Geo-Christianity: Back to the Future

By Dr. Chris Seiple on 25 July 2003

Something is going on in the Body. People of faith — those who worship the God of history, those who follow Christ, those who feel the Holy Spirit at work — are weary of the divide among them. They are sick of tired clichés and the retread reductionist arguments that accompany them. They yearn to understand, respect, and transcend deep differences within the Body. They long to rediscover the original holistic and global nature of the Body of Christ so that they can engage the world as it is, transforming it together as they do. They aspire to remember daily that success is merely obedience, and not necessarily achievement.

I make these observations based on my past (and first) two years working for an international faith-based nonprofit. In this capacity, our organization has stumbled into an intriguing nexus point of American Christians who do not want to be, and cannot be, defined by today's stereotypical labels. This article is an attempt to name the dynamics at play in a manner that brings new meaning to old ideas through new names. By understanding and wielding the threefold citizenship of Geo-Christianity, we can overcome that which divides us.

The Institute for Global Engagement

I work for the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE), an NGO founded by my father, Ambassador Robert A. Seiple (who is also the former president of World Vision). Two distinct conclusions from his time as the first-ever U.S. ambassador for International Religious Freedom (1998-2000) led to the founding of IGE. First, although religious freedom is the cornerstone of civil society — for where there is religious freedom so, too, is the right to gather, associate, and speak — it is not sufficiently woven into American foreign policy and national security. Second, people of faith, especially Christians, are sometimes part of the problem. Christians repeatedly compromise their faith because they practice poor engagement strategies that insult the culture or lack simple common sense. What mechanism, my father asked himself, exists to provide Christians with practical tools of engagement so that they might create a safe space, a level playing field, in which individuals made in the image of God could freely choose their own faith?

IGE was created to inspire and equip emerging leaders with faith-based methodologies of global engagement in order to develop sustainable environments for religious freedom worldwide. IGE exists to claim, embody, and implement Jesus' admonition to his disciples about living on the cruel edges of the world: "I am throwing you out like sheep among the wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" (Matt. 10:16). And while we continue to find stories of inappropriate methodologies that betray the message (and sometimes invite persecution), we have also stumbled into an unusual nexus point where people of faith hunger for both engagement and shrewdness. They want to make the timeless message timely. They want to be relevant to a world turned off by Christian stereotypes. Still being revealed, this nexus point exists somewhere between scholarship and service, between left and right (theologically and politically), between the moral imperative and realpolitik, between human rights and security, and between non-governmental and governmental.

Gen Z and the "low o"

So who are these people who are seeking to be more shrewd in their global awareness and, by extension, their prayer life, their tithing, and their daily actions? They share one basic trait: a practical theology. I call them "Generation Z," because they have come to the end of an old alphabet which they consider inadequate to describe the world in which they live. They are looking for a new alphabet to appropriately name the issues they face in order to engage and transform them. They are emerging leaders for whom age means nothing and relevance means everything.

They are pragmatic visionaries tired of meaningless labels. They are Democrats tired of Republicans being clueless on race, and Republicans tired of Democrats being clueless on national security. They are conservatives tired of liberals apologizing for America, and liberals tired of conservatives wrapping flag in faith. They are pacifists tired of just-war advocates so ready to use force, and just-war advocates tired of pacifists who have not truly considered Romans 13. They don't have time to ask, "What Would Jesus Do?" because they are more concerned with asking,"What is Jesus doing and can I be part of it?" They live in the eye of the paradox.

Theologically, they come from many faith traditions, many denominations. They are Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. Their defining characteristic is their belief in the empty tomb, that Christ has risen indeed. They celebrate deep differences as iron sharpens iron, but they rush to rejoice in the One who unifies. They are proponents of the "low o" — the lower-case orthodoxy true to the tenets of historic and catholic Christianity. Their theology touches the ground.

Down on divides

These folks are particularly down on the "Three-D" divide that keeps them apart. That divide, broadly speaking, is denominational, donor, and digital.

Denominational. This one will never go away and it is present all over the world. It is the notion, for example, among some Protestants that Catholics are not Christian. It is the feeling among Catholics that they are not "Christian" because that is an evangelical Protestant term. In some countries, it is one group taking on the authoritarian nature of its leader, making it much more difficult for believers from other Christian faith traditions to associate with them. In other countries, it is various groups refusing to work with the largest group of believers because it and its leader are perceived as "too cozy" with the government. These are real differences for real reasons. But they are still differences that impede Body oneness and, as a result, make the Body more susceptible to both division and persecution.

In my travels I have seen Christians treat each other poorly because of their political or theological contempt for each other. As an outsider looking in, I often ask fellow believers why they cannot work together, if only out of enlightened self-interest as a shared minority that the government seeks to persecute. "You are one Body!" I exhort. Yet, this is an easy conclusion for a religious-freedom advocate about something that happens "over there" and, by implication, not here. I returned from a trip once and noticed for the first time just how many different faith perspectives were represented in the churches of my town alone. What had these churches done to unite in an effort to demonstrate locally the worth of the gospel so that the truth might be revealed? And if all global engagement begins in someone's home, what had I done to promote such unity and relevance? Or was this what "successful" religious freedom looked like in a town founded by Welsh believers in the 1680s who had fled persecution? Oddly, my town might be the equal and opposite image of my persecuted friends' towns overseas, but with the same evil effect: comfortable division that prevents Body synergy — one caused by complacency, the other by contempt. Are we one Body or not?

Donor. This is a delicate issue. Clearly, donors have the right to fund whatever God puts upon their heart and it is the responsibility of the recipient to protect the donor's privacy. Yet, it is an easy thing to protect, even hoard, donors in the name of institutional self-preservation. Worse, this hoarding results in the duplication of efforts which, individually, have less impact than they would if the institutions worked together in the first place. If we're one Body, then we should always be open to multi-partner responses that require sharing and coordination, not to mention the possibility that one might defer to the organization with the best experience and/or leadership. This is no easy thing as ego quickly rears its individual and corporate heads. But if we're one Body, then sharing ought to come a bit more naturally than it currently does. Recently, a dear friend — who has been in the religious-freedom business much longer than we have — sent us a complete list of key donors and foundations that he had developed over his career. What uncommon selflessness! Yes, we are one Body.

Digital. This divide has two characteristics: technology and geography. Much has been written about the information technology gap between developing and developed countries and I will not belabor the point. As American Christians, however, we must address this divide as we strive to keep a two-way and transparent discussion open with our brothers and sisters in the developing world. This is important for two critical reasons. First, "Northern" or "Western" Christianity is often viewed as imperialism — that is, a vestige of past colonialism or a characteristic of the present-day Pax Americana and globalization. We kingdom Americans must not let perceptions — theirs or ours — get in the way of participating in, and acting as, the Body.

Second, this digital divide is also a geographic divide. As Philip Jenkins has made quite clear in his writings, the "Southern," "Non-Western," and comparatively more "conservative" church is growing much faster than the "Northern," "Western," and relatively "liberal" church. If we don't establish and actively maintain means of communication and partnership with the Body-hood overseas — soon empowered, in part, by new technologies that will simultaneously translate the communications of face-to-face conversations among believers thousands of miles apart — we quickly risk unnecessary tension within the body. We "Northerners" also risk irrelevance. The overseas Body is planting churches here to evangelize Americans. What do these trends mean for missions and relations within the Body? I'm not sure, only that we must have the means for a continuous conversation that is as courteous and Christ-centered as it is candid.

Geo-Christianity

This 3-D divide is dangerous and Gen Z is crying out for new ideas to bridge this chasm. Fortunately, we already have the answer. As usual, if you want a new idea, you should read an old book. Actually, read that first book of the Good Book, Genesis. Those first couple of chapters give us a view of what was intended. It is literally and figuratively an eco-system perspective on life where the whole is obvious and celebrated. It is the same whole of which God reminds us through his Son. For example, when Jesus is baptized, we are told that the heavens are ripped open, becoming one with the earth. When Jesus is crucified, the Holy-of-Holies is forever torn, no longer separating sacred and secular ground. (Mark actually uses the same verb to describe the ripping that holistically unites). And when Jesus gives the great commission, he first reminds his disciples that all things are under his authority. In other words, Jesus is already amidst every region and problem of the world, before we go. He is the God of geo-politics, art, economics, media, military, everything else, and missions.

The phrase "Geo-Christianity," then, is essentially a redundant reminder to Christians to take a holistic view — an interrelated, eco-system perspective — toward engaging the world because Jesus is sovereign over the whole world, sacred and secular, personal and professional. In other words, don't insulate yourself in a "Christian-kumbaya-cocoon" that has no impact in the world he has given you to steward!

This concept, however, also expects Christians to acknowledge and steward their threefold citizenship of nation, world, and kingdom. These citizenships are not mutually exclusive (despite the human tendency to reduce life to "one passport"); they are each gifts — tools really — from God that help us to understand holistically our complex world.

Stewarding citizenship

What does it mean to be a threefold citizen? It starts with a basic understanding of each citizenship and their respective responsibilities.

Kingdom. Such is our ultimate allegiance, our driving catalyst for action in this present world because heaven is not yet our home. As James said, "I will show you my faith by what I do." We might add, "We will show you our shrewdness, Lord, by how we do it."

Global. The embarrassing irony of our times is that globalization — that is, the standardization of global norms, especially regarding information technology and economics — is not something to fear but something that believers, as one global Body, should embrace, form, and inform! Although globalization is a largely secular phenomenon1, it needs a moral imperative to undergird it, a spiritual touchstone to guide it. We should not forget that Christ invented globalization with "Go ye." And we should be mindful that the church is the first international NGO. Not unlike present-day NGOs, the church is called to have influence at both governmental and grass-roots levels.

The key to operating successfully in a globalized world, however, is twofold. First, one must recognize that the coin of the realm is change, a coin that has two interrelated sides: integration and separation. Americans (at least prior to September 11th) love to be optimistic about integration and its primary mechanism, the information revolution. Yet as we are well aware now, the same Internet that unites families and issues around the country and world is the same Internet that facilitated al-Qaeda's terrorist cells. This twofold dynamic is also present in a global finance system that forces rule of law and fosters terrorism, a system that creates a wealth so great that it "lifts all boats" even as it is unevenly distributed, exacerbating conflict. Another example of this dynamic duo at play is the United Kingdom. Consider the simultaneous devolution of power whereby the United Kingdom is giving more power to both the Scottish Parliament and the European Union. Separation and integration are always present, always capable of being used for good or evil by someone. Focus on one side of the coin at the peril of the other.

Second, the security issues that we as humankind face today — e.g., environmental degradation, AIDS, public health, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction — are issues that no single entity, state or non-state, can solve on its own. It is not a question of if but when your organization/agency partners. And when it does, then you'd better know how to discern players as you participate in the process of partnership. It is a continuum that starts with the tactical collaboration of the moment (often based on naked self-interest) and ends with the strategic coordination of a long-term effort (usually based on shared norms and values).

National. This citizenship involves being accountable for and to the dominant political organization of the last 350 years, the state. Many talk about the demise of the state as the influence of non-state actors — from NGOs to terrorists — increases. But the state is still the organizing point of reference. At the end of the day, all non-state actors seek to influence states' behavior as well as the programs that inevitably take place on a sovereign state's soil. There's just no getting around it.

As Americans, we have a particular responsibility. We live in a country that possesses unprecedented power, especially military power. There are two characteristics to this power. First, it is schizophrenic. The power is torn between the founding freedoms that form and inform our self-perception (and, hopefully, our national objectives) and the desire of the greatest power to preserve its place in the world. Both are as true as they are natural. The second characteristic is that this power will be wielded, by the decision to act, the decision not to act, or merely through indecision. As the greatest military and political power on the planet, what the United States does or does not do impacts everything…whether we like it or not. What do we as kingdom and global citizens have to say about how that power is wielded?

Wielding Geo-Christianity

What does this actually look like, this stewarding of three citizenships so that we might be more holistic (as originally intended), overcome our divides, and have greater kingdom effect? I believe that discernment is absolutely crucial to exercising this threefold citizenship and that there is no better example of this than St. Paul. Consider the establishment of the first church in Europe, Philippi. Paul's first convert was a businesswoman (Lydia). He was thrown into jail by the town council for being Jewish, although the disturbance for which he was "guilty" was the silencing of a demon that recognized his kingdom credentials. When the earthquake freed him and his fellow prisoners, he demonstrated concrete love to the jailor by staying, thereby saving the jailor's life. And when the town council wished to send him on his way, only then did Paul let them know — in a very public manner — that he was a Roman citizen and that he had been wrongfully beaten. The town council was horrified, apologized, and asked that he go on his way. Yet, because of the shrewd manner in which Paul conducted himself, this nascent church was not left to die in its infancy.

Paul demonstrated the worth of the gospel to the jailor in a tangible way, such that the truth might be revealed (the jailor and his family became believers and were baptized by Paul). Most adroitly, Paul allowed himself to be beaten, I believe, so that the town council would not come down on the new church — for fear of Paul reporting that a Roman citizen had been illegally beaten and jailed — after he left. And the first member was a woman of means who could nurture the development of this church. In short, Paul had used his national (Hebrew), global (Roman), and kingdom citizenships to reveal Christ in a relevant, inspired, and sustainable manner. As individual believers who make up this fallen world's best hope — the local church — we are called to the same standard.

Ours is a complex world, no different, really, from past times. As Christians we are called not to be of this world but to live in and transform it. And we are called to do so as one Body in holistic fashion because that is how our Lord thinks, because he is already there, and because that is what was originally intended. By simply reminding ourselves of these basic facts — by seeking to name things properly and, perhaps, through the redundant reminder of Geo-Christianity — maybe we can move past the safety nets of preconstructed identities and resulting divides that not only take the awe out of an awesome God but also make his children irrelevant in this world.

Last updated 12 January 2009