The Seven Churches of Asia Respond to John's Apocalyptic Letter

 

Setting of the Letter: Upon receiving St. John’s apocalyptic missive to the seven churches of Asia in the mid-90s AD, those churches decided to formulate a collective response.  Delegates, two from each church, were sent to Ephesus to discuss the letter and compose a reply to John, their beloved elder imprisoned by the Roman authorities on the Isle of Patmos.  The council listened to testimonies from Nicolaitans, who gave tearful descriptions of their exclusion from certain Christian communities.  Activists were brought in to explain their involvement in social justice.  While disagreeing among themselves, they nevertheless were able to formulate a rejection of John’s theology.

[This is a fictional and satirical letter, of course, intended to highlight current differences among those in the Christian tradition—whether actually Christians or not—on the issue of Church and State, culture, and society relations.  Certain groups in John’s day, claiming to represent Christianity, held views diametrically opposed to Christian doctrine and ethics.  Also, today, certain groups continue to oppose Christian doctrine and ethics even though a book like John’s Apocalypse was accepted into the Christian canon.  Such groups would rather leave John in exile on the little island of Patmos than associate with him, let alone emend their ways.]

Dear John,

Thank you for your very interesting and creative letters to each of us and the apocalyptic visions that followed.  We very much enjoyed your engagement with earlier texts in Scripture and use of the apocalyptic genre to make your point—theological discourse is often too dry.  That being said, we have some concerns with the overall view that you have taken about our engagement with the state, culture, and society as Christians and as churches.  We have disagreement among ourselves about those concerns, and so we are writing openly about our differences.  Yet we are in agreement that a more reasonable and kinder approach to the state, culture, and society should characterise Christianity.

First, we should state what we did understand your position to be in your letter.  You do give some room for different responses, depending on what really is the state’s or culture's challenges to us at any one point in history.  We think that this is advisable as well, since the church may be permitted or even favoured at one point in history and disfavoured or even persecuted at another.  Your overall view, however, is decidedly negative.  You see the general trend in history to be towards an apocalyptic, tyrannical persecution of the church that only an intervention by God can withstand.  We could decipher your symbolism to see that you apply this to the current Roman government and to Roman economic practices.

Part of our group found this concerning, not necessarily because they disagree with you but because they do not want the church to become political.  They see a separation between the spiritual and the political in distinct terms.  Sermons from the pulpit should not endorse or oppose certain government persons or policies, they say.  Their reasons are that this will also divide the church into political camps, it will make government funding for church projects in education or charity work difficult or impossible, and it will even lead to further persecution.  They also believe that the church should pray for the government and support it as a God-given authority.  This is their understanding of ‘render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’  In a word, there is no place for politics in the Church.

Another group in our meeting took a very different position.  They were quite in agreement with you that we as Christians need to respond to the government’s policies and actions.  They do not, however, think that the best approach is to write a ‘Christian’ view on some matter so much as a human rights view of social justice.  We do not, they say, need to divide Christians and others over issues of social justice.  In fact, some said, they thought that the Church has some catching up to do on matters of social justice in society.  Mentioning Jesus in such an exclusive and exalted way, as you do throughout your letter, shuts out so many good and honest citizens who have high ethical standards.  We need a united front, and Christian exclusivity is a problem.  Could we not rather, they suggested, speak of ‘human rights,’ such as equality, life, freedom, and so forth?  This universalism could even include the atheists, such as the Epicureans, as well as other religions.  They would not want to formulate Christian identity around dogma but rather see Christianity as one way among others to speak of a universal ‘spiritual experience’ of the divine and as one voice among many that supports universal human rights.

There was a smaller group in our meeting, although the most vocal.  It presented a third position.  While agreeing with the last mentioned group in their opposition to uniquely Christian views, they rejected the universal approach to rights.  They rather wanted to identify justice with respect to the issues facing particular groups of people.  In this way, they almost agreed with the first group noted in this letter, given its desire to formulate a uniquely Christian rather than universal view.  However, they quickly took the same approach to every group that falls out of favour with the current Roman government or any authority.  For example, they did not want to include the barbarian because of some universal justice concept but simply because the barbarian is entitled to his or her own version of justice.  They have their truth and justice whether or not it agrees with the Roman view—or the Christian view.  This group found your railings against ‘Jezebel’ and the so-called ‘Nicolaitans,’ with their open views on sexual ethics, to be offensive.  They also found your comment about a ‘synagogue of Satan’ and your hyper-negative view of culture to be bigoted and insensitive.  Identifying the Roman emperor with the Antichrist was surely extreme, offensive, and needlessly provocative.  This progressive group wants to move ahead in relations with culture and with the state by charting a moral path of diversity, equity, and inclusion.  Like the previous view, it calls for understanding Christian identity not in terms of religious beliefs but in terms of moral action understood as social justice.

While we might go on at a greater length about our meeting, we think that this brief overview of our three different positions might be enough to convey to you that we reject your letter to us, whatever our reasons.  After these discussions, we took a vote on whether or not to petition the government for your release from exile on Patmos.  The majority vote was not to do so.  Should you be released, we believe that your views would be detrimental for the churches themselves and for their relationship to their municipalities, and probably for the church everywhere in relation to the Roman government. 

We have, furthermore, resolved the following:

There is to be no more prophesy (and especially no more apocalypticism) in the church;

Theology and ethics will not be based on the interpretation of Scripture, which is too ‘Christian’ and also divisive as we have discovered we have different interpretations;

Theology and ethics will be based on a common understanding of social justice with others in society—they are not to be stated as uniquely Christian;

Consequently, we will, like the Stoics, simply speak of ‘God’ (and by this they really mean ‘Reason’) and not explain what we mean by this, and we will no longer identify God with Jesus as that is so specific a definition that it will completely divide Christians from others in society;

Social justice will be understood as ‘affirming’ the views and practices of others, without judgements on their views and practices.  We will celebrate the diversity among us, including the sexual practices of the Nicolaitans, rather than push for some sort of unity, and we will make tolerance and inclusivity the gold standard for our communities, including eating meat sacrificed to idols as we participate with all faiths in religious devotion;

As evangelism is too confrontational a practice, calling for people to believe exclusively in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross for all our sins and so be saved.  We prefer inclusivity, and so we will henceforth cease from all proselytism;

There will be no preaching in churches that touches on exclusive beliefs of Christians or anything political;

However, the churches are encouraged to back social causes that others in society also back.  Christians are encouraged not to do so as Christians so much as citizens concerned about social justice.  Activism is encouraged, but only activism supported by all oppressed groups.

We expect that, in taking these approaches, we will be able to avoid being singled out as ‘Christians’ and therefore not be persecuted.  While our decisions leave you in exile, know that we remember you fondly.  Your devotion is admirable, even if your views are outdated and unacceptable.

Sincerely,

The Churches of Western Asia (AD 96)