That is a good point about Nebuchadnezzar. I certainly wouldn’t want anyone to think that God doesn’t interact with all of His creation.

Clearly God has expectations for all with respect to his character. Romans 1 talks about the fact that everyone is accountable. Cornelius prayers were being heard and his treatment of the poor is singled out by the angel as something pleasing to God.

In Solomon’s dedication of the Temple he specifically asks that God hear the prayers of the foreigners who come to the Temple to pray. All those are true but I don’t see that they change the mission of the church or the focus.

My observation, and I think it still stands, is that the church has an obligation and we as believers have an obligation and I only balk when we start talking about federal and governmental influence.

May I suggest a read of China Africa in the June Fast Company? It is a great read and it may help show why I think governmental involvement is a bad idea. I have begun a blog discussion on the topic that I will add to in the future.

I get calls regularly and people referred to us from local governmental agencies. Which would you prefer? Churches referring people to government or government referring people to churches?

Your point about the King of Ninevah is a good one, but it’s still interesting that the reason Ninevah was in jeopardy in the first place was b/c of its foreign policy — particularly towards Israel. As for Jonah not going to the king…well…he barely went to the people! It was providential that the message found its way to the king who was able, by the way, to legislate a measure that spared his entire citizenry.

As for Nebuchadnezzar, I’m thinking more of the part where he goes crazy for a season. Daniel warns him that he could be spared if he would only show mercy towards the poor (4:27). Here, again, is a pagan king being held accountable by YHWH for the way he (and his kingdom) treats poor people. The understanding in Babylon would have been that if the king was reformed, his government would be reformed.

I agree that God calls all of humanity but the discussion centered on the federal and governmental involvement.

I just pointed out that Jonah didn’t go to the King, it actually filtered up to him and he wasn’t sent to reform government but to announce impending doom.

With Nebuchadnezzar you have Daniel as the head magician and men working within the government but no where do I remember them being called to reform said government. This relates to our discussion about the Kingdom and what we are responsible for.

Anyway, it is gone and it was very well written, it probably would have brought a tear to your eye.

Your approach to the Old Testament prophets begs a question: Why would YHWH criticize pagan nations for acting like…well…pagans…unless he wanted them to be and do more?

And I could go with you easier on this if not for that pesky prophet Jonah. He was sent to one of those other lands. And there’s Nebuchadnezzar. And several other places we could look at.

As for the church equaling the Kingdom of God. I would say that portions of the church are in the Kingdom. But the Kingdom of God is much bigger than just the church. Thus, I cannot advocate a one-to-one correspondence. For more on this, I would recommend reading Dallas Willard’s DIVINE CONSPIRACY.

I just don’t get much chance to discuss these issues and as you may have noticed this one is near and dear to me so when you asked I felt compelled to answer.

If these posts are seen as negative or detrimental to a productive conversation I will simply read your thoughts. I just want to make sure I am showing proper respect.

I certainly didn’t think I was making a serious charge, I think we all at times misuse scripture. I know that I have and probably still do. I hope that I am always open to others POV.

My point was that God had harsh criticisms about other nations not for other nations. They were not written for those other nations was what I was trying to say and since the prophets were not sent to those other lands those judgments could be seen as warnings to God’s people about themselves, not as any statement or warning to others.

Now you do bring up something very interesting and that is the fact that God was very interested in seeing justice in all aspects of Israel but if I’m not mistaken Israel was a theocracy and was to show the character of God.

So I’m not sure God calling a theocracy with Him as head is comparable to God rebuking any other organization. That may be where we see things differently. It is my view that the church is called his body with Christ as the head. So for me an apples to apples comparison is how does the church treat these people.

I’m not sure how much you want but you did ask for more substantiate my claims so I will try and do that.

Colossians 1:15-23 is as good a place as any to begin. Jesus is the head of the body, the church, and while clearly the text says all things were created by him which includes thrones, powers, rulers and authorities there is still a distinction made between the body that he is the head of and everything else.

Paul in Romans 9, 10 and 11 seem to show that believers today are grafted into Israel. We are the wild olive branches. Hebrews 3 and 4 show that Jesus is our High Priest and we also know he is in the line of David. Why are these points important to make if not to show that Jesus is the head of God’s people?

The promise was that David’s line would produce a King. Herod wanted to destroy Jesus because he viewed him as a threat. The prophesy that got him said that “for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.” So Jesus is both the High Priest and King of God’s people. The book of Romans shows that all those who believe are added.

That is why I hold to my position that the church is the Kingdom of God. I think the Bible shows that two Kingdoms’ exist today. Ephesians 2:2 mentions this other Kingdom. Satan offers this Kingdom to Jesus when he is tempting him. How could it be a temptation if there are not two different bodies?

I do want to be clear that this is simply a foreshadowing for when the Kingdom is fully restored. That is why the church should be all the things that the prophets point out. We are ambassadors of this kingdom. We are saying this is who God is.

As for Israel’s solution being governmental, Amos’ indictment begins with a reference to slavery and a biting comment on the state of the courts of law which no longer dispensed impartial justice (2:6). Courts of law are part of the governmental/political system. Furthermore, Israel’s religious observations had become totally divorced from a true sense of morality and ethical behavior (v.8). This divorce between religious practice and everyday morality had resulted in an overall corruption of society.

God was concerned that an innocent person could no longer get a fair trial b/c the system had become corrupt, and he was calling for the nation (including the governmental and political leaders) to rectify the situation – presumably not by abandoning government and politics but by informing them with their moral and religious beliefs.

If I’ve misused these verses (a rather serious charge), please substantiate that claim a bit further if you will.

As for your understanding that the church equals the Kingdom of God, I think that’s a rather narrow view which discounts both the realm of God’s creation and the prevenient/common grace which he bestows and is at work among all people.

I am glad to hear of your new website and eagerly look forward to seeing how God uses your new endeavor to help those who have been marginalized by our society.

It seems to me that Amos was sent by God to rebuke the people of Israel. God’s people. While he points out the judgment on other nation no where does he express the idea that Israel is to get involved in those nations governmental affairs.

They were sent to God’s people not those other nations. In fact it seems to me that he was sent to point out that copying those other nations because they are successful is a bad idea since they are destined for destruction. If my understanding is correct Israel was doing at peace and doing very well economically.

I agree that the problem was that they were neglecting, ignoring and taking advantage of those who were less fortunate but I don’t see anywhere where the remedy is governmental or federal other then the fact that these were God’s chosen people.

I would say an appropriate comparison would be the church today and materialism. Take a look at the spending habits and see what percentage is aimed at the poor and needy. I think a proper comparison would be how we measure church success today. Often times by the size of a structure not the foot print in the community.

I do think that it is totally within the context to say this is individual and church based because I see the church as the Kingdom of God and don’t expect any other group to act accordingly.

I have gone so far as to set up a network on Ning dedicated to inspiring, education and giving people tools so they can do just what Amos expected God’s people to do, show love for the less fortunate. It is handsandfeet.ning.com and you can take a look if you would like to better understand my position.

Definitely got my attention and made me think. Good challenge. I’m processing how I can respond.