Israel, Syria, and the Christian nation (996)

A long-lived misunderstanding has been perpetuated regarding the nature of 1) biblical Israel and 2) the new “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).  While there surely remains some gray area in this topical arena, it is my intent in this brief post to assert the notion that that modern political entity of Israel has no special place in God’s plan.

[First, as an aside, I'm offering two paragraphs of self-disclosure, since I expect that a few readers will click in based on the blog title and tags, without having previously seen what I write about.  I am a seriously committed Christian. That does not, by any stretch, mean that I should be associated with mainstream evangelicalism, the Christian Right, or mainline Protestantism ... and certainly not with Roman Catholicism (which in my view is thoughtlessly, perturbingly associated inextricably with Christianity; it comprises a system quite distinct from the one described in the New Covenant writings).  While I have close ties to the first "ism," I prefer non-franchise Christian gatherings, I manifest a restorative interest in the unadulterated message of historically attested Christian scripture, and I gravitate toward simpler expressions of church and Christian discipleship in general.

I am always hoping to draw otherwise disinterested readers who would see something new and/or worthwhile in Christianity; my attention-getting inclusion of Syria in the title for this essay was probably a bit disingenuous.  The Inquisitions and Popes and Phelpses and Bakkers and Mormons and so-called Jehovah's Witnesses of the ostensibly Christian world have deeply -- and very publicly -- harmed what could have been a more solid reputation, and I want to do what I can, in my small corner, to give another perspective to stereotypes.  Anyway, my only specific thought related to Syria is that Damascus is inside it, and some important events occurred near that city, approximately in the years 34 and 37 A.D.  See this post on "the birth of Christianity" as chronologized by Paul Barnett.  Now, for the substance of this post. . . .]  

I am only moderately politically aware, but it seems to me that Israel has figured far too prominently in the political policies of the Western world.  I suspect that multiplied attention given to Israel has related, in part, to imputed guilt over such major happenings as the Nazi Holocaust.  I find the major political parties in the US to be needlessly divergent on Israel; these divisions firmly place most Christian interests on the right; and most liberal, inclusive interests (i.e., inclusive of other religious traditions), on the left.  I don’t claim any insight related to foreign policy, but I figure Israel should matter no more than any other nation.  The fact that it does seem to matter more, I presume, is related to religion and maybe history, more than to economy or politics.  (If you’re a Christian Rightist reading this, and I’m ticking you off right about now, stop to think about why you clicked in to this post but ignored those on biblical exegesis or worship or matters related to church.)

Israel is now merely a political entity in God’s eyes, no longer constituting the “chosen people.”  This assertion, if accepted by Christians far and wide, ought to lead to less rancor about Israel and Syria, Israel and Jordan, Israel and Iran, Israel and the Gaza Strip, and what-have-you.  Less rancor, and, dare I say it, more hands off.

Considering NT references to Israel in the past, I had thought it was obvious that the expression “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 (also see Romans 9:6) had nothing to do with the old Israel, but I now think that I was biased and that there could be a double entendre here.  Could the expression refer jointly to these groups?

1. those Gentile believers who “line up” (see Gk. stoichesousin) in thinking that circumcision is immaterial
   
2. the Jewish believers, i.e., if they are really of God in following promise, Spirit, and the Christian New Covenant

In any event, it is clear in Galatians that the Old (Hagar, Mt. Sinai and law, flesh, child-guide, etc.) is painted negatively, so it makes little sense to read “Israel of God” in 6:16 as referring to theocratic Israel/Jews, alone, in a positive sense.  This old-is-bad sense may not be as fully present in other documents, but in Galatians, it is.

Portions of Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapters 9 to 11, are problematic for those of us who believe that, as of the crucifixion and shortly after, the Jews were no longer considered favorably by God on the basis of their Jewishness.  Moreover, even the most careful and well informed New Testament scholars find different emphases in the different documents that make up our New Testament canon.  For instance, Luke’s writings in his gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles are seen by some to emphasize more of the Jewish connections than most of Paul’s letters.  On this point, please consider this note by by Dr. Robert Wall in his paper, “Israel and the Gentile Mission in Acts and Paul:  a Canonical Approach”:

There is a sense in which the deeper logic of a theology of Acts differs from that of the Pauline corpus, although this may be one result of different literary genre.  An historical narrative will tend to privilege the fact of experience as the setting for occasion of the logical reflection, even as Pauline literature tends to privilege core theological convictions as the setting for religious experience.

Here, Wall suggests that Luke’s (inspired) narrative purposes naturally deal with the Jewish lineage.  I might take that a step further, perhaps, by asserting that Paul’s writings on this subject (and most subjects) constituted bona fide theologies more than Luke’s.  In other words, what we have in Paul’s letters (e.g., Romans, Galatians) was more of an intentional, watershed articulation of the new status quo, whereas Luke’s literary purpose was in this respect more narrow, focused on historically connected narrative of God’s work — as it progressed from Jerusalem to the rest of the world.  Inasmuch as Luke was concerned with this progression, it would be natural to build more on Jewish foundations.

As of the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, ca. 33 A.D., the new scene is one in which “Israel of God” equals “people of God according to the New Covenant.”  The current people of God are those who are in Christ, regardless of ethnic background or (former) Jewish status.

I share with most evangelical Christians an inclination to resist unfounded, pluralistic ways that affirm other faith-pathways that supposedly lead to the one God.¹  Consisting largely of evangelical Christians, the “Religious Right” tends to be associated with undying support for political Israel today, yet that very political (military, even?!) support constitutes pluralism, in that it allows room for non-Christians.  To be inclusive of Israel today is, curiously, the more liberal position — a fact that may annoy some of my politically conservative friends.  :-)

I don’t believe Hinduism or Taoism or any other, non-Christian faith system has the answers.¹  I acknowledge a particularly deep-seated fear of Islam, and this fear stems not only from fear of Muslim extremists.  Whatever my fears or yours, these are human and are limited by time.  The Christian Right needs to realize, too, that being in Christ far transcends anything that may or may not happen with world religions and political boundaries in the 21st century.  All these things will pass.

When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” He was saying that His followers should pay taxes submissively; He wasn’t expounding the benefits of wholesale purchase of a political system.

When Peter re-appropriated Exodus and spoke of the “holy nation,” the “people for God’s own possession,” he wrote of Christians, not of the U.S. or Israel.

When Paul advised Timothy singularly to please the one who enlisted him, Timothy was involved in Christian Kingdom, not in a military or political cause.

Christians who seriously enlist on the side of Jesus and His kingdom will be much less concerned with current, geopolitical Israel than with being in Christ.

==========

¹Not believing Hindus and Buddhists, etc., will end up with God eternally doesn’t mean I consign all non-Christians to hell.  God is judge, and I suspect that His grace will include lots of ignorant and erring ones — or else we’d all be damned.  I do believe the (bona fide) Christian faith is singular and should be adhered to by all who have the opportunity.

Voices: sufferin’ suffrage

Most Christians, impressed with the gravity of human sacrifice in war, conclude that since people have died for democracy, they must exercise the right to vote.  This logic, quite simply, is not logical.  First:  voting for the next executor or lawmaker-in-district has a tenuous relationship with the prospect of improving “our” chances in the next war.  Moreover, the right to vote is completely a secular notion — one that may safely and thoughtfully, if unpopularly, be passed over by those whose hope is in God’s next world.  I do not advocate apathy about this world, but I do place voting in the category of democratic rights, not that of Christian responsibilities.

Having laid that foundation, let’s think with a denominational historian for a few moments about voting, women, and the home.  This “voice from the past” is not likely to fall on hordes of receptive ears.

One cause of deterioration?

“When Tennessee faced the precedent-setting vote on the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in 1920, J.C. McQuiddy led the opposition to the extension of women’s voting rights,” notes Robert Hooper in A Distinct People:  A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20th Century.  Hooper then quotes McQuiddy:

“God pity the child (sic), when they have a motherless home, when they have a mother who is in politics, campaigning over the states and neglecting the purifying, refining, and ennobling influences which she should be exercising in her home!”

“I do not believe that the good women of Tennessee want the ballot; but even if they did, the question which man must determine is not affected by what women WANT, but what they ought to have.”

- JC McQuiddy, Gospel Advocate, 1919 p. 1073 and 1920, p. 715, quoted in Robert Hooper, op. cit.

Could the seemingly backward-thinking conservative McQuiddy have been right?  I hope that those who know me well and/or have read much of my blog would not suspect that I am devaluing women here, but I do want to counter that possible inference:  I am in no way advocating condescending chauvinism in the political sphere.  I am in no way attempting to reserve the “right” to vote for men.  The voting enterprise is not my concern here.

I am, however, suggesting that women’s traditional roles in the home are more important than voting, and that the effects of any (women’s or men’s) work in the home has more ultimate purpose than any political activity.  Societally speaking, it would seem that the deterioration of morals is related, in part, to a lack of solid families.  While this degradation has many causes, and while absent fathers are even more to blame, upholding “traditional” women’s roles is probably not a bad idea, either.

Voices: using the label “Christian”

If a journalist in the Middle East says “Christian” in reference to an area, we might assume she means the non-Muslim, non-Jewish part of the city.

If a liberal politician says “Christian,” he might mean fundamentalist rightist or maybe that which is to be avoided at all costs in order to get elected.

If a Roman Catholic says “Christian,” he probably means Roman Catholic.

What do you mean when you say “Christian”?

Voices: friendship evangelism

“Voting is not the ultimate exercise of the Christian witness to the world.”  - J. Kingcade

Right on, Mr. Kingcade.  Sometimes the more superficial, equally hyped-up believers would have us think that a political vote is tantamount to a testimony to the world.  Nope.  Whatever a Christian voice is, it isn’t the vote.

I don’t pretend to be exercising genuine Christian witness to the world very often — I’m not really even in the other world very much.  But I do think about how I appear, how I influence . . . whether I am “salt and light.” . . .  And if the following constitutes what some call “friendship evangelism,” then I guess I’m for it. . . .

Several months ago, I stopped in to see a town merchant I’ve befriended.  I invited him to our Sunday night Christian gathering.  (He had been on my mind for a while, so I finally took the step of making an overt invitation.)  Then, on a later visit to this guy, I was able to help him with something, with no strings attached.  He has made friendly gestures to me on several occasions.  He’s a very nice guy.

Pause.  I don’t believe for a moment that I have anything like the so-called “gift of evangelism.”  I see evangelism much as I see sales, actually, and the sales profession is one that generally repels me.  I don’t think I’d work in sales if it were the 2nd-to-last job on earth!  The word evangelism rings in my ears as though it were pushy salesmanship, and I retract from that kind of thing in revulsion.

Incidentally, I am amused that the voice dictation function on my smartphone substitutes “vandalism” for “evangelism.”  Some so-called evangelistic efforts have been barely above the acts of vandals, in terms of damage done.

And I must admit that when I first began to hear a voice that used the term “friendship evangelism,” I was repelled.  It seemed potentially disingenuous and sneaky to me — being someone’s friend for the sake of later hitting him with a ton of evangelistic bricks, that is.  The best face of “friendship evangelism” is surely far above such hypocrisy — if it’s being a genuine friend and communicating the good news of Jesus Christ with that friend in love and without strings attached, that is.  May I always do that, but may I never attempt to become someone’s friend with an agenda.  That might drive a perceptive friend further from Jesus rather than drawing the two together.

I don’t put an ICHTHUS (Christian fish) emblem on the back of my car anymore.  I’m a little afraid I will do something on the road that annoys another driver, and that s/he will then have some further reason to keep Christians and the Christ at bay.  No, no gospel paraphernalia for me.  But let me be a friend, and let me be open to those opportunities that arise naturally for communicating Jesus to and with friends — as Francis of Assisi reportedly advised, sometimes using words.

Voices: righto wackos, past prophets

I thought I’d heard it all.  Put a couple of these down in the record books. . . .

• On Veterans’ Day, a church in Pennsylvania sang the national anthem in the regular Sunday church assembly.  Then they paraded military veterans in front of the church to have them tell military service stories.
• A “church lady” (apparently otherwise rational, not the old SNL kind) carries a handgun in her purse, as a matter of habit, and isn’t even slightly embarrassed about it.
• This woman’s husband actually placed a target in his front yard with the sign “You are now in open range.”  (Wanna bet he thinks the “Great Commission” applies missiologically to everyone, for all time?  Wanna subsequently guess how he would reconcile his stark threats to shoot trespassers with his belief that everyone else is going to hell?)

All pretty solidly “Republican” things to do, those.  In response, the relatively involved, moderate-Democrat Christian who told me about this asked, “Will we have to start bringing voter registration cards for validation at church, before we’ll be allowed in?”  What a great question!  I, too, have sensed the palpable, divisive effects of political stances’ being articulated within the church.

Allow for a moment — as I allow always — that politics has no place in the church gathering, and that U.S. political parties are exceptionally conceptually divisive.

Can you see that the man who (in his hyper-NRA enthusiasm) threatens to shoot all passersby in the name of the right to own a gun, has become imbalanced in the name of political conservativism?  I’d go further and say his political affiliation has run amok, to the point of potentially dividing the Body of Christ.  (In other words, he’s a righto wacko.)

Hear now a different voice — one from the distant past.  In 1889, David Lipscomb wrote, “Human government had its origin in the rejection of the authority of God.”  I think Lipscomb spoke prophetically.  Not miraculously so, but he spoke for God.

There are those who might think Lipscomb was too focused on the slippery slope — i.e., on what happens when the worst governmental extents become realities — and not enough on God’s ability to use a human government.  But think again.  Think about the Christian people you know and love who are on the other side of the political fence from you.  How annoyed, how incredulous are you with them for not seeing politics the way you do?  Nothing may rightly divide believers.  Not gender, not ethnic background, and not political party (to re-appropriate Galatians 3:28).

This is not about a lack of trust in God, Who can obviously use, or not use, human government as He pleases; it’s about not pitting allegiance to one political system against another.  Christian siblings, we must not let rightist (or any other political) agendas destroy the unity that the Spirit of Deity created.

For another post on the topic of patriotism in church gatherings, see here.

Violence and psychosis

This post comes two weeks after yet another, large-scale national tragedy related to killing.  This subject is not my typical fare, but I so appreciated a newspaper column I read recently that I decided to weigh in.  I think the topic of violence in our society deserves continued, deeply thoughtful treatment.

Below is a comment from syndicated columnist  Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post.

“I have no problem in principle with gun control.  Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994.  It didn’t work.  (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.)  Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry, and repeal the second amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.”

The above gets at one aspect of the problem — namely, the incapacity of law.  Being much more interested in God-things than in gun control or lack of it, as I read the above the second time, I began to fancy a parodic version that substitutes “Law of Moses” for “gun control.”  [If you only tuned in because of Newtown, pardon (or skip) this theological aside.]

I have no issue with the Law of Moses.  God enacted it, and I support it, as understood properly temporarily.  It didn’t work.  (So concluded God-breathed documents authored by Paul and by whomever wrote the letter to the Hebrews.)  Unless you are prepared to rid humanity of all existing, potential means of rebellion, and repudiate the “free will principle” inherent in the creation of humankind, it’s impossible to craft a law — any law — that will ultimately be effective.

Many Jesus-believers seem not always to understand (i.e., in the same way I do, at present) the change He ushered in for Jews and for the world, but what do you think about my parody there?  Generically, I would tend to agree that law, in itself, is impotent to curb violence; I would definitely affirm that the Old-Covenant Hebrew Law is impotent, in this day and age, to preserve anyone eternally.  Whether or not you’re on board with a relatively well-delineated, Christian view of Old and New, let’s move on.  Try out this next, hyper-on-target accusation from columnist Krauthammer.

“We live in an entertainment culture soaked in graphic, often sadistic, violence.  It’s not just movies.  Young men sit for hours pulling video-game triggers, mowing down human beings en masse without pain or consequence.  And we profess shock when a small cadre of unstable, deeply deranged, dangerously isolated young men enact the overlearned narrative.

“If we’re serious about curtailing future Columbines and Newtowns, everything — guns, entertainment, and culture — must be on the table.  It’s not hard for President Obama to call out the National Rifle Association.  But will he call out the American Civil Liberties Union?  And will he call out his Hollywood friends?”

Earlier in the column, Krauthammer had asserted that psychiatrists in the 1970s (he was one) could more easily commit psychotic people against their will.   Then he asks, by implication, what if mentally unstable people had fewer “rights” today?  My quoting and commenting here are not intended as a statement of political stance.  No, I have little concern with the perceived conservatism or liberalism of, e.g., gun control or civil rights.  I only want to call attention to what might make a great deal of societal sense.

Going further, the columnist also cites the Jared Loughner (Tucson) situation:  “Just about everyone around [him] sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous.  But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away -– and (forcibly) treated.”

Having no sociology or criminology or psychiatry training renders me mostly ignorant here, I admit.  But I do have some sense and some insight at times, and I wish to affirm that these are two gargantuan, extensive roots of the problem of violence in society:  1) instantiated, ”entertainment”-based violence, and 2) constraints — ostensibly related to “liberties” — that keep society from protecting itself.

Singular allegiance

It is inappropriate, in a Christian assembly, to sing the praises of military sacrifice and of American freedoms.  It is inappropriate on Veterans Day and on every other day of the year.

Among the reasons for gathering as Christian believers is to remember and honor the sacrifice of Jesus, the Messiah.  His ultimate sacrifice is the one that merits attention.  No one else’s matters, in comparison.  Today, though, the precious communion of the saints, in at least one place, was severed by thoughtless, even blasphemous comparison to the Lord Jesus’ atoning death.

Many things have upset me during Christian assemblies in my years on this planet.  Most Sundays in my adult life, in fact, something said or done has run contrary to what I find supported by scripture and/or logic.  In other words, many matters have displeased or upset me, but I can’t recall any that have aroused my ire like this one today.  I guess it caught me off guard, but there was no way I could stay in this assembly in which we were a) exhorted to honor the sacrifice of our veterans and b) treated to a prayer that thanks God for the same.  This thinking has no verbalized place in church gatherings at all — and certainly not in prayer to the Almighty God who is above every political entity.

I am indignant at the lack of discernment.  So many souls move blithely through American life, with their thinking all askew, assuming that

Christian = Republican = Militarily Involved/Supportive

No.  Not at all.

While I would typically sleep on a topic that fires me up, not so today.  Long after the emotion has subsided, the scruples, which are well founded, will remain.  (Read about the core of the good news in 1Cor 15.  Read about the death of Jesus toward the end of Mark 9 and 10 and tell me a military death, no matter how sacrificial or gruesome or untimely, has anything to do with the death of the Lord.  Read about identifying with Jesus’ death in Romans 6.  And read 2 Tim 2:4 and tell me what the “army” is — for the soldier of whom Paul writes, metaphorically.)

Different opinions on matters such as this may coexist.  Coexistence must not lead to the public preaching of one side “in church,” however.  It does not maintain the Spirit’s unity to force one set of unsupported opinions on the entire congregation.  Wisdom ought to realize that obvious displays of American patriotism are not only inappropriate, but they have the potential to be divisive.  To call attention, during a Christian Assembly, to the giving of life for a political or military cause is as heartbreaking as it is shocking.

Universal church, you should strike Veterans Day and Memorial Day from the internal church calendars.  (Until the day of fruition, though, I will need to watch the calendar more closely for my family, so we can avoid pretty much all U.S. churches on these days.)

The rest of the country may fly its flags and honor veterans, and that is to be expected.  It doesn’t bother me in the slightest for a private American citizen to have a flag flying or a yellow ribbon tied, or for an American Walmart to have a veterans’ organization doing a fundraiser out in front.  But not the church — not the group that is called out of this world.  Oh, and lest we forget, not all of the world is American.

As Christians who are also American citizens secondarily, we must pledge allegiance only to the Lamb.

An individual I once worked with briefly, and whom I have grown to respect, once said this:

I grew weary long ago of those who love usurping God-time with praise for their country and the illusion of this world’s freedoms. I think they insult both God and country: God by taking away from His worship and country because they don’t want the inconvenience of having to schedule separate time to honor their country. “Isn’t it so much simpler since we’re all here together anyway to just go ahead and celebrate our nation?”

People who are so fond of praising and serving “God and country” do not comprehend that our God is a jealous God.  – Harold Arnett

A musical artist

What makes an “artist” an Artist?

In these days of the indiscriminate bandying about of the word “artist” to describe pretty much any teeny-bopper who can hold a microphone to her face, I wanted to bring to my readers a description of a personal hearing of a true musical artist. 

On Saturday night, October 6, a few student friends and I had the opportunity to hear Mark Jenkins, euphonium soloist with “The President’s Own” U.S. Marine Band.  Of course, the band’s performance of other works was impressive — I enjoyed the rendition of Mackey’s Asphalt Cocktail and John Williams’s March from 1941, but it is Jenkins’s euphonium that I would drive many miles to hear again.  (I sincerely hope Jenkins is a believer:  discovering that he possesses a sense of being gifted by God would stack joy upon joy, as I re-live the finest soloistic musical performance I’ve experienced in at least five years.  This is saying a lot, because I hear a lot of good music regularly.)

Mark Jenkins, euphoniumist extraordinaire

Jenkins’s performance was astounding.  It was emotionally charged and of high musical impact.  During one stretch, he pinned my ears to the wall, then proceeded to mesmerize me. Moments later, he undid me with rapturous phrasing and tones.  It was not only the brilliant effervescence of the dazzling concert piece that impressed.  The linear beauty of the encore, a tender aria from Puccini’s Gianni Schicchi, was even more deeply moving.  For me, the presence of words in this performance would have compromised the sheer beauty of the music; no singer could have approached this purity.

A further response on responses.  I think standing ovations are far, far too common these days.  In this case, however, I was among the first ten people to stand for Mark Jenkins.  I remain proud of my decision to “stand out in a crowd.”  Even after the soloist’s return to stage, not everyone in the audience was standing, and that’s fine, but I did find the seeming greater enthusiasm for a lesser-talented vocalist (whose mic was far too live) imbalanced and telling.  The public doesn’t always have a developed sense of artistic quality!  I don’t discount that the vocalist’s songs clearly impacted the majority of the audience that night; however, musically speaking, the singing was not in the same league as the offerings of the euphonium soloist.

Thank you, God, for endowing certain humans like Mark Jenkins with gifts of great aesthetic value.

Thank you, Mark Jenkins, for showing a couple thousand people at Shea’s in Buffalo what a truly artistic performance is.

=============================

P.S.  For those interested, Mark Jenkins’s Marine rank is abbreviated as GySgt.  (Despite the fact that at least two military families were represented among my group, no one actually knew what “GySgt” stood for, before looking it up!)  I opted out of using the military rank above, because Jenkins is not my GySgt.  In relation to me, and in relation to 99% of the October 6 audience, Jenkins was no military man; he was simply an artistic performer.  Similarly, I don’t use the title “pastor” to refer to someone who is not my pastor.  If the person doesn’t stand in relation to me as pastor, or father, or lieutenant, or head honcho, I don’t see the point in using either an honorific or a functional title when addressing him/her.  Nor do I want people outside of an academic context to refer to me with my academic title.  This is just me, and I do realize I’m in a tiny minority here.

Liberty and sibling disagreement (2)

In this follow-up from my last post, I’m offering a little more detail, post-conversation . . .

Joe’s side of the “debate”
If I might presume to put more words in his mouth, based on what I’ve seen and heard from others, the significant question is this:  Why would a Christian not stand up to be heard?  We must take action for the sake of our earthly nation, and Christians’ voices should be strong and confident on moral issues.  Our country is heading down a bad path, and it is up to Christians to be active in the political process that affects lives.

My side
From my side, the significant question is this:  Why would a Christian get involved?  Speaking both practically and spiritually/biblically, I see little rational motivation for political activity, and even less hint of biblical basis for the same.  Imperatives in this area are simply non-existent.  Political activity, as we think of it today, is unknown to the Bible; in view of this scriptural silence, involvement in civic affairs must be seen as a liberty, not as a right or responsibility.  Our responsibilities as Christians must be worked out with the eternal Kingdom in view — the Kingdom in which resides our primary citizenship.  Kingdom purposes supersede the affairs of temporal, global governments.

 

Essentially, Joe thinks my values and priorities are skewed in the area of political thought and activity, and I think his are just as skewed.  I often feel incredulous when confronted with others’ interests and energies around politics.  How could you think that?  Why do you do that?  Don’t you get it? I ask, inside myself.  On the other hand, Joe and the huge majority of believers ask, inside themselves, How could you be so apathetic?  Why do you not do that?  Don’t you get it?

Either Joe or I may be more right than the other, or we may both be wrong.  In the end, though, his final words are on target:

“10,000 years from now our differences won’t matter.”  

So be it.  And in the meantime, we must allow for disagreement on disputable matters such as this one.  Thank you, Joe, for your good heart and graciousness.  When people act and dialogue as you do, it is easier for weaker characters such as myself to act better, and I am persuaded that dialogues such as ours — working through some disagreements in an area of Christian liberty — are pleasing to the Lord.

~ ~ ~

In necessariis unitas,

In dubiis libertas,

In omnibus autem caritas

 

(In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.)

The slogan above is attributed to Augustine (4^th-5^th centuries A.D.); appropriated by Hoffmann von Fallersleben (1852); reappropriated by Isaac Errett and others connected with the frontier American Restoration Movement (a/k/a Stone-Campbell Movement) in the later nineteenth century.

Now, another bit, via the ARM, on the topic at hand.  This comes from Richard T. Hughes:  Reviving the Ancient Faith:  The Story of Churches of Christ in America, p. 109:

If [Barton W.] Stone had a creed, he surely expressed it in 1841 when admonished his readers that “you must not mind earthly things, nor set your affections on them — not to be conformed to the world. . . .  Here you have no abiding place, but are as strangers and pilgrims seeking a better country.”

For more on the so-called apocalyptic worldview, read more about Barton W. Stone than about Alexander Campbell, and continue following thoughts, teachings, and philosophies through David Lipscomb, Tolbert Fanning, and Andy T. Ritchie, Jr.  Once upon a blog, I wrote a six-part series on Government and Christian.  If interested, please go here for a first serving, or perhaps here.  At this point, there are 33 posts on this blog that fall in the category “Government and Christian,” to some extent.  I think this topic is of some importance, clearly, but I don’t want it to get more attention than it deserves.]

Liberty and sibling disagreement

This is a tale with deux raisons d’etre (two reasons for being).  First, it is about how to disagree with a fellow Christian.  Second, it amounts to a sort of primer on my “take” on the relationship of human government and Christianity.

Toward two ends, then, I offer the following transcript of pertinent lines from e-mails between a nearby brother and me.  I mainly want to display my friend Joe’s gracious attitude, and to present our interchanges as constituting a pretty good example of how to disagree with a Christian brother or sister.  Having messed up more such communications in the past than I care to think about, I was so relieved as this particular conversation progressed.  The communication took more time than I had last week, but it was worth it, and Joe was not only a good sparring partner, but also a good example of how to close the conversation gently and lovingly.  I appreciate him for this and other things.

Below are the pertinent portions of our six-part interchange:

One

(From Joe to me and others)

> *Dear brothers & sisters,*
>
> Please take 12-minutes and listen to one of the most courageous
> brothers I’ve ever heard.
>
> Then ask God what He wants you to do with this.
>
> Very respectfully,
>
> *Joe *
>
> This link below of a pastor sharing his heart at the national press
> club in DC is a courageous portrayal of where our country is and
> includes challenges to the body that I think is worth our attention
> (12 minutes no notes, all heart for Christ and passion for our
> nation)  ……

———————————-

TWO

(From me)

Joe, good to hear from you.   Always nice to be reminded of you and your group’s warmth toward us.

[snip]

P.S. I pick up that we probably disagree somewhat about the relationship of country and Christian, but that’s OK — whichever one of us is off-base will surely be taken care of by grace.  :-)  Personally, I don’t think we have any good options for president, and I’m not sure which is less desirable.  But the Kingdom is forever — praise Him!

———————————-

THREE

Brian, great to hear from you and all the blessings God is surrounding you with.

Do you know who ________  is?  He is a theologian and excellent Bible teacher. One of my favorite texts other than the Bible itself is ______________  by ____________ .  He has recently written a new book on Politics and the Bible and he has also put together a 4 page summary of the book’s content. His intent is to compare what he calls the conservative view with the liberal view.  I was amazed at his clarity and the accuracy of his presentation.

While you are completely correct that neither man running for President is a great choice, the platforms of the parties have never been more divergent.  It seems to me that we need to do all we can to know the truth, teach the truth, and to let people know the different ideas that are being promoted and the likely direction they will lead.

[snipped scripture used as proof-text :-)   ]

You are a dear friend and I don’t ask you to consider this to annoy or frustrate you in any way.

Thank you for your consideration & prayers about this important topic.

By His Grace,
Joe

———————————-

FOUR

Joe,

I can’t be sure exactly why I had the impulse to write you that P.S.  It probably wasn’t a good idea, I think the “annoyance” factor actually runs in the other direction.  Thank you for sharing your heart, and I apologize for spiritually perturbing you!

There are areas in which I know I am in a minority, and this is one of them.  I am a conscientious non-participant in government (and am a conscientious objector terms of military service).   In other words, it is not laziness that keeps me out of the process; it is biblically based conscience.  This area of government/Christian is a strange one for me — it is simultaneously a) very important and b) fairly easily seen as non-essential.  By that, I mean that it’s pretty easy for me to be charitable in my heart towards you and the many others who don’t see this as I do (even though the issue is very important to “both sides”).  I do understand the inclination to be concerned for the choices of our political nation.  I would ask for your charity, as well, though:  since you seem passionate about the need to listen and act politically, please know that I am genuinely convicted otherwise and do not take these things lightly or apathetically.

On most moral/social issues, I would probably be more closely aligned with Gov. Romney’s positions than with Pres. Obama’s.  Yet my worldview relegates the political to the temporal, i.e., the non-eternal.  This amounts to a message of hope for me — maybe especially when the options are not good in this life!  I sincerely hope you can appreciate my position here, although I do not expect you to change any more than I expect to change. . . .

His above all,

Brian

———————————-

FIVE

Brian,

I wish I was in front of you as I’d love to give you a big hug and tell you face to face how much I love you and respect your position.  It is clear that you are a ‘thinker’ and have arrived at your position from years of thought and prayer – and as a result I will happily agree to disagree with you on this.

10,000 years from now our differences won’t matter when we bump into each other worshipping our creator together.

By His Grace,

Joe

———————————-

SIX

I’m grateful for your reply, Joe.  Thank you so much for your charity.  This was not easy for either of us!  [snip]

———————————-

In my next post, I’ll offer a little more detail and opinion, post-conversation. . . .

Inappropriate

Some things are just inappropriate.

• The use of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in the closing ceremony of the supposedly unifying, unified Olympics

This song contains patently offensive lyrics — in the ears of attentive Christians, that is.   You may think, “Oh, it’s just a popular song” or “What’s wrong with it?  It’s got a message of hope.”  Among some nice or at least neutral thoughts, though, two lyric lines spur the hearer toward the blasphemous conception of an eternity in which there is no heaven — no eternal home.  I don’t think the use of this song was very unifying or even smart.  It was inappropriate at best.  But then again, most people — Christians included — aren’t that discerning, and probably neither noticed nor cared much.

• The phrase “rock the vote”

This catch-phrase has been applied, for 20 years, to the effort to get young people (presumably rock music fans) to vote.  It seems to me that the event organizers must find the political process more deeply significant than the trivializing phrase “rock the vote” implies.  Phrases such as “rock-n-roll,” “we’re rockin’,” “you rock,” “rock the vote,” etc., are so deeply mired in pop culture as to render themselves unworthy of any meaningful process, event, or concept.

Said another way:  if I were sitting on the fence between political activity and inactivity, the phrase “rock the vote” certainly would not move me to get involved.  The ineffectiveness of the phrase (to my ears) has something to do with my age bracket, I’ll admit.  Just as much, though, I perceive an inherent incongruity between the purportedly deep, broadly applicable political enterprise on one hand, and the immaturity of so many rock-related concepts, practices, and celebrities on the other.  (Please know, if you’re inclined to write off this whole item, that I like some classic and progressive rock music, stylistically speaking — namely, KANSAS, Styx, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Boston, ELO, and a few more.)

• The title “Reverend” (used to address, or to refer to, a human)

Taking a descriptive word applied only to Deity in scripture and then applying it to a supposed “vicar” — really?  One who actually thinks about the title “Reverend” will surely realize what an affront it is to God.  (And if one doesn’t think about it . . . well, why tie an epithet to someone if you’re not thinking about it?!)  Would that Christians would consider that, if they use the title “Reverend” to refer to a human, 1) they are not on solid ground, 2) they could be found to be blaspheming, and 3) they may simply be pandering to societal scenaria.  Calling a human “Reverend” pushes far beyond impropriety.

Knowing your left from your right

For sake of illustration in this post, I have opted for a curious blend of “church stuff” (italicized) and “political stuff” (regular typeface, and some of which also relates inextricably to my views of God’s will).  In other words, “God things” are italicized, and “political things” are not.  I am far more informed in the former, but have lived enough years to have developed a few opinions on the latter, as well.

Topics on which I’m more CONSERVATIVE than many people I know:

Affirmative action and racism-related laws
Bible study
Capital and corporal punishment
Christian assembly, philosophy and nature of 
Criminals’ rights
Dancing
Education
Energy policy
Entitlement programs, extent of
Global warming
Government and Christian, relationship of (in biblical terms, i.e., I’m more biblically conservative than most Christians)
Immigration
LGBT philosophies and policies
Labor unions
Marriage
Obama, President
Opposition to heretical or nonsensical religious groups (which shall remain nameless here)
Parenting, style and particulars of
Personal finances
Popular entertainment
Racial profiling
Size and intrusiveness of government
Taxation
Worship, nature and importance of

Topics on which I’m more LIBERAL than many people I know:

Age of earth
Alcohol consumption
Biblical canon
Capitalism
Christian assembly, practicalities and patterns of
Divorce
Euthanasia and abortion
Entitlement programs, existence of
Foreign policy
Government and Christianity, relationship of (in political terms, i.e., I’m more liberal than the Christian right)
Gun rights
Health care
Instruments, use of, in worship and other Christian music
Israel (note that I have not italicized this item)
Poverty
Romney, Governor
Same-sex civil unions
School prayer (again, this item not italicized — I see it primarily as a political concern)
Separation of church and state
Taxation of the rich
Scripture, view of
War
Women’s roles in churches

Many of the topics in the lists above are quite complex.  Even my choice of list might be arguable, in certain cases:  whereas you might find my scruples on this or that issue to be “conservative,” I might consider them “liberal.”  For instance, even though I actually believe my view of scripture is more conservative, in the final analysis, than that of most others, it would take hours to describe why it’s more conservative than liberal to hold the particular views I have.  Essentially, I don’t want to claim for scripture something it does not claim for itself, and that probably makes me seem more liberal, when in reality, I think I’m more conservative in this regard.

In the case of my views on the human government and the Christian, I’ve placed the item in both categories to see if I can arouse the interest of a whole range readers.  :-)  In the final analysis, I think I’m more biblically and spiritually conservative in this area than most, but if a political liberal reads this, he might see this item in the “conservative” category and figure I’m a Republican and into the religious right’s agenda, neither of which I am.  On the other hand, if a Christian conservative reads this, she might see this item in the “liberal” category and figure I’m a Democrat or a pro-abortion rallyer, which I am not.

See how complex this can be?

I find that Jesus was both conservative and liberal; which category He fell into seems to have depended on the topic or situation at hand.  On my best days, I am only barely connected to Him, but I figure it’s just fine to be a mix of conservative and liberal, just as He was.  For instance, He (conservatively) railed against the established, hindering religious structures, but He (liberally) was a physical and spiritual blessing to the downtrodden and disenfranchised.

Jesus appears not to have been affiliated with a political party, humanly speaking.  And he never voted.

Brave hearts: an essay on eternal freedom

Sometime just before the Memorial Day (née “Decoration Day”) holiday, I had opportunity to watch a good deal of the movie Braveheart for the second time.  There were, as you may know, some foul moments, and quite a few gruesome ones, in this movie about the 13C Scottish play for freedom from England.  But there was some inspiration in it, too.  I was inspired, so I wrote this post in early June and scheduled it for posting just before Independence Day in the U.S.

In watching Braveheart, I was caused to remember that — all political opinions and affiliations aside – freedom is rarely, if ever, free. 

Pause for directorial shouting of “cut!” to a different scene.  We now zoom in on a rather large man I would often see across the church hall during a period of my life.  In my experience, this man was known for precisely two things — 1) wearing a very obvious XXXL t-shirt to honor his favorite team on big days in the football season, and 2) ramrodding biannual recognitions (on Memorial Day and Veterans Day) of those who had served in branches of the military.  (I’ll leave alone the inappropriateness of using congregational time for something humanly nationalistic.  [OK, just like in TV courtroom scenes, you can now instruct the jury to disregard that self-serving statement that clearly had an agenda beyond the obvious!])  I imagine this man had some personal connection with military service, and I can certainly acknowledge one’s personal feeling of loss over human sacrifice.

It was difficult, though, for me to hear this man’s mini-sermons about being grateful for those who had given their lives for our country’s freedom.  Why?  Because I never heard a single other thing come out of his mouth.  I never experienced a more spiritual, faith- or Bible-founded thought from this man.  As far as I knew, his depth plumbed no further than being grateful he could live “free,” in this life, because of blood-sacrifices of those in the military.

While I would never intentionally, overtly disrespect a grave or the memory of a soldier who gave his life for political freedom, I don’t think I’ll ever quite understand why someone would die for politics or national borders.

The freedom afforded by the Christ is eternal.  And I would like to focus attention on this lasting freedom.

Brave hearts not only recognize freedom … and they don’t only thank others for it … they pursue it.  William Wallace of Braveheart certainly exemplified an unyielding pursuit of a type of freedom — and his pursuit was a cause that transcended the self.  Yet, in its most exalted iteration, the “pursuit of freedom” does not lead to shooting or bombing or running someone through with a sword.  If the historical-fiction movie is to be believed, Wallace was an icon of courage and leadership.  But he died for something quite finite.

A more lasting set of values leads to a soulful gaze beyond the present  – and to the God Who ultimately can draw us from all tyrannies and captivities, and Who can liberate us for all eternity.

~ ~ ~

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us—because it is written, Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.  He redeemed us so that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, and that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.  . . .

You are all God’s children through faith in Christ Jesus.  All of you who were immersed into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  Now if you belong to Christ, then indeed you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise.  . . .

 I’m saying that as long as the heirs are minors, they are no different from slaves, though they really are the owners of everything.  However, they are placed under trustees and guardians until the date set by the parents.  In the same way, when we were minors, we were also enslaved by this world’s system.  But when the fulfillment of the time came, God sent his Son, born through a woman, and born under the Law.  This was so he could redeem those under the Law so that we could be adopted.  Because you are sons and daughters, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba, Father!”  Therefore, you are no longer a slave but a son or daughter, and if you are his child, then you are also an heir through God.  . . .

Christ has set us free for freedom. Therefore, stand firm and don’t submit to the bondage of slavery again.  . . .

You were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only don’t let this freedom be an opportunity to indulge your selfish impulses, but serve each other through love.  All the Law has been fulfilled in a single statement: Love your neighbor as yourself .  But if you bite and devour each other, be careful that you don’t get eaten up by each other!  . . .

But as for me, God forbid that I should boast about anything except for the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. The world has been crucified to me through him, and I have been crucified to the world.  Being circumcised or not being circumcised doesn’t mean anything. What matters is a new creation.  May peace and mercy be on whoever follows this rule and on God’s Israel.

(Galatians 3:13-14, 26-29;  4:1-7; 5:1,13-15; 6:14-16 Common English Bible)

 ~ ~ ~

All praise be to God for eternal freedom.  Amen.

Chapel curriculum

Below is a sketch of my college’s “Chapel Curriculum” for 2012-13.  Leaving alone for now the question of what the chapel tradition is supposed to be — and yea, whether there should be a curriculum at all (making it thus a human, academic enterprise and not as much of a Kingdom one) — let’s have a look.  This plan is conveniently, if not properly, structured in three “God” categories and one human category.  

GOD THE FATHER

• Who God is
• Attributes of God
• Salvation history; relationship of old & new covenants
• Creation
  • nature/environment
  • humans created as sexual beings
  • art/music  – art
• Provision:  Deus absconditus: God’s hidden work
• Intelligence

GOD THE SON

• Teaching of Jesus: ethics; kingdom of God; imitation of Christ
• The “work” of Christ: death and all its significance for our redemption; resurrection and all its significance; soteriology

GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT  

• Spirit-inspired service
• Sanctification; role of Spirit in the Christian’s maturing, growth in love
• Discipleship
• Interpersonal relationships
• Eschatology/Judgment/Resurrection
• Church:
  • Ecclesiology
  • Christian Community; purpose & identity of the church

ANTHROPOLOGY (theological)

• Humanity in image of God
• The Christian and politics
• Common grace
• Civic justice
• The Christian’s vocation
• Business:  work and the kingdom of God, wealth

As I read over that list, I find an attractive depth and scope.  My questions, though, are many — too many, I think.  Although I might have offered to contribute to the “curriculum” with a speech on one of the topics listed, I’m afraid my views in a few areas would prove too divergent.  Every third item seems either miscategorized or ill-conceived or unclear.  I’ll offer six representative questions, using “the number of man,” because this whole curricular list, like me and like you, is human and imperfect.

1. For instance, why are discipleship and interpersonal relationships under the “God the Holy Spirit” heading and not under “God the Son” or “Anthropology”?  I suppose that in a sense, we follow the essence, the indwelling part of God; but large, significant portions of NC scripture pertain to following Jesus, leading me to the conclusion that He is the crux for humans in terms of discipleship.
2. What is “common grace,” and why is it under a human heading rather than a God one?  (Maybe I’m just ignorant of orthodox thought.)  (Don’t say anything!)
3. In my particular milieu, I think any messages in the “Christian and politics” category will likely be balanced and non-partisan, but I worry in every election year that folks will assume that every right-thinking person should be engaged in the process — when such involvement must not be cajoled, since political involvement is not required in scripture.
4. “Civic justice” is always safe … or is it?  On one hand, I affirm a mantra that goes something like this:  ”Socially/humanly liberal; morally conservative.”  But, like it or not, there’s a politically liberal agenda attached to the words “civic justice” that appeals to some, but not to all.
5. Why is Eschatology/Judgment/Resurrection under the Holy Spirit heading and not the Father or Son ones?
6. Perhaps most significant:  why, in a Christ-ian college, is the “God the Son” category so brief?

Some topical areas seem skeletal — why are there only one or two sub-topics under “church” and “creation,” for instance?  And another example:  I do think human sexuality deserves a solid berth in considerations of what it means to be human, but there’s much more to say about God’s human creation, isn’t there?  I think I remember hearing — but don’t know for sure — that a four-year curriculum exists, designed to touch on four times this many areas during a student’s time in college.  Perhaps this list is only one-fourth of the whole, designed in order to provide thoroughgoing balance over a period of years.

How about you?  Care to pick an item or two and query it, or comment on it from a Christian education standpoint?

It’s really not all that important, guys

Come along with me, siblings, for I am about to “sin” again.  

It has been three months since my last protest.

(Anyone got an indulgence for sale, cheap?  This neo-protestant may need absolution soon.)

The inset quotations below, mired in sub-cultural egocentrism (read:  ”we are chest-deep in thinking our religion is really, really important”), came in a recent news report (URL below). . . .

Pope Benedict XVI will visit Philadelphia in 2015 to host the Vatican World Meeting of Families, he announced today as this year’s meeting wrapped up in Milan.

Wow, really?  And I, just as I wrap up some of my programming and planning business in New York, am about to announce a visit to Colorado.  Bully for me.

Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles Chaput was on hand, and, according to tweets from Catholic News Agency, was up on the stage “chatting up a storm” with the pope, thanking him as he kissed the papal ring.

Yay, Charlie.  Bully for you, too.  You seem to know how to win friends and influence popes.  Now:  if you can look yourself in the mirror after kissing a man’s ring, you are either deluded by years of subservience to a religion gone awry, or you are no man yourself.

Chaput, who moved to Philadelphia from Denver last year, is one of the most outspoken U.S. bishops on the intersection of Catholic life and society and politics.

Charles Chaput

Okay, I think I’ve got this straight.  Charlie is not only employed by, and beholden to, the most bloated, blasphemous Christian organization¹ on the planet, but he also must think it matters that he intersects stupidity Catholicism with other stupidity politics.

The announcement comes “amid a scene of epic turbulence for the Northeastern fold,” says Philadelphia-based Catholic blogger Rocco Palmo.

At “Whispers in the Loggia,” he’s posted from the grateful Chaput’s official chancery a response, calling the visit . . . a gift to the local Church in Philadelphia and to the whole nation.

Celebrate, then, Philadelphia!  Bake an enormous cake for Benedict’s trip, and pull out all the stops along Broadway and across Market and Chestnut.  May Rittenhouse Square be festooned for the ’15 festivities with logos and brands (more wastes of marketing departments).  May Boathouse Row gleam! May you all fool yourselves into thinking this one visit of one man matters one whit in the spiritual world.  

Palmo points out that Chaput’s first nine months in office “…have been dominated by the fallout of a flood of legal, administrative and financial crises which erupted in the wake of a February 2011 grand jury report, the second in five years to probe the archdiocese’s handling of sex-abuse cases across several decades.”

Lest anyone stumble upon my site and have no idea what I am about, let it be clear here that my ire a) is directed toward the Roman Catholic institution, not individuals, and b) is about theology and darkness and power structures and anti-biblical and a-biblical practices, not about the more recently surfacing stories of atrociously immoral actions of priests here and there.  I do not decry the Catholic machine because of those disgusting acts or the subsequent cover-ups.  These specific problems are only symptoms of an abhorrently errant system.  I resist centuries of history, not only decades.  And I boldly call others to join this resistance.

Now, one last provocative bit from the article:

DO YOU THINK… Benedict can persuade more Catholics to follow church doctrine on sexuality and family life?

Uh … no.   Despite people’s insistence that they “are” Catholic, the actions — the real life patterns of the majority of ethnic/born-in Catholics — continue to suggest that the whole thing is a charade.

==========

Read the complete article, only if you really have a lot of free time, at http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/06/pope-to-visit-philadelphia-in-2015-/1#.T8wEYbBSS8A

¹ The Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) organization does not qualify as Christian, or we might have a tussle on our hands.

Musings — Yancey on the US (3 of 3)

(Conclusion)

Toward Greater Faith in Things That Last, and Toward More Long-Lasting Understanding . . .

The New Testament seems to introduce a major shift:  God is now working not primarily through nations, but through an invisible kingdom that transcends nations.  Jesus stressed the kingdom of heaven as the central focus of God’s activity on earth, a kingdom that permeates society so as to gradually affect the whole, like salt sprinkled on meat. . . .

Projecting myself back into Jesus’ time, I have difficulty imagining Him pondering whether Tiberius, Octavius, or Julius Caesar was “God’s man” for the empire. What took place in Rome was on another plane entirely from the kingdom of God. . . .

It appears the church and politics may be heading in different directions.  The more I understand Jesus’ message of the kingdom of God, the less alarmed I feel over that trend.  Our real challenge, the focus of our energy, should not be to Christianize the United States (always a losing battle) but rather to strive to be Christ’s church in an increasingly hostile world. . . .

As America slides, I will work and pray for the kingdom of God to advance.  If the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church, the contemporary political scene hardly offers much threat.

- Philip Yancey, Finding God in Unexpected Places (1995), pp. 99-101

Again, I am concerned by the country’s denial of God, to whatever extent that has occurred.  When foes of God appear, I am sincerely offended.  But I am exceedingly more concerned by individuals’ denials.  The reign of God exists in the human heart, not in political hallows or in the institutions of religion.  The reign of God, unlike any denomination or nation, is forever.

Now, “to be Christ’s church in an increasingly hostile world”!

Musings on Yancey, the US, and Muslims (2)

(Continued)

Toward Greater Faith in Things That Last, and Toward More Far-Reaching Understanding . . .

I have for many years wondered about the Muslim use of the word “infidel.”  It has seemed to me that Muslims call this word into service ineptly, because one can only be a perpetrator of infidelity if he has ever asserted loyalty in the first place.  Since I have never asserted loyalty to the Muslim concept of God or to their religious system, I surely can not be aptly labeled an infidel.

Further reflection, though, causes me to wonder about the de-merging of what are often called the world’s three great faiths.  It is not as though I believe, or in any way support, the inner or outer workings of Islam or Judaism, but I do understand that we have common roots. From the Muslim’s perspective — and here I must acknowledge that I have never thought this through before — Jews and Christians must seem to have become disloyal to God during the course of history.  For the Muslim, Moses was a prophet, and Jesus was a prophet, but Mohammed was the prophet.  (Compare this to the Mormons and Joseph Smith.  This is NOT beside the point.)  For the Muslim, Mohammed was the fulfillment of what had gone before, and anyone who rejects Mohammed rejects it all.  One who rejects Mohammed is, for them, an infidel.

In my meanderings, I have encountered quite a few people who have repudiated, to one degree or another, various ideals and practices of the American Restoration Movement.  It is rarely difficult for me to accept such a person’s pathway, since I myself have picked and chosen — as I see this Movement lining up with, or disagreeing with, scripture.  But when a person summarily rejects the Movement, that person may aptly be labeled an “infidel” to that Movement.  (This person is very difficult for me to trust, I might add.  When one has understood certain inalienable truths, principles, and scruples … and later rejects them wholesale, he seems like an infidel to me.)  Today, I think that I understand a little more of the Muslim’s idea of infidelity.

Muslims are right, of course, about the rampant materialism in the western world. (While many of them have little clarity around their own weaknesses at times, they are right in this area about us.)  That soldiers in the Gulf war were required to ascend to Muslim moral code, living without alcohol and Playboy (Yancey, p. 92) should tell us something.  And yet materialism and worldliness are mere symptoms of the greater evil.  If we have denied the supreme, holy God, that is the foundational sin.

Have we denied and rebelled against God?  Why, yes, we have.  I am concerned by the country’s denial, to whatever extent that has occurred.  But Yancey rightly probes, “Does God really judge the United States or any other country as a national entity? . . . God is now working not primarily through nations, but through an invisible kingdom that transcends nations.” (p. 99)

And I am exceedingly more concerned by individuals’ denials — yes, including my own.  The reign of God exists in the human heart, not in the institutions of religion; and the reign of God, unlike any denomination or nation, is forever.

Musings on Yancey, the US, and Muslims (1)

Toward Greater Faith in Things That Last, and Toward More Far-Reaching Understanding . . .

For better or worse, I’m more a watcher of politics in the last half-dozen years than in any other period of my life.  I am persuaded that this watching has done very little, if anything, for my life or for the lives of others, but it is what it is.  Political stuff will be what it will be, too.

This morning, not having any idea it would be a Friday for deeper pondering, I was reading more of Philip Yancey’s 1995 thoughts in his book  Finding God in Unexpected Places.  And I was again struck by the prevalence of politics- and religion-related assumptions by Americans, and by professing Christians … yea, by most humans.  We need to be careful with high-sounding assumptions of the present, drawing instead from something less time-bound.  Hear Yancey’s quotation of Shakespeare and his one-sentence commentary punch:

In Richard III, a hired assassin trembles before his assignment, fearing “Not to kill him, having a warrant, but to be damned for killing him, from the which no warrant can defend me.”  And in the Henry VI, the Earl of Warwick prays, ” . . . ere my knee rise from the earth’s cold face, I throw my hands, my eyes, my heart to Thee, Thou setter -up and plucker-down of kings.”  Our leaders could use a dose of such humility.

It’s been quite a while since I felt a U.S. president exhibited much humility.  Perhaps Clinton, when he called in a team of spiritual advisers after the Monica Lewinsky affair?  (Or maybe that was mere posturing — who can say?)  My fading sense of Pres. Reagan was that he had at least a few humble bones.  Both parties’ candidates these days would do well to show some humility along the way.

Yancey also speaks of lasting purpose and belief in the hereafter:

In one of the great ironies of history, Islam has co-opted the word martyr.  Early Christians prevailed over Rome because they opted for eternal rewards instead of mere physical survival.  The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. Nowadays you hear very little talk in the west about eternal rewards and much talk about techniques to keep death at bay. . . .

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul,” Jesus cautioned.  And again, “It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”

Could Islam have more of a “biblical” sense (albeit skewed) of the eternal reign of deity than does popular Christianity?  The Islamic “Fanatical Fringe” (thanks, Mr. Yancey) possesses an inexplicable willingness to die, leaving this temporary world, while we in the West persistently place our eggs in the ephemeral world’s basket. Despite my abhorrence of (and, yes, fear of) Muslim extremism, I can admire absolute devotion to a cause — to what some Muslims hold as the over-arching raison d’etre.  They are willing to lose their physical lives for a religion they believe lasts longer.

To be continued . . .

Former enlisted man now a CO

… and I don’t mean “Commanding Officer.”  If you clicked in here mindlessly, thinking this was going to be a nice, seasonally appropriate tribute to “our service men and women,” you might want to click out again and save yourself some heartburn.

For a revealing interview about Conscientious Objector status, click here.  The interviewee is a Christian . . .

• who mentions having heard, while a student in a Christian school, then-president George W. Bush’s Christian ideals touted as exemplary, and
• who enlisted and served in Iraq, but
• who later found his ideals, morals, and ethics increasingly challenged by what he actually found in the military

One would have to applaud this man’s courage in taking unpopular steps.  Taken purely objectively, his actions that overtly countered (okay — rebelled against)  the military machine took a lot of guts.  Assuming the man’s sanity and his honesty in the interview, it would be reasonable to respect his courage to act on principles, even if you disagree with his particular scruples.  Personally, I would tend to agree with said scruples — and found myself feeling affirmed, as I read various anecdotes:  military experiences (such as chanted “cadences,” lack of ethics in combat situations, hazing and abuse, etc.), as described, run alarmingly parallel to the military experiences I have imagined for years.

So, please read the interview if you haven’t yet.  And, even if you disagree with the conclusions reached by Stieber, please consider the possibility that many things you have come to believe (oh, I don’t know — things communicated by upper-level administration/bosses, or by your denomination) might not turn out to be just as reported.

==========================

Postscript 1:  Another item at the same website describes in relatively objective terms the process of becoming a CO while in the military.  One item in this interview alarms me:  that the percentage of approvals granted has historically been related to “where we are in a war.”  I find appalling the admission that far fewer CO applications were approved, for example, at the beginning of the Vietnam war than at the end of it.  This fact screams that the military’s perceived needs trump individual citizens’ principles and consciences.

Postscript 2:  If a reader or six might tend to be annoyed by the fact that I’m posting this two days before Memorial Day, please at least give me a little credit

1. for having come upon this story without looking for it, about 3 days ago, and
2. for not posting it ON Memorial Day, when I’ll actually be doing a bit of civic duty in participating musically in a Memorial Day ceremony in a nearby town, despite the fact that I’m uncomfortable with some of the assumptions inherent in the ceremony

You say news writers aren’t biased?

You say news writers aren’t biased?  Lemme show you otherwise. . . .

I’m not the most conservative on the “gay marriage” question by any means.  I happen to think that, in our nation’s current context, which is decidedly NOT a Christian one, it some sense to give economic (and perhaps other) rights to homosexual couples.  However, consider paragraph 2 of the article at this link:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE84A1CQ20120511?ca=moto

‘Scuse me?  Let’s try that again.  Perhaps if you’d written it as I have it below, moderates and logicians wouldn’t be able to perpetuate (rightly!) the stereotype of liberal bias in the news media:

The cases, originating on opposite coasts, go to the heart of a question that has churned for two decades:  whether states and the federal government have jurisdiction over the question of same-sex marriage.

You see, it really is a question, and will probably for many years be a question — whether two people of the same gender who profess to be a couple may be thought of as “married” in a given societal context.  Being able to state such a question without prejudice would seem to be part and parcel of being a good journalist.

I am not intending to deal with God-based morality here.  I’m merely acknowledging that, absent theocracy, it is practically up to a culture or government to decide a question such as the gay-marriage one.  I may or may not like the conclusions of the human government, but simply by allowing this question, stating it without prejudice, I do not tip the scale toward one side or the other.  On the other hand, if I accuse an entity of “refus[ing] to recognize same-sex marriage,” I clearly align myself with those who presume the validity of same-sex marriage, when such is not a foregone conclusion.

The above is just one paltry evidence of recurring bias in the news media … and is just one reason I don’t often watch or listen to the news.