 |
| Athletes and their national flags at the London Olympics 2012 |
The Scottish referendum, shortly to take place as I write, has
evoked a wide range of reactions, polarised into the desire to be independent
and the desire to remain within a larger entity that potentially offers greater
security.
And around the world, there has been a trend over the past
quarter-century for specific cultural or ethnic groups to assert their
independence. The former Russian federation and the former Yugoslavia split
into separate states, for example – with Russia now apparently regretting the
fact and exerting pressure on some. There is also a growth of tribalism in
larger states, as factions and single-issue political groups clamour –
sometimes violently – for their cause. Disenchanted with globalisation, in
which every national group becomes increasingly dependent on others and
especially on multi-national corporations and financial institutions, there is
a grass-roots longing for smaller, more self-contained units.
There can be no Christian or biblical “position” on such
matters except, perhaps, where powerful leaders or groups cause mayhem in
pursuing their dreams of either independence or dominance. The issues are
usually complex and in a democracy each person must vote according to their
reading of the current and future prospects. But whatever the outcome in
Scotland, there are some biblical principles that can determine the way anyone
thinks about nationhood.
The first is that nationhood was invented by God. Paul says
as much in Acts 17:26, echoing the Old Testament view in Deuteronomy 32:8. The
interpretation of both is problematic because the text is unclear. Paul was
speaking to Athenians who believed they were the only true Greeks. He punctured
their pride by pointing out that they and everyone else had a common ancestor.
And the “exact places” could be national boundaries (but they are often changed
by conquest, and is God really behind all military expansion?), or perhaps more
likely the natural boundaries of land and sea.
The Deuteronomy passage refers specifically to the ancient
Israelites, and the Hebrew is so confusing that the original Greek translation
of the passage (along with one of the Dead Sea Scrolls) introduces the idea of
guardian angels. It’s not a verse to hang a doctrine on.
God also invented internationalism. Despite the Old
Testament focus on gaining a specific territory and maintaining the purity of
Israelite religion by not importing practices from other nations, its writers
are not entirely xenophobic.
Refugees and immigrants are to be welcomed and supported,
not sent packing, because God loves them too (Deuteronomy 10:18f, 24:17f;
Isaiah 56:1-8).The mission of the Israelites was to be a blessing to all
nations, in our terms to take God’s message to them (Genesis 18:18; Isaiah
55:4f). Jonah was sent to preach to a nation often considered Israel’s enemy.
Indeed, intense national pride – the arrogance typified by the Athenians – is
clearly anathema to God (Deuteronomy 7:7-9; Ezekiel 16 offers an allegory of a
nation nurtured and cared for only to grow proud and self-willed).
In the New Testament Jesus drew out and applauded the faith
of a gentile woman (Mark 7:24-30) and a Samaritan woman (John 4). We are given
a vision of a multinational church which transcends political boundaries on
earth (Galatians 3:28) and in heaven (Revelation 7:9) and a hint (no more) that
mega government – the whole world or a large part of it coming under the
control of a single group – is a bad thing.
And above all human structures lies the supreme mystery of God’s
providence and ultimate sovereignty over the nations and their histories. He
seems to guide the hand of history (Isaiah 44:28 – 45:7) yet also call the
nations to account for their actions (Matthew 25:31f).
So while in practical terms we do have to decide how practical
governance is devolved to national, regional and local leaders, there is a
biblical mandate never to lose sight of the bigger picture: God’s vision of a trans-national
co-operative society for whom political boundaries and cultural differences are
secondary to a concern for the common good. Even if we do continue to cheer for
our own sports team.
Think and talk
1. What are the
causes of “tribalism” or factions in large societies?
2. How can we promote
greater unity among disparate peoples?3. Why has racial or cultural discrimination continued even within some churches?
4. Make a list of all the potential enrichments which can result from exposure to different cultures and customs.
© Derek Williams 2014
