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

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.

Why Christianity and government should (not) mix

According to the website The Root — and it is important that this be labeled as second-hand information, because we all know how newsfolk have the penchant for editing stuff to suit their own agendas — we learn a few things, among others, from leading presidential Republican candidates.  The initial statements are from the source; the bold, italicized commentary is my own.

1. Religious Americans must fight back against nonbelievers.   Based on what principles or examples, Mr. Cain?  To what end, and why?
   
2. Our laws and our national identity are Judeo-Christian.  Well, yeah, historically speaking, and to some extent … but things do change, Mrs. Bachmann.  And they obviously have.  Have you looked around recently?
3. No religion but Christianity will suffice.  If you really said this, Mr. Perry, you have about as much chance of being elected as Mr. George W. Bush stands of being elected again.  It’s not that you’re wrong; even if one reduces the Way of Jesus to “religion,” Christianity is still probably the best choice.  No, it’s that you have no idea how to influence listeners.  You seem like a decent believer in Jesus as Christ, but you’re not a very likely President, I’m afraid.
4. God created our government.  Uh, no, Mrs. Bachmann.  God didn’t even create it in 1776 or 1787, much less today.  Let me name one opposing reason for the current era:  God is associated with justice, and our system of law is fraught with ludicrous injustices.  I’m not even sure we can rightly say that God created the Hebrew government after the time of Moses.
5. U.S. law should follow God’s law.  Really, Mr. Santorum?  According to whom?  Your presumptuous pope or Presbyterians?  Jews or Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Mormons or Muslims or Methodists?  
6. Courts that get in the way should be abolished.  I’m not sure what the context was, Mr. Gingrich, but I’d agree that some courts should be abolished for some reasons.
7. The purge of judges should be based on public opinion.   Seriously, Mr. Gingrich?  That kind of statement is not too likely to garner public opinion in your favor.
8. Freedom means obeying morality.   Again, I’m not sure of the context.  But, Mr. Santorum, it sounds like you got bound up in a desperate attempt to say something meaningful and ended up freely spouting nonsense.

(Entire article here.)

Many incongruities between ostensibly Christian candidates and Christian mores were reportedly pointed up publicly in a follow-up to the recent Iowa Family Leader forum.  Since most, if not all, of the leading Republican candidates have relatively serious anti- or at least un-Christian problems plaguing their pasts or their presents, a statement of some non-candidate affirming the faith and morals of the hopefuls seems to have been careless, if not laughable.  (From what I’ve heard, Cain, Gingrich, and Romney are ahead these days, and I’d sooner have Schwarzenegger as president than one of them.)  When one attempts to paint a candidate with a Christian brush, he is destined for artistic and political failure.  I’m also turned off by the Family Leader’s tacit suggestion, through a David Bush video presentation on their website, that Jesus is to be appealed to in order to stop businesses from closing and houses from being foreclosed on, but that’s a blog topic for another day.

Predictable disagreements between evangelicals and so called “mainline protestants” such as Lutherans and Methodists abound.  And Roman Catholics are by no means out of the picture, not to mention the Islamists and the Hindus and the atheists.  Attempts at unifying a nation full of  increasingly diverse populations will not succeed.  We will never see civics alike.  We are simply not wise enough to effect such unity, even if we weren’t so impotent as a race.

Our hope is not — is not — in this life.  Christianity and government need not attempt to mix.

Yes, Frank Luntz, America’s best days are behind us.  The glass isn’t half-empty or half-full; I’m looking around for another glass.  (This view disqualifies me for any political roles and for some friendships, but the Bible doesn’t require humanistic optimism of me.)

No, Bob Vander Plaats, government should not be considered part of a trifecta of God’s institutions (with the church and the family).  That is an aberrant, unauthorized suggestion, despite applause from 99% of Christendom.

Yes, David Bush, “Jesus, we need you more than ever today” … but not in order to change or restore the United States of America.  That is not Jesus’ business.