I'd say mostly irrelevant.
-CryptoLutheran
Possibly worth expanding on what I mean here.
What I mean is that the Cross isn't a "civilization project", at its heart isn't the moral reformation of human society, but the restitution of the world, of humanity itself, etc.
The Cross in itself is perhaps completely counter-intuitive, and offers a radically other way of perceiving how we live in the world and with our neighbors and how we conduct interpersonal relationships. Because it rearranges the focus not from producing a surviving, lasting societal legacy; but of mutual self-surrender and sacrifice.
If we do want to talk about the impact on society, I would point to Christianity's historic emphasis on social justice, on reaching the poor, the hungry, and the needy. That Christians have, historically, understood themselves to have a moral and ethical obligation toward the disenfranchised. An example might be St. Basil's concept of the "
New City". That Christians should take their calling before and toward their fellow man seriously, as servants of sacrifice.
Now has this always been the fruit of a predominantly Christian society? Of course not. History reveals this time and again. But then, Christians have never been called to be the dominants of society, not to be the leaders of civilization. The City of God and the City of Man shouldn't be conflated; a healthy distinction between the "
two kingdoms" is, I think, a very important thing.
The Cross does not teach us how to perform empire. But it can teach us how to exist in the midst of empire; as alien pilgrims.
-CryptoLutheran
