Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #24: Luke 14:23

 

Luke 14:23  NIV

“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full.

This example is a bit unusual in that the text in question does not refute 'Christian' Nationalism, rather it is a text once used to support the suppression of dissenting voices within the Church through military force.  In other words, Luke 14:23 was used historically on behalf of a Church Militant.

Saint Augustine is the third most influential person in Church history after two people whose names you will undoubtedly recognize: Jesus and the Apostle Paul.  Most of Augustine's contributions were massively helpful to the Church, but there were exceptions {for instance: his negative view of sex even within marriage still ripples harming Christian marriages to this day}.  The most dangerous idea that Augustine embraced was that it was fitting and proper for the Roman Empire, newly on the side of Christianity thanks to Constantine, to force the Donatists in North Africa with whom he contended on an issue of polity to rejoin the Church.  His example of a militant Church authority would be used more than 1,000 years later to force Martin Luther to choose between rebellion and his understanding of God's Word.

The Donatist Controversy predated Augustine's time as the Bishop of Hippo, having arisen after the great persecution of Emperor Diocletian {303-305, 1/2 of all Early Church martyrs killed during those three years} when those who had refused to worship the Emperor (risking their lives) would not allow those who had recanted their faith under pain of death to return to the Church.  Augustine sided with those in favor of forgiveness, hoping to heal the rift.  After a pair of councils in N. Africa failed to reach a resolution, Augustine threw his weight behind the Emperor's willingness to use the army to enforce reconciliation.

This is one of the first examples of Christian on Christian violence in the name of unity, it happened in the very first generation in which Christian had civil/military power to wield against each other.

Was Jesus talking about Church unity in Luke 14:23?  Hardly, that's not even on the radar when considering the interpretation of this parable.  And yet, Christians (whether or not they deserve the 'Christian' caveat) have been willing through the centuries to wield scripture as a cudgel, backing it up with force, against those with whom they disagree.  The Inquisition, the burning at the stake of Jan Hus, the slaughter of the people of Magdeburg, the City Council of Zurich drowning Anabaptists, the Puritans at Plymouth hanging Quakers, and so on, all following in the footsteps of the anti-Christian notion that faith can be compelled by threats and violence, that it can be protected or saved at the point of a sword.

In case you're wondering, the use of violence against the Donatists didn't work (it never does).  Four centuries later when Islamic armies rolled across N. Africa the resistance to this invasion was weakened by a Church still divided against itself.  Would kindness and patience have worked to heal the rift?  That's the road not taken, we'll never know, but the use of force by Christians against Christians most certainly did not.

The Church's responsibility: evangelism and transforming discipleship

One of the numerous misconceptions about the Church, coming from both those outside of it and those within, is that the Church is a place where those who are already righteous (upright morally) come together.  This is not a new issue, the Early Church struggled with the question of whether or not the Church was intended to be a place for only saints to gather, or a place where both saints and sinners (i.e. those already redeemed/saved and those who had not yet committed themselves to Christ) together sought the kingdom of God.  Following the persecution instituted by Emperor Diocletian (AD 303-305, during which 1/2 of all those martyred prior to Constantine were killed); those who had resisted and risked their lives rejected as unworthy of being a part of the Church those who had capitulated in order to save themselves.  The courageous 'confessors' chose their own bishop, Donatus Magnus (see: Donatism), believing that only a bishop could forgive such a grave sin as 'lapsing' in the face of persecution, and that only a faultless clergy could administer valid sacraments.  In the end, the North African Church was split in two, never to heal, despite the attempts of two councils, the use of Constantine's soldiers to try to force a reunion, and even the power of St. Augustine's persuasion arguing that the Church was not supposed to consist of only of those who are already pure, but of those who long to be pure.
The Church was intended, by its founder Jesus, to be a place where both evangelism and discipleship take place concurrently side by side.  As a Church it is our responsibility to both share the Gospel with those who do not yet believe, and to help those who have committed themselves to following Jesus in their transformation process from someone dominated by sin to someone overflowing with the fruit of the Spirit.  Thus a healthy church will contain both those who are, hopefully, being called by the Spirit of God to accept the Gospel, and those who are being led by the Spirit of God to more and more closely adhere to the example and teachings of Jesus.  If a local church, or a denomination, fails to attempt/accomplish either task, the results will be grim.  A church without new converts is a church whose days are numbered, it may be a great place of fellowship, and excel at making disciples of those already there, but when they grow old and die, what then?  Likewise, a church that excels in "winning souls" through evangelism, but fails/neglects to disciple these converts, will result in a people of shallow faith where immorality is tolerated and the fruit of the Spirit in short supply.
It isn't easy for a local church, especially a small church with a bi-vocational pastor, or perhaps with a jack-of-all-trades solo pastor, to hit home runs in both evangelism and discipleship.  In my experience, most of them are better at discipleship than evangelism, better working with the people they already have than the people outside their doors.  Conversely, one of the criticisms of mega-churches is that due to their size it is easier for the numerous converts (certainly a good thing) to slip through the cracks, even with a large staff and small-group programs.  All churches have strengths and weaknesses, specialties and deficiencies in their ministries, but all are equally called by God to both bring lost sinners home and work to transform those redeemed by the blood of the Lamb into practitioners of righteousness.  We must share the Gospel, we must welcome outsiders and seek them out, and we must take the moral obligations of our people seriously, striving against both sins of commission and omission.  The challenge is immense, the kind of thing that keeps pastors up at night, the obstacles are plentiful and diverse, but the task once it is being accomplished it certainly worth whatever we put into it, and more.  Imagine a local church where new people are coming to Christ on a regular basis, where both those who have recently come to Christ and those who have journeyed with him for decades are encouraged and aided toward ever increasing Christ-likeness through righteous living and acts of service to others.  Nearly every pastor wants that for his congregation, books and workshops on how to achieve it are legion, the Spirit that makes it possible is willing.  Let us pray that we may be worthy of this high calling, my church and myself included.