Imagined Communities and the Community of Faith
Summary
In Anderson’s words, “The aim of this book is to offer some tentative suggestions for a more satisfactory interpretation of the ‘anomaly’ of nationalism.” (Anderson, 4) I admit I find his characterization of nationalism as an “anomaly” both intriguing and a bit counter-intuitive. I would suppose that nationalism is a natural outgrowth of being born into a particular culture, time and space. However, Anderson proposes that nationalism, nationality and the concept of “nation” are recent cultural artifacts that were created by the circumstance in which the world found itself at the end of the 18th century.
The foundation piece of Anderson’s thesis is the idea of “nation” which he defines as “…an imagined political community” that is both limited and sovereign. A nation is “imagined” because most of its people will never know each other. It is “limited” because of the understanding of the nation’s geopolitical, linguistic and cultural borders. It is “sovereign” in that it is authoritative and self-determining with no need for the Divine in its past, present or future. A nation is imagined a “community” because of the strong feeling of camaraderie and kinship among its people. (Anderson, 6,7)
Time and language, story and newspaper play into the equation. The world was ripe for the development of imagined communities when “time” was considered as empty and linear without preordination. In this way, nations can make their own histories. (Anderson, 36) Furthermore, language no longer belonged to God or the divine alone, but belonged to the people who used it and who, because of a common language, formed large communities that could expand outside of geopolitical borders. (Anderson, 73) The stories people tell and the things they report help to form a nation. It is this strong sense of nationalism that, “…makes it possible, over the past two centuries for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly die for such limited imaginings [emphasis added].” (Anderson, 7) Christians continue to die for their faith. My question then is, why would someone die for an anomaly or a mere limited imagining?
Application
My thoughts go immediately to the community of Christian believers. First, we should not confuse Christendom with Christianity. One is spiritual and one it temporal. For assistance in this, I quote Kierkegaard, “ [Christendom] transform[s] Christianity into something entirely different from what it is in the New Testament, yea, into exactly the opposite.” (Kierkegaard, 163) While Christianity is spiritual, Christendom is temporal. Christianity is a search for relationship and community—even as God exists in community; (Gentz, 243) Christendom models the quest for political power. Christianity is concerned with the here now and hereafter; Christendom focuses only on the here and now. Christendom has borders, Christianity has none. Christianity is a community of believers that supersedes borders, language, and political boundaries.
I believe that I am safe to assume that Anderson would agree that the community of believers has characteristics of an imagined community. It is “imagined” in that millions do not know each other; “limited” because only those who profess Christ as Lord are part of the community; “sovereign” because the Kingdom of God is apolitical and without geographical borders; “community” because its people have a strong kinship toward one another. As mentioned earlier, it is these components that, according to Anderson, “…make it possible…for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings” (Anderson, 7)
And now to my point. As a missionary who spent almost half of his life living in a culture(s) outside of his own, I sometimes meet people who are antagonistic toward the nation (imagined or not) in which I was born, and to the God (absolutely not imagined) I serve. These encounters unavoidably lead me to ask myself a serious question, “Jim, would you be willing to die for the cause of Christ?” My answer has always been simply this: I stand with Paul when he writes, “ For me to live is Christ and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21)
With this answer I am not sidestepping the question; the fact is, I have never been in a situation where I’ve had to respond to that question in real time and under life-threatening circumstances. I can acknowledge that there would be little to no purpose in dying for Christendom. However, to die because you are a part of the community of believers is a whole other thing. The truth is, millions are living that question. Their answer must be given in real time with life and death consequences.
And when the answer is in the affirmative, these believers do not die for their nation of birth. They do not die for some social construct, nor do they die for Christendom. They die because they are a part of a real community of believers. A community that is not absent from the Divine, but in communion and relationship with the Divine—outside of time, language and political borders. They have faced the question of imagined communities and have decided it is not merely the construct of imagining people, but something that transcends imaginings to a relationship with Jesus Christ—these are the community of faith!
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised ed. Verso, 2016.
Grenz, S. J. Theology for the Community of God. Books.google.com, 2000.
Kierkegaard, Soren. Kierkegaard’s Attack Upon “Christendom” 1854-1855. Translated by Walter Lowrie. Second Printing ed. Princeton University Press, 1968.
About the Author
Jim Sabella
17 responses to “Imagined Communities and the Community of Faith”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“My question then is, why would someone die for an anomaly or a mere limited imagining?”
You made really great observations, Jim. Your experience proves your words. I agree with you totally (which you know if you read my post).
I don’t know if you looked up a bio on Benedict Anderson or not, but I did. He is coming from a Marxist point of view. Unless he repented before he died (2015) he would probably not agree with our viewpoint as Christians. He would probably not see God as the One Who is in charge of history. God oversaw the forming of nations for His own purposes.
It is sad that there is so much hatred for the US. Did we bring this on ourselves with our arrogance and meddling in the business of other countries?
There were many other “disconnects” for me in Anderson’s book as pointed out by some of our colleagues in their posts. I appreciate the book though for how it makes me stop and think about my faith and how it relates to “community”. And like you, I would die for Christ.
Mary, I want to push back gently and suggest that not all “Marxists” are atheists. Marxism suggests that socioeconomics are primarily based on class struggles and that capitalism has a tendency (when not held in check) of exploiting the lower class and working classes. That is not necessarily incompatible with the teachings of Jesus, as many socialist Christians (especially the liberation theologians of South America, and black theologians of the US) would argue. We cannot easily dismiss someone’s faith based on political ideology. Now that being said… yes, the consequences for many Christians who have lived in communist countries has been tragic. But many Christians who have espoused Christian socialism have found their voice and have stood up to oppressive regimes (again, I’m thinking of Latin America, as well as the Civil Rights movement here in the US).
Thanks Mary! I appreciated the book on many levels too. One was as you mentioned. Any book that makes me have to think about and even defend my faith is valuable to me. I’ve never been frightened to read about or even engage in a dialogue with someone who does not agree with me or with my faith. I had to do it for years while living in a predominantly atheist country. In my case, and I can only speak for myself, I think it has made my faith and my ability to stand my ground stronger.
I always enjoy hearing about your mission trips. I to look to Paul as one of my inspirations to live this life for Christ.
The global view of America varies under our political rule, but I wonder would we be received in some of these countries better if we just say “I’m a disciple of Jesus Christ.”
Thanks Lynda. Good point about identifying ourselves as a disciple of Christ.
A great reminder Jim, of the divine community we are all a part of regardless of our race or ethnicity when we choose to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. What an amazing life you lead – meeting with God’s nation all over the world. I bet you have some great stories.
Thanks Jennifer. Like Lynda, you mention begin disciples of Christ and therefore members of a divine community. Although we don’t always see it or notice it, I know from my experience, that the community is growing daily.
You did a good job of using the paradigm presented in this book to understand the relationships that Christians have with one another. The concept that all Christians, no matter what their nationality, are BROTHERS AND SISTERS is an amazing concept.
Thanks Stu. It is an amazing community. I’ve often wondered if the symbol of the fish is the same for Christian communities around the world? Do you notice it where you travel?
While many of the definitions of a nation might apply to Christianity (leaving aside Christendom), I hesitate to suggest Anderson would agree with it being a “NATION”. One additional descriptor he gives it is a bounded physical place (correlating with the rise in mapmaking). We would resist calling Islam a nation, for the same reason.
On another note, like you, I also would like to imagine I’d be willing to die for the cause of Christ. Yet I don’t think I could answer in the affirmative to “Would you be willing to die for America?” I do love much of America, but am not willing to say I would die for this nation.
Point well taken about the nation. Thanks Katy!
“I can acknowledge that there would be little to no purpose in dying for Christendom. However, to die because you are a part of the community of believers is a whole other thing.”
Yes! This! This is what has been frustrating me about some of the things happening in our country lately. Christians all over the country seem to be mourning the loss of Christendom (Christians in political power) while failing to embrace Christianity as community. There are more and more gatekeepers who enforce rules and fewer who open the arms of Christ. k
I would die for Christ (or I assume I would, since I have not been in a position to make that choice), and there are people I would die for (family, community, friends), but I don’t think I could lay down my life for the country or for Christendom, especially if it meant risking the lives of others who need Christ.
Thanks Kristen! For me, Christendom is not the apex of the expression of the Kingdom of God on this earth. However, the community of believers from all nations is.
Jim wow! I am so glad you raised the point about Christendom vs. Christianity. It is so important for us as believers to know and understand the difference. In reading this book, I struggled with his association of nationalism with secularism. I do not believe the two go hand in hand.
To lay our life down for Christ truly is gain. For He laid down His life for us without a promise or commitment from us to return our affinity and loyalty to Him. Since being a Christ follower goes beyond the here and now we are blessed to have an eternal purpose that makes our bond limitless! The community of Christ is where my allegiance will always remain! ?
I agree that nationalism and secularism do not go hand in hand. I think that nationalism can manifest itself in many ways—including but not exclusively via secularism. Although secularism is a whole subject itself. You are right: “we are blessed to have an eternal purpose that makes our bond limitless!” Thanks Christal!
Great post Jim and some excellent thoughts on the differences between Christendom and Christianity.
“Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God”.
We are aliens and strangers here, according to Peter.
It always used to amuse me when I traveled to the States and was described as an alien!
The word “alien” always amuses me too. In the context of the people of God, its use is much more palatable! I’ve been a foreigner for so long sometimes I feel like an alien! Thanks Geoff!