THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

Shortly after the collapse of Communism it was
common in some circles to concur with Francis
Fukuyama's idea that we had reached "The End
of History". The great ideological battle was over
and liberal democracy had triumphed. 'Events'
would still happen, but Western civilization had
prevailed. In due course, its world view and values
would be accepted across the globe.

Fifteen years later this comforting notion looks
rather quaint and naive. Inthe mid 1990s Samuel
Huntington published his book THE CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD
ORDER. In essence, he believes that the new world
order consists of six to nine civilizational blocs
(depending on how one counts them). They are all
mutually incompatible and destined to clash from
time to time. The book made a big impact, especially
as its publication pre-dated the events of 11 September
2001 by several years and seemed prescient in its
vision. the book was also warmly spoken of in
evangelical circles. But perhaps what was lacking
was a thoroughgoing analysis of Huntington's
ideas in the context of the Kingdom of God - not so
much from a missiological point of view, but from the
perspective of Western Christianity. The question I
want to raise is this: by over-emphasising the
'Christian' credentials of the West, are we Western
Christians more likely to be drawn into civilizational
clashes than our non-western brothers and sisters
in Christ who may have grasped the radical nature
of the Kingdom of God better than us? In short: how
do we Western Christians define who we are?

Huntington's civilizations are all 'religious' in nature,
or at least ethno-religious. They are as follows:

WESTERN CHRISTIANITY: Europe, North America,
Australia, New Zealand and some parts of the pacific
rim.

EASTERN ORTHODOXY: Russia, Greece, Serbia and
the Caucasus region.

ISLAM: The Arab nations, South-West Asia, Central
Asia, Caucasus region, Indonesia and parts of the
Pacific rim.

SINIC: China and nations of the Chinese diaspora,
and Indo-China (Japan, Buddhist nations). Described
as Confucian which is a 'good fit' with the hierarchial/
collective nature of Communism.

HINDU: Indian sub-continent.

AFRICAN: Sub-Saharan Africa and Guyana region of
South America.

LATIN AMERICA: South and Central America (though
arguably this might be considered as linked to the
West).

These 'civilizations' each have a distinct identity, and
individuals within them find the core of their identity
from them. They view each other with varying degrees
of mutual incomprehension. Where their geographical
boundaries meet there may be physical conflict. For
example, in Bosnia three of these civilizations come
together: Western Christian (Croatian), Orthodox
Christian (Serbian) and Islam. Huntington's diagnosis
seems to explain the deep roots of the Bosnian war, as
well as many other wars across the world. Because
civilization touches on the individual's sense of identity
and kinship, these clashes can never be negotiated away
or resolved. Warring civilizations may reach a point of
exhaustion and call a truce, but that will not remove
the root cause of the conflict. The civilizations have
irreconcilable characters.

Besides conflict at the interfaces of civilizations, some
nations are described as 'cleft' or 'torn' nations, contain-
ing within themselves populations of different civil-
izations or nations unsure of their identity. Australia,
for example, is described as a 'torn' country; there has
been some internal debate as to whether Australia
should consider itself itself part of Asia (which it is
geographically) or whether it should look back to its
European origins and cultural links with the West. In
the 1990s this debate was bitter and acrimonious
because it touched the Australian sense of identity.
But it is an issue every society has to face: how do we
identify ourselves? Who do we identify with? What
values do we hold in common? More to the point,
how do Western evangelicals identify ourselves?
Who are our kin?

If a Muslim becomes a Christian, the civilizational
cost is self-evident; he becomes estranged from his
roots, and those he leaves behind are dismayed at
the 'civilizational defection' their loved one has
undergone. The cost of becoming a disciple of Jesus
is to leave behind the civilizations of this world and
find one's identity within the Kingdom of God. What
a tragedy if that cost is cheapened by being perceived
as a move westward rather than heavenward!

As a Western evangelical Christian, I struggle with a
double-mindedness borne out of an ongoing internal
conflict. I have been taught (and wished to believe)
that I am part of a 'Christian' nation - one historically
rooted in the gospel and blessed by God as a result.
Consequently there is little or no civilizational cost
involved in becoming a Christian. And if 'Christian'
values and morality have been eclipsed in society,
it is merely a temporary aberration which Christians
should strive to reverse. This would concur with
Huntington's analysis of Western civilization as being
'Christian'. But in our stage of God's strategy, the
Bible narrative has shifted from the limited concept
of a nation-state of God's people to something much
more dynamic with global and cosmic implications:
the Kingdom of God. The promises to Abraham to
bless all the nations (Genesis 2) are mediated via
David's kingdom into Jesus' breathtakingly expansive
vision of the Kingdom. It is tempting to draw flattering,
but deceptive, parallels with the ancient kingdom of
Israel and our own nation. The biblical narrative has
since moved on. To use the adjective 'Christian' in
national terms is sub-biblical in its understanding of
the sweep of scripture. The model Jesus gave us was of
leaven, not a pure nation - a diaspora of God's people
encompassing the earth. This mandate enables us to
engage postively with our culture and national life
while avoiding the dangers of politicising the church.
If we slip into politics with a 'nation' agenda, we will
be seen, not merely as creatures of the political right,
but even of the ultra far-right, with disastrous
consequences for our witness to the nations.

The other half of my divided Western soul is deeply
and profoundly uncomfortable with this identification
of the West with Christ. Firstly, there are more Christians
outside the West who are 'blessed' with a clear civil-
ization vs. Kingdom conflict and blessed with a clearer
sense of 'kin' within the community of the saints.

Secondly, there is little to commend the gospel of Christ
within the history of the West's dealings with other
civilizations. It has proved itself little better than any
other self-regarding, avaricious empire - albeit with
the leaven of a godly diaspora who have made a postive
contribution to the history of the host Western nations.
Huntington quotes a speech by Malcolm Rifkind who,
as the then Defence Secretary of the UK, set about
defining the roots of European civilization and completely
omitted any reference to Christianity. I shudder to think
what Western civilization would look like if it had been
left to its pagan origins.

Thirdly, and most crucially, any over-identification of
the Kingdom of God with any of these civilizations makes
a 'this-worldly' attitude among believers inevitable - an
attitude which has deeply corroded the soul of Western
evangelical Christianity. Our Western civilization has
mired us in compromise, and we have lost any sense of
just how radical the Kingdom of God truly is. I suspect
that, as a Christian, I need to 'defect' from the West in the
same way as a member of any other civilization needs to
if they are to come to Christ. The people of the Kingdom
of God are defined exclusively by the Gospel. They are
our true kin, Jesus is our King, and we are the poorer
for our compromise.

Fourthly, a warning: if Huntington's analysis is correct,
these civilizations will clash when the opportunity arises.
Given the 'religious' character of civilizations, if evangelical
Christians over-identify with the West, we may find
ourselves leading the charge into conflict. What price the
gospel then? Imagine a world fifty years from now,
struggling to come to terms with the aftermath of a
civilizational war in which the West was a protagonist.
When attention turns to the role played by the evangelical
church in the pre-war period, will the conclusion be that
the church fanned the flames of conflict, or that it modelled
grace to a world bent on war?

This article was first published in the February 2006 edition of
'The Briefing' (issue No 329). The publishers can be contacted as follows;
in Australia http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
or in the UK at http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/

Post Script: 2nd May 06. A lengthy rebuttal to this article of mine
appears as a letter from Stephen Hurworth of Perth in Australia in
the "Interchange" section of the May 2006 issue of "The Briefing",
issue 332. He's entitled to take a crack at me, but I stand by my
article.


tagline: Clash of Civilizations. Clash of Civilisations. Religious Conflict.
Evangelical Church. Kingdom of God. Kin. Kinship. Identity.

THE BEST SWIFTYPETE BLOG!

When I started this blog last August I thought
I'd chosen a pretty good blog-name. I figured
it was original and sounded quite techno savvy
for a middle-aged "info-peasant"! I was keen
to create a really interesting blog.

Of course I quickly realised that "swiftypete" was
NOT original. Others had also thought of it much
to my chagrin. There is a Pittsburgh Steelers fan
[well done on winning the NFL Superbowl by
the way] called swiftyPETE and an aussie film
reviewer known as Swiftypete - with a capital
'S' - [whose taste is very different from mine].*

I don't want to prejudice my chances of yet having
exclusive use of this name but I think my ambitions
are much more modest now - I can aim to be one of
the top 100 swiftypete blogs!!!

*postscript: 12/12/2006; I have written the occasional
film review myself to wind up my rival! Remember my
name is all lower case!

GENE RODDENBERRY &
THE GENESIS STORY!

March 2006's thought from my Agnostic
calendar is: "We must question the story
logic of having an all-knowing, all power-
ful God, who creates faulty Humans, and
then blames them for his own mistakes."
Gene Roddenberry. Contributed by Larry
Reyka.

The point at issue here is whether the literature
of Genesis "coheres" as a story - we are not
discussing if it is 'true' but merely if it hangs
together as a story.
The teaching point of Genesis is that God created
all things and that the Creation is good....really,
really good.....the earth, food, drink, sex are all
really good, people are wonderful creatures with
amazing talents. And God said it was all good
back there in the Genesis story long before the pagan
philosophers of ancient Greece came and distorted
our thinking on these things. Creation is something
to be celebrated.

But something happened to change this idyllic
situation and the Genesis story attempts to
explain what that was and why the world we see,
is the way it is.
If you think the Genesis account is a quaint tale
about a couple, a talking snake and an apple you
have missed the point of this story. When God
commands Adam & Eve not to eat of the tree of
the knowledge of good & evil we are confronted
with the question "will they [and do we] seek to
self determine what is good and what is evil -
or will they allow God to be God? Do they
want God to be God? The notion that we
could be like God is floated and doubt in his
goodness introduced. Last month we discussed
"certainty and doubt" with Voltaire and concluded
that it is absurd for humans to claim certainty -
because that would require having the perspective
of God. And yet we do claim to have this ability
and the certainty which comes with it, as absurd
as it is.

They make choices which fracture their relation-
ship with God, each other and with Creation. Setting
the story in the idyll of the Garden of Eden indicates
that they were not set up to fail. But we should also
see that this is not just their story, it is my story too
...I have made the same choices in life. This is my
narrative written there - and it is your narrative too.
We broke faith with God when we decided he was
irrelevant and that we could replace him. Isn't that
the Genesis story?

God is no more 'blameworthy' for evil than one could
say that the murder of Abel by his brother Cain was
the fault of brotherhood - which is what they were
actually created for. We were not set up to fail, but
we do. Genesis describes "the Cain in me" and our
breaking of faith with each other. It seems to me that
the story of Genesis does "cohere" but more than that
it holds up a mirror to us, and it describes the common
human experience. I have murdered people in my heart,
I have taken satisfaction in the misfortune of others,
I have wished evil was a little darker than it already is.
The Genesis story logic holds up a mirror to my soul
and reveals a face I don't show anyone else - that's why
I don't just believe it "coheres" but that it has the
'ring of truth' about it!

Next month we are invited by Einstein to consider
God's interaction with evil - because he does have
a plan to confront it and to restore his Creation....
how else could a God of love respond? In Genesis
there is a promise about a "seed" - a future hope born
of mankind. More anon.

tagline. Calendar of Doom.