bad theology

Love Your Enemies

Frank

I was going to post about this when I first read about it, but listening on Air1 this morning reminded me of the pastor in Arizona who is praying for President Obama to get cancer and die like the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I don’t know where to start other than grieve that many who call themselves Christians agree with him. One, in fact, brought a gun to one of the President’s town-halls on health care. A caller to Air1 said he didn’t “necessarily agree” with the pastor, but “sees nothing wrong with praying that God will remove evil from high places.”

So here we see the problem with mixing religion and politics- the label of opposing political beliefs as ‘evil’. However, the Bible tells us this is not the case. Paul, writing to the church in Rome wrote, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Rom 13:1) Keep in mind, Paul is writing to the same church that within a generation would be dipped in tar and burned alive to provide lighting in the Colosseum while their brothers and sisters in Christ were fed to lions. This church existed under a government that practiced infanticide and did not value what we’d call traditional marriage. Yet Paul says even this government is established by God.

Well just because we ‘submit’ to those authorities doesn’t mean we have to agree with them. Of course that’s true. But disagreeing is a far cry from wishing death or even calling someone evil. Even if our president (or anyone else for that matter) was truly evil in his entire being (can anyone really believe that?), how should we treat that person? Again, Paul gives the answer to a Roman church who justly feared for their very lives.

“Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary:
‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom 12:19-21)
And earlier, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Rom 12:17a)

The caller this morning said he wasn’t afraid of being called crazy for standing up against evil and even went so far as to suggest those who don’t are ‘watered down’ Christians. Well there are a lot of instructions in the Bible on how to deal with evil that we can turn to. I personally like this one from Jesus and I’d recommend Pastor Anderson reads it: “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39) Though I admit that’s a bit of a cliche. But interestingly most of the time when Jesus is talking about evil, he’s talking about our very own hearts. In other words, we need to check ourselves.

But there’s more. Again Paul writing in Romans after describing “all kinds of evil” in Chapter 1 begins the second chapter by writing, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” (Rom 2:1)

If you want to be militant, you could look at the “armor of God” in Ephesians 6 where we read, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 6:12) But even here, the struggle “is not against flesh and blood” and the evil forces are spiritual, not physical. So we use weapons “not… of the world” (2 Corinthians 10:4ff).

But again, this battle is personal. We do not fight on others’ behalf. “Our struggle…” When it comes to facing evil personally, we are instructed to “flee the evil desires of youth…” (2 Timothy 2:22) to “get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent…” (James 1:21) “do not conform to the evil desires you had…” (1 Peter 1:14) to “turn from evil and do good…” (1 Peter 3:11) to “not imitate what is evil…” (3 John 1:11) and to “resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7) for “the Lord will rescue [you] from every evil attack.” (2 Timothy 4:18)

I see nothing in here that advocates fighting evil in others or wishing harm on anyone. It’s a shame that a pastor (the word means shepherd) is spreading such false doctrine. But we shouldn’t be surprised. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

Love Your Enemies

Frank

I was going to post about this when I first read about it, but listening on Air1 this morning reminded me of the pastor in Arizona who is praying for President Obama to get cancer and die like the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I don’t know where to start other than grieve that many who call themselves Christians agree with him. One, in fact, brought a gun to one of the President’s town-halls on health care. A caller to Air1 said he didn’t “necessarily agree” with the pastor, but “sees nothing wrong with praying that God will remove evil from high places.”

So here we see the problem with mixing religion and politics- the label of opposing political beliefs as ‘evil’. However, the Bible tells us this is not the case. Paul, writing to the church in Rome wrote, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Rom 13:1) Keep in mind, Paul is writing to the same church that within a generation would be dipped in tar and burned alive to provide lighting in the Colosseum while their brothers and sisters in Christ were fed to lions. This church existed under a government that practiced infanticide and did not value what we’d call traditional marriage. Yet Paul says even this government is established by God.

Well just because we ‘submit’ to those authorities doesn’t mean we have to agree with them. Of course that’s true. But disagreeing is a far cry from wishing death or even calling someone evil. Even if our president (or anyone else for that matter) was truly evil in his entire being (can anyone really believe that?), how should we treat that person? Again, Paul gives the answer to a Roman church who justly feared for their very lives.

“Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary:
‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom 12:19-21)
And earlier, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Rom 12:17a)

The caller this morning said he wasn’t afraid of being called crazy for standing up against evil and even went so far as to suggest those who don’t are ‘watered down’ Christians. Well there are a lot of instructions in the Bible on how to deal with evil that we can turn to. I personally like this one from Jesus and I’d recommend Pastor Anderson reads it: “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39) Though I admit that’s a bit of a cliche. But interestingly most of the time when Jesus is talking about evil, he’s talking about our very own hearts. In other words, we need to check ourselves.

But there’s more. Again Paul writing in Romans after describing “all kinds of evil” in Chapter 1 begins the second chapter by writing, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” (Rom 2:1)

If you want to be militant, you could look at the “armor of God” in Ephesians 6 where we read, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 6:12) But even here, the struggle “is not against flesh and blood” and the evil forces are spiritual, not physical. So we use weapons “not… of the world” (2 Corinthians 10:4ff).

But again, this battle is personal. We do not fight on others’ behalf. “Our struggle…” When it comes to facing evil personally, we are instructed to “flee the evil desires of youth…” (2 Timothy 2:22) to “get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent…” (James 1:21) “do not conform to the evil desires you had…” (1 Peter 1:14) to “turn from evil and do good…” (1 Peter 3:11) to “not imitate what is evil…” (3 John 1:11) and to “resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7) for “the Lord will rescue [you] from every evil attack.” (2 Timothy 4:18)

I see nothing in here that advocates fighting evil in others or wishing harm on anyone. It’s a shame that a pastor (the word means shepherd) is spreading such false doctrine. But we shouldn’t be surprised. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

Why it’s a Bad Idea to Mix Policy with Religion

Frank

(more playing catch up)

First example, the recent release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. On the surface the decision for release sounds reasonable given the circumstance. And you could argue that it’s better to err on the side of compassion (you only need to point towards the debate over the world’s view of the US during the Bush administration to see how important “good will” is to many). However, the pomp and circumstance when he landed in Libya tells the rest of the story. I don’t know if there was a backroom deal or not. But by releasing al Megrahi, the UK gave Libya a bargaining chip and a boost to their own patriotic ego. In that context, I don’t think the cost was worth the price of being compassionate.

In the second example, a family is denied adoption because they are atheists. There’s nothing about this case that makes sense to me, from the family waiting 17 years after their first adoption to adopt again (I’m sorry, but for personal reasons I take adoption very seriously), to the legal statute being used to deny this second adoption. It is an interesting statement in the state Constitution, but if applied broadly would give child-welfare agencies the right to remove children from non-believing households. Where do you draw the line? If a family misses church two Sundays in a row, can the state take custody of their children? That’s as ridiculous as that right being applied in this case. You could even go so far as to call this judge an “activist judge”, but that rhetoric only comes from one side of the spectrum. So it’s unlikely you’ll see this decision derided by those who rail against judicial activism.

In both cases, the prevailing religious motive has some merit, but the application is not thought about broadly or long term. Religion has no place guiding policy. There, I said it. However, religion informs morality which can, does, and should guide policy. Yet the application needs to be weighed against the broader context of a democratic, pluralistic society. The problem with either the Religious Right or Religious Left is that this thought process is in the wrong order. For the religious politician, politics informs religion which then guides policy. Note how this is circular. The Christ-like way should look like this instead: morality informs religion (see the change in order) which guides action. The notion that morality defines religion, not vice-versa, is foreign to American Christianity ™ and thus confuses the religion-in-politics debate.

“Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs…” (2 Timothy 2:3-4a)

Why it’s a Bad Idea to Mix Policy with Religion

Frank

(more playing catch up)

First example, the recent release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. On the surface the decision for release sounds reasonable given the circumstance. And you could argue that it’s better to err on the side of compassion (you only need to point towards the debate over the world’s view of the US during the Bush administration to see how important “good will” is to many). However, the pomp and circumstance when he landed in Libya tells the rest of the story. I don’t know if there was a backroom deal or not. But by releasing al Megrahi, the UK gave Libya a bargaining chip and a boost to their own patriotic ego. In that context, I don’t think the cost was worth the price of being compassionate.

In the second example, a family is denied adoption because they are atheists. There’s nothing about this case that makes sense to me, from the family waiting 17 years after their first adoption to adopt again (I’m sorry, but for personal reasons I take adoption very seriously), to the legal statute being used to deny this second adoption. It is an interesting statement in the state Constitution, but if applied broadly would give child-welfare agencies the right to remove children from non-believing households. Where do you draw the line? If a family misses church two Sundays in a row, can the state take custody of their children? That’s as ridiculous as that right being applied in this case. You could even go so far as to call this judge an “activist judge”, but that rhetoric only comes from one side of the spectrum. So it’s unlikely you’ll see this decision derided by those who rail against judicial activism.

In both cases, the prevailing religious motive has some merit, but the application is not thought about broadly or long term. Religion has no place guiding policy. There, I said it. However, religion informs morality which can, does, and should guide policy. Yet the application needs to be weighed against the broader context of a democratic, pluralistic society. The problem with either the Religious Right or Religious Left is that this thought process is in the wrong order. For the religious politician, politics informs religion which then guides policy. Note how this is circular. The Christ-like way should look like this instead: morality informs religion (see the change in order) which guides action. The notion that morality defines religion, not vice-versa, is foreign to American Christianity ™ and thus confuses the religion-in-politics debate.

“Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs…” (2 Timothy 2:3-4a)

Where There’s Smoke…

Frank

I try to give other churches and other Christians the benefit of the doubt. Only God knows the heart and I’m in no position to judge anyone. However, I will challenge anyone who will listen to “live a life worth of the calling you have received.” (Ephesians 4:1) And I will also call out what I believe to be blatant cases of false doctrine (on this blog these are generally related to politics). But this is just fishy to me.

When I first saw the headline it read, “teen fears parents will kill her after conversion.” I was all ready to whip out a post on “perfect love drives out fear” (1 John 4:8) thinking it was the parents who converted. This is the common argument against parental notification for abortions by minors. It’s a sad world we live in when children are so fearful of their parents that they’d rather kill an unborn life than face them. Even more sad that so many have twisted their own religion to completely remove grace so that some children are right to be afraid.

But this is different. In this case, the girl converted from her Muslim upbringing. She fears her parents will kill her for the sake of their “honor”. Tragically, this is a reality in may parts of the world, but seems out of place in the United States where we can freely exercise our religion.

However, it’s not this case that I want to write about. Rather her church is what caught my attention. I recognized the name (only reported by AOL that I could find) from this lengthy discussion at theophiles. Both cases are similar- minor converts against the will of his and her parents, parents label church a cult, and “a man [is turned] against his father, a daughter against her mother…” (Matthew 10:35ff)

It’s a cycle my fellowship of churches recognizes all too well. In fact when the first story broke I thought it was a sister church. Even the church’s description (small groups, discipleship, evangelistic) made me think so. But there is one (doctrinally a couple) significant difference- we would never convert a minor against the will of their parents. (I’m not meaning to sound prideful, but I’ve spent most of my Christian life in the teen ministry and that is rule #1, even for teens whose parents are members of the church. If the parents say no, that’s the end of the story.)

While we enjoy religious freedom in this country, and the above scripture does tell us that the Gospel will divide our families, we still have to abide by the law of the land: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Romans 13:1) And in this country, parents have the legal authority over their children while they are minors.

The runaway girl is an interesting case since she believes her life is in danger. If her church is trying to score “persecution” points in the media, shame on them. But they should have never pursued converting this girl until she was legally out of her home. Even if it was initiated by her, she still needs to follow the Bible and obey her parents (Ephesians 6:1-3, Colossians 3:20, Exodus 20:12). Her small group/discipleship partner/whatever should have been quick to point this out.

I pray for the safety of this girl and I pray for compassion from her parents. Most of all, I pray for her church, that it is a light to the world- who is an abassador of Christ that is spreading a true Gospel that unites believers.

Where There’s Smoke…

Frank

I try to give other churches and other Christians the benefit of the doubt. Only God knows the heart and I’m in no position to judge anyone. However, I will challenge anyone who will listen to “live a life worth of the calling you have received.” (Ephesians 4:1) And I will also call out what I believe to be blatant cases of false doctrine (on this blog these are generally related to politics). But this is just fishy to me.

When I first saw the headline it read, “teen fears parents will kill her after conversion.” I was all ready to whip out a post on “perfect love drives out fear” (1 John 4:8) thinking it was the parents who converted. This is the common argument against parental notification for abortions by minors. It’s a sad world we live in when children are so fearful of their parents that they’d rather kill an unborn life than face them. Even more sad that so many have twisted their own religion to completely remove grace so that some children are right to be afraid.

But this is different. In this case, the girl converted from her Muslim upbringing. She fears her parents will kill her for the sake of their “honor”. Tragically, this is a reality in may parts of the world, but seems out of place in the United States where we can freely exercise our religion.

However, it’s not this case that I want to write about. Rather her church is what caught my attention. I recognized the name (only reported by AOL that I could find) from this lengthy discussion at theophiles. Both cases are similar- minor converts against the will of his and her parents, parents label church a cult, and “a man [is turned] against his father, a daughter against her mother…” (Matthew 10:35ff)

It’s a cycle my fellowship of churches recognizes all too well. In fact when the first story broke I thought it was a sister church. Even the church’s description (small groups, discipleship, evangelistic) made me think so. But there is one (doctrinally a couple) significant difference- we would never convert a minor against the will of their parents. (I’m not meaning to sound prideful, but I’ve spent most of my Christian life in the teen ministry and that is rule #1, even for teens whose parents are members of the church. If the parents say no, that’s the end of the story.)

While we enjoy religious freedom in this country, and the above scripture does tell us that the Gospel will divide our families, we still have to abide by the law of the land: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Romans 13:1) And in this country, parents have the legal authority over their children while they are minors.

The runaway girl is an interesting case since she believes her life is in danger. If her church is trying to score “persecution” points in the media, shame on them. But they should have never pursued converting this girl until she was legally out of her home. Even if it was initiated by her, she still needs to follow the Bible and obey her parents (Ephesians 6:1-3, Colossians 3:20, Exodus 20:12). Her small group/discipleship partner/whatever should have been quick to point this out.

I pray for the safety of this girl and I pray for compassion from her parents. Most of all, I pray for her church, that it is a light to the world- who is an abassador of Christ that is spreading a true Gospel that unites believers.

You and Me Baby, Ain’t Nothin’ but Mammals

Frank

(if that song is now stuck in your head, go here)

(WARNING: This post contains links that lead to explicit material that may not be suitable for everyone.)

Given the above, I’m going to try and keep my commentary short and spare a lot of details. A couple of articles recently caught my attention and that I feel are worth viewing through a Biblical Worldview. First, two weeks ago Mark Morford, a columnist at the San Francisco Gate wrote an article speculating that “God is slightly gay“. Then last Thursday there was an article at Slate describing the masturbation habits of animals.

What both of these have in common is the justification that if animals do it, then it’s ok for us to do it. If animals exhibit homosexual behavior, then it must be natural and therefore should be socially acceptable. Likewise, if animals masturbate, then there’s less reason to consider “onanism” a social vice. Both articles go further implying that God must be gay (since if his creation has ‘natural’ homosexual behavior, then that must reflect part of God’s character) in the former case, and that masturbation can be defended from a pro-life standpoint in the latter.

If you’re read this far, your brain has probably already come to some conclusions without my pointing out the false equivalencies and mutual exclusiveness. But those are exercises in logic. I want to also look at this from the viewpoint of the Bible.

First logic, casting aside the false equivalencies and mutual exclusiveness from the above arguments. Animals also resort to violence, or in some cases murder, to impress possible mates, seldom practice monogamy, practice infanticide and cannibalism. Ok, maybe we’re not too far from that ourselves, so let me offer a different illustration (and forgive the vulgarity, but I need it to make my point). A dog wants to hump my leg, does that make it socially permissible for you to do so? I could give other extreme examples, but I think you see the point.

As for the Bible, it is clear that we are different than the “beasts of the field”. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’

“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.”
(Gen 1:26-27)

Of course, Genesis 1 and 2 are easily disposed of today. But I’m not talking science, I’m talking theology. We are created in God’s image. The Bible does not say the same for any animals. So animals do not possess characteristics of God (unless you’re Buddhist, in which case that homosexual, masturbating horse might be your late grandmother) other than their diversity reflects God’s creativity. There is no covenant with the animals (remember as a child being told your favorite pet went to heaven? Sorry, not going to happen), no expectation for holiness (“be holy because I [God] am holy” 1 Peter 1:16), no Law, no grace. Humankind is unique in God’s eyes. We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard. Instead of looking to the animal kingdom to justify our sinful nature, we should instead focus on the heavenly kingdom to “live a life worthy of the calling you have received.” (Eph 4:1ff)

You and Me Baby, Ain’t Nothin’ but Mammals

Frank

(if that song is now stuck in your head, go here)

(WARNING: This post contains links that lead to explicit material that may not be suitable for everyone.)

Given the above, I’m going to try and keep my commentary short and spare a lot of details. A couple of articles recently caught my attention and that I feel are worth viewing through a Biblical Worldview. First, two weeks ago Mark Morford, a columnist at the San Francisco Gate wrote an article speculating that “God is slightly gay“. Then last Thursday there was an article at Slate describing the masturbation habits of animals.

What both of these have in common is the justification that if animals do it, then it’s ok for us to do it. If animals exhibit homosexual behavior, then it must be natural and therefore should be socially acceptable. Likewise, if animals masturbate, then there’s less reason to consider “onanism” a social vice. Both articles go further implying that God must be gay (since if his creation has ‘natural’ homosexual behavior, then that must reflect part of God’s character) in the former case, and that masturbation can be defended from a pro-life standpoint in the latter.

If you’re read this far, your brain has probably already come to some conclusions without my pointing out the false equivalencies and mutual exclusiveness. But those are exercises in logic. I want to also look at this from the viewpoint of the Bible.

First logic, casting aside the false equivalencies and mutual exclusiveness from the above arguments. Animals also resort to violence, or in some cases murder, to impress possible mates, seldom practice monogamy, practice infanticide and cannibalism. Ok, maybe we’re not too far from that ourselves, so let me offer a different illustration (and forgive the vulgarity, but I need it to make my point). A dog wants to hump my leg, does that make it socially permissible for you to do so? I could give other extreme examples, but I think you see the point.

As for the Bible, it is clear that we are different than the “beasts of the field”. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’

“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.”
(Gen 1:26-27)

Of course, Genesis 1 and 2 are easily disposed of today. But I’m not talking science, I’m talking theology. We are created in God’s image. The Bible does not say the same for any animals. So animals do not possess characteristics of God (unless you’re Buddhist, in which case that homosexual, masturbating horse might be your late grandmother) other than their diversity reflects God’s creativity. There is no covenant with the animals (remember as a child being told your favorite pet went to heaven? Sorry, not going to happen), no expectation for holiness (“be holy because I [God] am holy” 1 Peter 1:16), no Law, no grace. Humankind is unique in God’s eyes. We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard. Instead of looking to the animal kingdom to justify our sinful nature, we should instead focus on the heavenly kingdom to “live a life worthy of the calling you have received.” (Eph 4:1ff)

God Bless America?

Frank

For the warm-fuzzy 4th of July posts, check here and here.

I’m not going write a post dripping with patriotism, devoting more to my country than to my Lord. Instead I want us to consider brothers and sisters in Christ around the globe. Are we more blessed than they? Does God love us more because we’re “proud to be an American”? (ha, now you have that song in your head, don’t you?) Paul wrote to the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28) In today’s terms, there is neither Iranian nor American…

Last week my congregation raised over $100,000, a majority of which to be shared with churches we support in the Baltic and Nordic countries. The Baltic countries like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are former Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet States. Just a short time ago, they were our enemies. And now we worship along side them, united in Christ. Again I ask, are we more blessed than they? Did God suddenly begin to love them once they rejected communism?

Turning our attention back to our own country, it is easy to see we are far from perfect. We have political deadlocks, economic turmoil, sexual scandals and often those fall under a single headline. Does God love us more just because we Pledge Allegiance to the Flag? The phrase “one nation under God” was added to distinguish our country from “Godless communism”. Some have tried to have that phrase removed, just like the words “In God We Trust” on our currency, or “God Bless America” at the end of nearly every political speech. But if that phrase was removed from the Pledge, I don’t think I’d recite it. Saying one nation under God puts things in proper order. God comes first. Without that phrase, I’m violating what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount, “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.” (Matthew 5:33-36) Now a ‘pledge’ isn’t an oath, but to my conscience it’s too close for comfort.

Would that then make me unpatriotic? A similar dilemma exists in our religious politics. Am I less than a Christian if I vote a certain way? There’s a unfortunate trend that’s dominated our politics in recent years, and that’s a sense of entitlement, of blessing, based on our own sense of righteousness. Take the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. Was that because New Orleans ‘endorsed’ homosexuality by allowing a parade? Some would think so. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. I’m not about to put a motive behind anything that God does. But does God owe us blessings? Does he owe us curses if we don’t abide by his Law? Last I checked, his Covenant was with the Nation of Israel and we’re under a New Covenant now in Christ. Our country does not have a covenant with God. We as a people, as a church, his Kingdom on Earth, do. And that Kingdom knows no borders, no flag. I can worship right alongside my enemy because we are one in Christ.

That’s not to say that I won’t watch fireworks or wave a flag. I will celebrate the 4th, but with the understanding to what kingdom my allegiance ultimately lies.

Referring to Abraham and his descendants, “People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one.” (Hebrews 11:14-16a, emphasis added)

God Bless America?

Frank

For the warm-fuzzy 4th of July posts, check here and here.

I’m not going write a post dripping with patriotism, devoting more to my country than to my Lord. Instead I want us to consider brothers and sisters in Christ around the globe. Are we more blessed than they? Does God love us more because we’re “proud to be an American”? (ha, now you have that song in your head, don’t you?) Paul wrote to the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28) In today’s terms, there is neither Iranian nor American…

Last week my congregation raised over $100,000, a majority of which to be shared with churches we support in the Baltic and Nordic countries. The Baltic countries like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are former Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet States. Just a short time ago, they were our enemies. And now we worship along side them, united in Christ. Again I ask, are we more blessed than they? Did God suddenly begin to love them once they rejected communism?

Turning our attention back to our own country, it is easy to see we are far from perfect. We have political deadlocks, economic turmoil, sexual scandals and often those fall under a single headline. Does God love us more just because we Pledge Allegiance to the Flag? The phrase “one nation under God” was added to distinguish our country from “Godless communism”. Some have tried to have that phrase removed, just like the words “In God We Trust” on our currency, or “God Bless America” at the end of nearly every political speech. But if that phrase was removed from the Pledge, I don’t think I’d recite it. Saying one nation under God puts things in proper order. God comes first. Without that phrase, I’m violating what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount, “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.” (Matthew 5:33-36) Now a ‘pledge’ isn’t an oath, but to my conscience it’s too close for comfort.

Would that then make me unpatriotic? A similar dilemma exists in our religious politics. Am I less than a Christian if I vote a certain way? There’s a unfortunate trend that’s dominated our politics in recent years, and that’s a sense of entitlement, of blessing, based on our own sense of righteousness. Take the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. Was that because New Orleans ‘endorsed’ homosexuality by allowing a parade? Some would think so. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. I’m not about to put a motive behind anything that God does. But does God owe us blessings? Does he owe us curses if we don’t abide by his Law? Last I checked, his Covenant was with the Nation of Israel and we’re under a New Covenant now in Christ. Our country does not have a covenant with God. We as a people, as a church, his Kingdom on Earth, do. And that Kingdom knows no borders, no flag. I can worship right alongside my enemy because we are one in Christ.

That’s not to say that I won’t watch fireworks or wave a flag. I will celebrate the 4th, but with the understanding to what kingdom my allegiance ultimately lies.

Referring to Abraham and his descendants, “People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one.” (Hebrews 11:14-16a, emphasis added)