We can be disliked because of our beliefs per se, or we can be disliked because we have expressed ourselves in a thoroughly obnoxious way. Let's take care that we don't get caught up in the latter.
From the way ya'll framed the question I voted no. I think "exhile" can be useful in articulating a vision of life in the "already, but not yet" time. The sense we are away from our true home, that being the Kingdom of God (which is more of a time rather than a place). We as believers in all ages feel a disjunction as the pressure that comes belonging, but yet not belonging to the current time we inhabit. I think the thoughts of John Goldingay make sense. As a Canadian the Canadian state was founded by at least nominal protestants and Catholics and was made to work for ppl who identified as such. Therefore we cannot absolve ourselves So the pluralism of our religious landscape changes that a little bit, but Christians can still participate in all facets of civic life. Also, the posture of exhile is to usually articulated as a posture of being with dufferent types of people in a "pro-neighbour", cooperative, and Christ-like way. That being not obsessing over being in the centre, and not trying to reach for coercive power against our neighbours.
You have convinced me. I have favored two images/metaphors when leading a conversation on the book of Revelation in Sunday School or small group: exile and citizens of a foreign power for whom wrestling with the difference between their home culture and their host culture requires a certain amount of vigilance in pursuit of faithfulness to home.
I see now that the two are significantly different images, so we join with ancient Israel and pray to not be sent into exile for our lack of faithfulness to our king and his kingdom.
I find Sprinkle's exile metaphor to be helpful, especially in terms of dealing with American politics. I live in an overwhelmingly red state, where Christian is synonymous to Republican. It is definitely challenging to wade against the status quo in my church and circle, where partisanship overwhelms character concerns. Setting my viewpoint as an exile, not as someone who has to choose and walk in lock step with one or any of Babylon's chosen candidates, is liberating for me. Also, the argument from Goldingay above does not carry a lot of water for me. Just because MOST in the USA might not feel that way does not mean the majority view is correct or the minority view has no validity. I don't think it would be challenging to find Christians in the West who feel isolated or "on an island", even within their stream of Christianity. The imagery of exile could possibly help those who feel abandoned or marooned in their faith - I would hesitate to dismiss the term.
As you said in a recent book review, "I’m a mid-strength affirmation of ‘yes, but…’". Exile terminology presents a useful but limited metaphor. The Christians I hear using this language are not letting themselves off the hook from participation in imperial power, but rather pointing out that we should be at odds with such systems. A greater problem is Christians who celebrate power-over dynamics and oppressive means of acquiring such power.
I voted yes not for any cultural, political reason, but simply because we are away from our final home, the new heavens and earth. We have not yet fully entered "Aslan's country", we are not yet under the direct rule of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We are in exile.
It always seemed a bit of self aggrandizing to me. A moniker to make us feel a little more imperiled and subversive than we really are. I think perhaps people that are true exiles probably won’t go around proclaiming it. Hope we don’t have to find out anytime soon.
I voted yes because I am Wesleyan and I live in Mexico. Every day one can see the systems of violence and oppression at work. This is not, cannot be, the promised land.
We can be disliked because of our beliefs per se, or we can be disliked because we have expressed ourselves in a thoroughly obnoxious way. Let's take care that we don't get caught up in the latter.
From the way ya'll framed the question I voted no. I think "exhile" can be useful in articulating a vision of life in the "already, but not yet" time. The sense we are away from our true home, that being the Kingdom of God (which is more of a time rather than a place). We as believers in all ages feel a disjunction as the pressure that comes belonging, but yet not belonging to the current time we inhabit. I think the thoughts of John Goldingay make sense. As a Canadian the Canadian state was founded by at least nominal protestants and Catholics and was made to work for ppl who identified as such. Therefore we cannot absolve ourselves So the pluralism of our religious landscape changes that a little bit, but Christians can still participate in all facets of civic life. Also, the posture of exhile is to usually articulated as a posture of being with dufferent types of people in a "pro-neighbour", cooperative, and Christ-like way. That being not obsessing over being in the centre, and not trying to reach for coercive power against our neighbours.
You have convinced me. I have favored two images/metaphors when leading a conversation on the book of Revelation in Sunday School or small group: exile and citizens of a foreign power for whom wrestling with the difference between their home culture and their host culture requires a certain amount of vigilance in pursuit of faithfulness to home.
I see now that the two are significantly different images, so we join with ancient Israel and pray to not be sent into exile for our lack of faithfulness to our king and his kingdom.
Thank you.
I find Sprinkle's exile metaphor to be helpful, especially in terms of dealing with American politics. I live in an overwhelmingly red state, where Christian is synonymous to Republican. It is definitely challenging to wade against the status quo in my church and circle, where partisanship overwhelms character concerns. Setting my viewpoint as an exile, not as someone who has to choose and walk in lock step with one or any of Babylon's chosen candidates, is liberating for me. Also, the argument from Goldingay above does not carry a lot of water for me. Just because MOST in the USA might not feel that way does not mean the majority view is correct or the minority view has no validity. I don't think it would be challenging to find Christians in the West who feel isolated or "on an island", even within their stream of Christianity. The imagery of exile could possibly help those who feel abandoned or marooned in their faith - I would hesitate to dismiss the term.
In which case, I'd say Christians are not in exile, but have been politically co-opted.
As you said in a recent book review, "I’m a mid-strength affirmation of ‘yes, but…’". Exile terminology presents a useful but limited metaphor. The Christians I hear using this language are not letting themselves off the hook from participation in imperial power, but rather pointing out that we should be at odds with such systems. A greater problem is Christians who celebrate power-over dynamics and oppressive means of acquiring such power.
I voted yes not for any cultural, political reason, but simply because we are away from our final home, the new heavens and earth. We have not yet fully entered "Aslan's country", we are not yet under the direct rule of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We are in exile.
Not yet, but if we are not vigilant the day may come
It always seemed a bit of self aggrandizing to me. A moniker to make us feel a little more imperiled and subversive than we really are. I think perhaps people that are true exiles probably won’t go around proclaiming it. Hope we don’t have to find out anytime soon.
I voted yes because I am Wesleyan and I live in Mexico. Every day one can see the systems of violence and oppression at work. This is not, cannot be, the promised land.