrendous actions. While they do not point to themselves as gods, they point to American idealism as “Christian” or claim they have the guidance of “the Almighty God.”
Suddenly politics and religion are in a familiar place. Intertwined in a way they never should be. It is dangerous to mix politics and religion. However, we move into a more dangerous place when we mesh the Kingdom of Heaven with any Empire of this world. Empires are not necessarily evil, but they must never be mistaken for the Kingdom of God.
As Greg Boyd says in his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, the Kingdom of Heaven is not an improvement of the kingdoms of this world. Indeed, they are not the same, and never will be. Jesus says they are not from the same place. If we want to be truly religious, our devotion will be first and exclusively to the Kingdom of God. Our true religion will then reveal itself in our concern for orphans and widows.
The concepts of religion and politics are so connected in our world that one finds it almost impossible to speak about politics without religion. It feels empty, and lonely. Maybe it is time to have the conversation about how each can have their rightful place, just do not do it over dinner.
The only thing worse than religion or politics is religion and politics. Tangle these two things together and you may just be in for it. Or you may have the foundations of an empire. It is interesting to note that since the inception civilizations, countries, kingdoms and empires, there has been the entanglement of religion and politics.
In ancient Egypt there was a boy king named King Tut. He lived an ruled for roughly a decade in the 2nd Century in the North African Empire. His full name was Tutankhamun. This was more than the name his mother used when he was in trouble, it was a name with deep religious significance. The name, literally translated, meant “The living image of Amun,” or “He is who is like [the god] Amun.” Amun was a one of the chief gods in Egyptian Mythology.
For the Egyptians, the king of their Empire was not just a person, he was the image of god. If you wanted to see who god was, go see the king. This was an important idea. For the people of Egypt when the king issued and edict, it was not just a concept of a man, it was the word of god. In Egypt religion and politics collided.
The Romans chose to do the same thing. Octavian, who later was named Augustus, told the world his Great Uncle, and the Caesar who ruled before him, Julius was a god. This then made Augustus a son of god. From this point on, Caesars had the title, DIVI FILIUS, or son of god. One Caesar, Domitian, demanded that all people address him in written and spoken word as “Lord and God.” The myth was told that the god Jupiter indwelt the Caesars. They were not just Romans they were gods.
Why is this? Why do empires feel it necessary to connect the two in the most overt ways? One could argue that it is not because of one’s religious convictions. Roland H. Worth, in his book The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse & Roman Culture, said that announcing Caesar as a god “functioned as a religiously garbed expression of political loyalty to Rome.”
For the ancient people, to cloak politics in religion was a powerful tool to win the hearts of their people. Those in power knew that religion involved the heart and soul of a person in ways that politics cannot. Rather than try to engage them with simple political ideology, they chose to use religious propaganda to win the loyalty of their people.
Religion also united the people. Citizens from all over the empires would gather together for large festivals honoring the god-kings. People from every class, race, language, background, region would unite under the banner of the gods. Whatever your political allegiance, you could put that aside in order to honor the god-king.
Religion was powerful. Political leaders gained the power and loyalty they needed to strengthen their empires, build their military, and amass wealth on the back of religion. This idea that existed in the ancient world, is still alive and well today. It is rare in the West to believe our political leaders to be gods. If anything, we would have an easier time convincing people that they are the devil. However, consider the deep connection that religion and politics still have.
In the last U.S. Presidential election, some pundits said that the losing candidate may have faired better if he used more “religious language” persuading more people of faith to vote for him. Consider the winning candidate. He not only used religious language, he quoted Bible verses, but substituted the USA in place of the name of Jesus. While he never claimed to be a god, he insinuated that the United States can serve as the person of Jesus. This is powerful rhetoric. It is religious rhetoric used to gain the loyalty of citizens.
In politics today we see many who invoke the name of Jesus or speak of the Kingdom of Heaven in order to gain loyalty, further their own political means, and/or excuse their horrendous actions. While they do not point to themselves as gods, they point to American idealism as “Christian” or claim they have the guidance of “the Almighty God.”
Suddenly politics and religion are in a familiar place. Intertwined in a way they never should be. It is dangerous to mix politics and religion. However, we move into a more dangerous place when we mesh the Kingdom of Heaven with any Empire of this world. Empires are not necessarily evil, but they must never be mistaken for the Kingdom of God.
As Greg Boyd says in his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, the Kingdom of Heaven is not an improvement of the kingdoms of this world. Indeed, they are not the same, and never will be. Jesus says they are not from the same place. If we want to be truly religious, our devotion will be first and exclusively to the Kingdom of God. Our true religion will then reveal itself in our concern for orphans and widows.
The concepts of religion and politics are so connected in our world that one finds it almost impossible to speak about politics without religion. It feels empty, and lonely. Maybe it is time to have the conversation about how each can have their rightful place, just do not do it over dinner.