It's getting harder

It's getting harder and harder for those who would have us believe that to follow the U.S. is to follow Christ. I believe God is at work, waking his church to the adultery that is practiced by thinking it is possible...

I already pointed to a good post by Brian Zahnd about Christians and torture. Here's one that ties very nicely with my views on the pledge of allegiance.

Personally, I can think of no more of a compelling reason to close the case on Christians reciting the pledge of allegiance: we can pledge our allegiance to Jesus and his way of enemy love (which he said was a requirement to become God’s children), or we can pledge our allegiance to the empire who tortures and kills its enemies (the opposite of what Christ tells us to do, thus being an “anti-Christ” nation). But, I don’t see how one could do both, as they are complete opposites. As much as I hate lines, I don’t see how this isn’t one: we can follow Jesus, or follow America, but we cannot follow both Jesus and America at the same time as they are busy doing opposite things. (all emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Read the whole thing. And then ask yourself which kingdom has your loyalties. For which kingdom are you willing to die? For which kingdom will you expend your financial, creative, and physical resources?

And lest you think I am picking on the past administration's use of torture, be aware that the present administration has not shutdown Guantanamo Bay, despite promises to do so. The present administration also continues to use drone warfare—indeed has increased their use.

And also understand that I am not talking about what makes good sense to a non-Christian. I am saying that as a Christian, we are called to stand up to this abuse of power. To stand for shalom, which doesn't mean peace as lack of war; it means peace as in healing and wholeness. Torture doesn't heal! Drone warfare doesn't make whole! How can a Christian endorse these things and not wonder where their loyalty really lies? By their fruit, says Jesus...

What does my fruit look like to the King of kings? That is the question I have been asking myself the last few days. Am I complicit in this because I haven't been speaking up more? Will this unrest in my soul lead to a deeper humility in my walk with Jesus? or will I "get over it" in a few days and resume business as usual? I pray the former and not the latter!
</idle musing>

Where do your allegiances lie?

Saw this posted today.

However, I think we’re having the wrong discussion on this issue entirely. Instead of a constant cultural debate over the wording of the pledge, I think a better question is:

“Should a Christian recite the pledge of allegiance at all?“

Admittedly, I never once asked myself this question until the last year or two. Once I really started to consider the issue from all sides, I was actually really disappointed that it had taken me so long to actually see this issue for what it was. In the end, I have become convinced that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is something that a Jesus follower probably shouldn’t do.

<idle musing>
Read the whole post to get context, but I believe he's correct. I haven't recited the Pledge since I became a Christian (back in 1972, for those of you wondering). I couldn't see pledging my allegiance to anyone or thing other than God.

At the time, I was a long-hair, so many assumed I was doing it as a sign of rebellion—which in a sense I was, just not the rebellion they thought. It led to many interesting conversations.

I also didn't stand for the national anthem for the same reasons...

This sometimes led to unfortunate confrontations. I remember one in particular, at the 1973 Boy Scout Jamboree in Idaho. I was on staff as a clerk at one of the Trading Posts, which left me plenty of free time for patch trading and other things. I was off-duty and sitting talking with other workers on the grass when the national anthem began. Everyone else stood up, turned around and saluted the flag as it was being raised. I remained seated. Remember, I'm a long-hair, in a Boy Scout uniform, with a staff neckerchief and an Eagle Scout badge sewn on my shirt. Sitting during the national anthem. Talk about a mess of contradictions in some people's minds...

Anyway, after the anthem, we all resumed our conversation—for about 15 seconds. Suddenly, a man in a Scoutmaster's uniform comes up to me, points his finger in my face and begins to berate me about disrespect and how it was shameful that I was allowed to wear a scout uniform. He threatened to report me to my boss and get me in some serious trouble. Without waiting to listen to any reply, he turned and stalked off.

I figured the best defense was a good offense, so I went to my boss, along with a couple of the people who had witnessed the whole thing, and told him the whole story–including why I chose not to stand. My boss promised to bear all that in mind if/when the Scoutmaster came and talked to him.

I never heard another thing about it, so I'm not sure if the Scoutmaster ever did go to my boss or if he just figured I'd be scared into submission...anyway, do read the post I've linked to and seriously consider where your allegiances lie.
</idle musing>

Hidden rituals

Just read a good description of ritual yesterday (yes, I know the book is 10 years old!). It fits in well with my thoughts on a national secular religion and the picture that I'm posting below:

The basic formal properties include: repetition, acting (which involves doing, not just thinking or speaking), special behavior or stylization, order, evocative presentation style or staging, and a collective or social dimension. By virture [sic] of these properties, ritual is a “traditionalizing instrument,” that is, it makes what is expressed thereby acceptable and common. It hides the novelty and even radicalness of new ideas and acts. It also allows those of diverse social groups, even strangers, to participate together and feel commonality and solidarity. In addition to any direct teaching it may include, ritual communicates latently about morality, authority, the legitimacy of the social order, and the nature of social reality. And not only does it reflect these social aspects, it transforms society by its performance. Because they are dealing with secular ritual, the authors [Sally Moore and Barbara Myerhoff] avoid the problematic inclusion of the supernatural in the list of characteristic elements. But they do note how even secular ritual is connected with the notion of the sacred. The sacred may be partly defined as what is unquestionable. Ritual, and what it communicates, is similarly unquestionable, at least when it functions properly.—Ritual in Narrative, pages 10-11 (emphasis mine)

Now, with that in mind, look at the inscription on the wall behind Lincoln...



Civil religion, anyone? Who says we don't deify our heroes! By the way, that picture was taken by me Sunday afternoon, so I can vouch for its authenticity.

Now, stop and think about the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance, the rituals involved in displaying the flag, etc...

The most important line in the quotation above was the last one that I highlighted—"Ritual, and what it communicates, is similarly unquestionable, at least when it functions properly"—if you never thought about any of the things I'm raising in this post, then ritual did its job only too well. As Christians, our loyalty is first and foremost to God, and the pledge of allegiance is an admission that our primary loyalty is to the state...OK, I'm done; go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong, if you can.

Something to think about over the weekend

Before I left town on Monday, I received an e-mail from Smyth & Helwys, a Baptist publisher. They were promoting their book of the month, Stand with Christ. I usually find their selected books to be thought provoking, and this was no exception. Here are a couple of excerpts from the featured chapter, but do read the whole thing.

As a child at Vacation Bible School, I pledged allegiance to the American flag, the Christian flag, and the Bible—in that order. From an early age I was taught to cherish each of those, and I still love and respect what each of them represents. As I grew older, however, I learned to make distinctions and weigh values and the ordering of my allegiances shifted.

Today, my allegiance to Christ always comes first.

When I was a teenager growing up in an independent, fundamentalist Baptist church, we often sang a chorus I first learned as a child in VBS: “The B-I-B-L-E, Yes, that’s the book for me, I’ll stand alone on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E.” More often than that, I heard preachers pound on the pulpit and lift their Bibles high and forcefully thunder out rhetoric such as: “All we know about Jesus is in this book. If the Bible is not infallible and inerrant, then nobody, nobody, nobody can tell us how to get to God for sure.”1 At that time, it seemed clear to me that if you did not believe the Bible, you could not be saved. The Bible’s inerrancy served to “guarantee” that the Christian faith was true. Without it you could not be sure of your salvation. In essence, you had to pledge allegiance to the Bible before you could pledge allegiance to Christ. As I grew older and my faith and my thinking matured, however, the ordering of my allegiances shifted.

Today, my allegiance to Christ always comes first.

And, a bit further on

The developing sophistication of idolatry did not end in biblical times. Throughout the history of the church it has continued, in varying forms, to the present day. Its most recent modern form is the elevation of the Bible over Jesus.

Like the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple, and the Law, the role of the Bible in the drama of divine redemption is vital. But reverence for the Bible and its authority must never divert attention from the central and preeminent place Christ holds in the drama of redemption and revelation. There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). Jesus alone is the ground and foundation for our faith.

<idle musing>
Amen! This chapter sums up much of my problem with inerrancy and Bible worship. The elevation of the biblical text above Christ might not be intentional—and I suspect it isn't!—but God will allow nothing to come before Him—not even the Bible.
</idle musing>

So stone me!

Recently, Chuck Pierce is in the news for "mantling" Glenn Beck. You can read about it here and the reactions, with Pierce's response, here. I chose Charisma News as the link because it is relatively favorable to this type of thing. I don't want to import biases before I say anything.

I was somewhat concerned when I read the first report, so I e-mailed a friend of mine who follows this stuff closer than I do. I wanted to know if there was a back-story to this that wasn't getting published. His response was pretty much the stuff published in the second article. He asked me what I thought. I didn't intend to give more than a short answer, but once I started writing, I couldn't stop. I'd like to think it was from the Lord, but you decide. It is relatively long, but you can read it faster than a cat video would take to watch...

Here's my response, slightly edited. I'm calling my friend Theophilus, which can mean either "beloved to God" or "lover of God." Both are true of him, and I hope of you. Either way, the former is true, you are beloved to God.

Dear Theophilus,

Lots of things going on in this whole scenario; I’ll try to deal with each one, but let me know if you don’t follow.

1. In The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel, Frankel, a secular Jew, looked at the land promises to Israel and came to the conclusion that they are conditional on Israel serving YHWH. The current regime in Israel seems more intent on political subjugation of non-Jews than anything else. Witness the treatment of Palestinians and the “Wall” that is being built.

2. One can disagree with the stance of Israel toward the Palestinians and not be against Israel. I know some Israeli Jews who are very much opposed to the direction that Israel is taking here. One can scarcely call them anti-Israel! I fear that the formerly oppressed have become the oppressors themselves.

3. The prophets called Israel to account and were doing so by the voice of YHWH. When there was injustice, Amos called it out. Of course, the ruling party in the Northern Kingdom kicked him out, but YHWH was the one who called him. See Rick Hess, ed.,War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, the last chapter (on Just Peacemaking) for more details (a great book, by the way!).

4. The close alliance between Christianity and Nationalism in the U.S. has me quite concerned. How much of what happened with Beck is related to his strong nationalism and the upcoming U.S. elections? Beck spews hatred and a strong civil religion with the U.S. as his real god. The fact that most U.S. Christians don’t see anything wrong with flying a flag in the church buildings while they won’t display a cross for fear of offending someone is a problem (and yes, I did have someone tell me that when I asked them why there was no cross but a U.S. flag!). The fact that patriotic holidays like Memorial Day, Fourth of July, etc. call forth celebrations of “freedom” more that Easter does is a problem. The fact that most U.S. Christians don’t have a problem reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is terrifying. Where does their real allegiance lie? See just about anything by Michael Gorman for a good critique.

5. The U.S. is not God’s chosen instrument in the world. Well, let me rephrase that, it might be, but so was Assyria! But that didn’t keep God from judging Assyria for overstepping its bounds (see Habakkuk!). The Christians in the U.S. would do well to take a look at Augustine’s City of God for perspective. God was getting along fine before the U.S. became ascendent, and he will get along fine once it falls (and it will—every empire does).

6. The whole dispensationalist viewpoint on the end times is theologically deficient. At no time in the history of the church did anything approaching Dispensationalism appear until Darby and then Scofield’s development of it. It is based largely on a misreading of scripture through the lens of Germanic (and Enlightenment) anti-Semitism which equated the Old Testament with legalism and formalism (read Wellhausen, et al.). One only need read Hosea to realize that there is no covenant of law and covenant of grace. It is always and ever grace. The fulness of that grace wasn’t disclosed until the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but it was always grace. From the moment that Adam and Eve took the apple, God has been pursuing humanity! Praise God for that! That’s all grace.

7. The way that the Christian Right has been whitewashing Mormonism since the last election has me concerned. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association took down their page on Mormonism as a cult after Franklin Graham endorsed Mitt Romney. When called on the carpet, the BGEA said it was removing it because of something that I don’t recall, but the bottom line was Romney was Mormon and Franklin wanted him elected. Why? Because he represented what the Christian Right wanted. Not because Romney was an Evangelical who wanted to exalt God, but because he stood for a strong America with values that they endorsed. Sorry, but that’s just a bunch of double talk for we want to stay in power. Forget the cross, we want the crown. Bomb the Muslims! Revenge!

8. Just as the church sold out far too much to Constantine and his successors, so has the church sold out far too much to the U.S. Government for the sake of “influence.” What has that influence bought? The rich are richer than ever. The churches are emptier than in recent memory. There is no revival. There is no cry for revival—but there are loud cries for bigger armies and more invasions. Defend American interests! What ever happened to the way of the cross? What happened to forgiveness? What happened to feed the poor and oppressed? I haven’t seen any bills introduced to eliminate abortion—the calling card that the Right has always used to get the Evangelical vote—but there have been bills introduced to slice benefits to the poorest among us. There have been letters written warning Iran that we want war. Quite the exchange, the glory of God for a piece of power that will wilt. Pure religion and undefiled is to make widows and orphans seems to be what the church is saying instead of taking care of widows and orphans.

So, yes, I have a huge check in my spirit about this whole thing. I think that nationalism has dulled the sensitivity of too many people to what God is really calling the church to: humble fasting and praying that holiness would grab the church. After all, the promise in Chronicles starts out by saying if my people will humble themselves and turn from their wicked ways… it doesn’t say if other people will turn… and as long as the divorce rate in the church is as high as the rest of society, I’d say we have a problem. As long as preachers are preaching prosperity instead of giving to the poor, we have a problem. As long as…you get the idea.

Sorry this got so long, but this is where my prayers have been going for the last 10 years or more—actually since before 9/11 and especially since. Especially when the Sunday after 9/11 when we were at a megachurch in Minneapolis and the pastor prayed for our soldiers to win. I felt the Lord nudging me to go up to him, so I did. I asked him if we couldn’t pray for the perpetrators as well, that they might experience the love of God. He told me he couldn’t. To his credit, within a week he was able to. But most pastors didn’t. That’s a problem. We’ve equated nationalism with Christianity. That’s sin.

<idle musing>
Now it's your turn...what's wrong with my response? Or, maybe a better question, what is God calling you to do in response to this? If he isn't calling you to prayer, something is wrong! And that prayer could be that I "see the light!" But if it causes you to classify me as a "liberal" or "Israel hater" or some such label, then know that your hope isn't in God, but in a political process that will ultimately fail you, because only God can fix matters of the heart, not laws and government processes...

Just an
</idle musing>

A virtual cafeteria of gods

I'm in a new book now, God in New Testament Theology by Larry Hurtado. Here's the first excerpt. I'm not sure how much I will be able to excerpt, though; so much of the stuff depends on more than a short excerpt.

“But in the ancient world of the first Christians (and in large parts of the current world as well), the words for god (e.g., the Greek word theos) designated one of many kinds of divine beings. There was neither one deity nor even one genus or definition of deity. Instead, there was a veritable cafeteria of divine beings of various orders, attributes, and functions. Not only the Roman Empire as a whole but also individual nations and peoples were rather richly supplied with deities. So, in that setting, when one spoke of a “god” it was not automatically clear who or what the referent was. It could be one of the numerous traditional deities of the many cities or various peoples, or it could be new or imported ones. Indeed, in a number of settings one could even refer to the ruler as a 'god'.

“Moreover, the common view was that all deities were entitled to receive appropriate worship. A city or a people might well have their particular patron-deity—and might well have thought of one deity as holding pre-eminence among the gods—to whom a city or people might give special reverence. But it was understood that other cities and peoples had their deities too and that they were just as worthy of worship. Indeed, when people traveled to another city or country, ordinarily they would freely participate in the worship of the local deities, if invited, with no sense of unfaithfulness to their own deities. To be sure, philosophers of the day sometimes urged the idea that there was really one deity behind or above all the particular traditional deities, the latter sometimes thought of as manifestations of the one deity. But even those proposing such a view (sometimes referred to by scholars today as a 'pagan monotheism') did not really question giving worship to all the many deities of the religious environment. That is, their philosophical musings in general had little impact on popular religious behavior, not even their own.”—God in New Testament Theology, pages 27-28

<idle musing>
I can't emphasize too much the importance of this for understanding the ancient world and the persecution of Christians. If you don't get this, it makes no sense. I guess the closest to it today is when some people (such as myself) believe that saying the pledge of allegiance to the U.S. flag is compromising their commitment to God. Heresy! I can hear you crying; but it is true, if you but stop and think about it. No? Then I have a question for you: does a fish know it is wet?
</idle musing>

A sense of mission? Not so much…

Many Christians know little or nothing about personal guidance from God. They go from event to event and live a kind of hand-to-mouth spiritual existence—a spiritual and moral opportunism. They have no sense of working out a plan of life under God’s guidance. They have little or no sense of destiny, of mission.

This is true of the nation as well as the individual. When a nation loses its sense of mission, it is beginning to disintegrate. Someone asked President Eisenhower, before he was nominated for the Presidency, what was the greatest need of America, and he replied: “A sense of mission.” A very wise and penetrating reply. Personally I believe this sense of mission for America is to be true to the last line of the pledge of allegiance to the flag: “One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” This is the thing we have been raised up to do: to give “liberty and justice for all,” at home and abroad. This rules out all imperialisms—economic, social, political, military. We have been the proving ground of an idea—an economy of liberty and justice for all, apart from race and birth and religion and color and sex. We have been brought up to make the word “all” operative in all relationships at home and abroad. This is the mission of America. We must work it out—or perish. And if we don't work it out, we ought to perish—we will be a useless, amorphic mass of selfish people struggling for personal advantage. If we as a nation go out to dominate anyone economically, socially, politically, militarily, then our “name is mud.” “Ichabod”—“God has departed”—will be written on our banners, and angels will weep. For we who began by breaking with imperialism would end in setting up one of our own—the saddest ending to the greatest beginning in human history. One of our greatest needs is a call for a national day of prayer in which we will humbly bow our knees to get back as a nation “a sense of mission”—a sense that we are working out a divine destiny in the world.—E. Stanley Jones, Growing Spiritually, 274

<idle musing>
He wrote this in 1953. His fears have definitely been realized, haven't they?
</idle musing>

Musings on the 4th day of July

Actually, these are musings by others, but I heartily endorse them...
First, from Alan Knox

No, I’m not anti-American. Not at all. I’m very grateful to God that I was born in the country in which I have many personal freedoms. But, I’m also tired of the church in the USA confusing patriotism with following Jesus.
...
I’ve talked to too many Christians in the USA who were more concerned with the individual rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed by God in the Bible, right?), and much less concerned with giving up their rights (much less their life) for the sake of others.
...
The United States of America is not God’s country. Citizens of the United States who have received the good news of Jesus Christ and have been indwelled by the Spirit of God are God’s people. But, citizens of other countries who have received the good news of Jesus Christ and have been indwelled by the Spirit of God are God’s people also.

And, from Michael Gorman (whose RSS feed doesn't appear to be working correctly), 8 baby steps to take. I'll only highlight the third one:

3. Under no circumstances allow the pledge of allegiance. Don’t feel forced to challenge the pledge in principle. Simply say, “In worship we pledge ourselves to God alone.”

And, in an interesting twist, Joel Watts:

The Church is the Kingdom God which is at war with the World, albeit a spiritual war. Would you expect that the American Embassy in Afghanistan to celebrate Al-Qaeda? No, then why bring the world (people would cry, well used too, havoc if you had a dance in the sanctuary, etc.., etc.., etc…) and the regimes which oppose the Church into the Church of Christ?

<idle musing>
Good thoughts. Do you have any relevant posts?
</idle musing>

That fourth day in July is approaching

And civil religion is about to take over the U.S. But, before you allow it to rule you, as well, consider ths:

It isn’t government which gives or guarantees freedom at all. And it’s idolatry to think otherwise. Jim West

And this:

No matter what the churches claim, Christianity in the United States has two liturgical seasons, the Holy Season, which runs from Advent to Easter (or Pentecost if you’re lucky), and the Civil Season, which runs from Memorial Day to Thanksgiving. (Rather handy division of the year, isn’t it?) At the beginning of summer, we are clearly now in the thick of Civil Season, or Civil Religion Time—which replaces Ordinary Time.

Civil religion in the U.S. never goes away, but its major feasts are in that six-month period. God-and-country language and rituals are more prevalent, and syncretism in the churches (”when you see the red in the flag, think of the blood of those who died to make us free, and also think of Jesus’ blood that was shed to make us really free”) runs rampant but is hardly ever questioned.

Why is it so difficult for Christians in the U.S. (and elsewhere, sometimes, but especially in the U.S.) to see this for what it is: idolatry?

And, for some practical steps to move away from the idolatry of civil religion, 8 baby steps away from civil religion. My favorites:

3. Under no circumstances allow the pledge of allegiance. Don’t feel forced to challenge the pledge in principle. Simply say, “In worship we pledge ourselves to God alone.”

4. Don’t compare the red of the U.S. flag or the blood shed in battle to the blood of Christ, or war deaths to Christ’s sacrifice. At best, that cheapens Christ’s death.

<idle musing>
Why is it so hard for Americans to see nationalism as idolatry and pride? We are not God's chosen instrument in the world today anymore than Rome was in the 5th century. If we think so, we are in for a shock when the Goths (whoever they might be this time around) sack Washington, D.C. Hopefully there will be an Augustine to write another City of God, debunking the claim that Rome/U.S. is God's favorite.
</idle musing>

Bring out the stones!

It's that time of year again when the christian nationalists get to turn the worship of God into the worship of country. Well, they always are doing that, but on the two Sundays surrounding July 4th, they get the stage. Roger Olson has a great post today on the difference between nationalism and patriotism, and why nationalism is idolatry.

Here's a short excerpt, but do read the whole thing:

Nationalism is patriotism on steroids; it is patriotism degenerated into jingoism and chauvinism. It is near idolatry of country and often appears in mixing celebration of nation with worship of God. Patriotism thanks God for the good of one’s country and asks God to “mend its every flaw.” Patriotism is honest about the country’s failures and urges leaders to push on toward better achievements of its founding ideals. Nationalism rejects all criticism of country as almost (if not exactly) treason. . . .

Idolatry is such a subtle and seductive force (nobody ever thinks they are engaging in it!) that Christians ought always to be on guard against it. It is best to steer clear and wide of it. That’s why I prefer not to have a national flag in any worship space. While it might not constitute idolatry, it presents that possibility. Too many people even in Christian churches do treat the national flag as an idol. One “good Christian man” I know threatened violence to anyone who removed the flag from the church’s sanctuary.

<idle musing>
So, bring out the stones and cast them at all of us who think that the nationalism displayed by far too many who call themselves christians is really just idolatry and worship of a false god. I personally would go even further than Roger Olson in saying that much of what is called patriotism is also veiled nationalism. For example, I don't see how a Christian can recite the Pledge of Allegiance or stand and sing the national anthem. For me both of those are idolatry.

So bring on the stones! You're probably going to get your Supreme Court justice who will cause SCOTUS to endorse the death penalty anyway, so why not do it now? : (
</idle musing>

It's alive!

The rituals outlining these procedures and the accompanying incantations are known collectively by the Babylonian titles mīs pî (“washing of the mouth”) and pīt pî (“opening of the mouth”). The mīs pî, as noted earlier, was primarily a ritual intended to purify the recipient in preparation for cultic activity. As Walker and Dick conclude, “the ‘washing of the mouth’ was essentially a purification rite which prepared the object/person for contact with the divine. It washed away impurities.” The mīs pî was performed not only on divine statues but also on the king and his royal insignia, royal statues, priests, individual humans, and various animals and sacred objects. By contrast, the mouth-opening rite (pīt pî) was apparently reserved for inanimate objects, including figurines and larger divine images, a leather bag, cult symbols, and royal jewels. It was thought to consecrate, activate, and/or enliven the object in preparation for cultic use. When applied to a divine statue, the Opening of the Mouth was thought to animate the statue’s sensory organs and limbs, enabling it to consume offerings, smell incense, and move freely. Once the mouth washing and opening were complete, the statue was considered a fully functioning, living manifestation of the divine.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 44

<idle musing>
Remember, the ancients were fully aware that it wasn't the deity—it was just a manifestation of the deity. But at the same time, it was the deity. Confusing? Maybe. But because in a very real sense it was the deity, Isaiah and the other prophets could have a good time making fun of the whole process.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the few people who actually read this blog, I could say we can compare it to the treatment that is given to the U.S. flag. It isn't the country, but it represents in a very real way the U.S. That's why people get so upset when people burn it out of protest. They are symbolically burning the country. Or, why the flag is never supposed to touch the ground, or you stand and salute the flag, or say the Pledge of Allegiance, or any one of a number of other "silly" rules about handling the flag.

Side question? Is the flag an idol?

You figure it out, but I would suggest it is...just as nationalism is an idol. Yes, especially "American exceptionalism."
</idle musing>

This is radical

[T]he radical nature of the apostles’ reinterpretation emerges in that it does not, in the manner of Aristobulus, for example, consist of a simple substitution of numinous realities—“that which you call Zeus is really the God of Israel.” It thus has no affinity with ancient pluralism (in which, e.g., divine names can be only incidental to divine realities). Instead, it involves both a demolition of the pagan model in toto (worshipping Zeus is futile) and the call for a new construction of divine identity.—World Upside Down, page 23

<idle musing>
Given our monotheistic/atheistic culture with its secular/sacred distinction, I don't think we can fully comprehend just how radical an idea this was. It tore the fabric of society into pieces. The world order depended on the divine realm—multiple deities that needed to be kept happy. That was part of being a good citizen. It's even more radical than not saying the Pledge of Allegiance, or refusing to stand and sing the Star Spangled Banner (both of which I refuse to do and have gotten no small amount of flack for over the years...).

I'm at a loss as to what it compares to...every comparison I think of falls flat.
</idle musing>

Rudyard Kipling hymn and footnotes (or how to brainwash in two easy verses)

294 Germany. L. M.

1 Father in heaven, who lovest all,
   O help Thy children when they call;
   That they may build from age to age
   An undefiled heritage.

2 Teach us to bear the yoke in youth,
   With steadfastness and careful truth;
   That, in our time, Thy grace may give
   The truth whereby the nations live.

3 Teach us to rule ourselves alway,
   Controlled and cleanly night and day;
   That we may bring, if need arise,
   No maimed or worthless sacrifice.

4 Teach us to look in all our ends
   On Thee for Judge, and not our friends;
   That we, with Thee, may walk uncowed
   By fear or favour of the crowd.

5 Teach us the strength that cannot seek,
   By deed or thought, to hurt the weak;
   That, under Thee, we may possess
   Man's strength to comfort man's distress.

6 Teach us delight in simple things,
   And mirth that has no bitter springs;
   Forgiveness free of evil done,
   And love to all men 'neath the sun.
                         Rudyard Kipling
                         The Methodist Hymnal 1939 edition

<idle musing>
I'm blogging about this hymn not because I like it; I find it mediocre at best. Nor am I posting it because it was written by Rudyard Kipling. The reason is because of the footnoted two verses:

1 Land of our birth, we pledge to thee
   Our love and toil in the years to be,
   When we are grown and take our place
   As men and women with our race.

7 Land of our birth, our faith, our pride,
   For whose dear sake our fathers died;
   O Motherland, we pledge to thee
   Head, heart, and hand through the years to be.

Now, remember this hymnal was originally published in 1939, close to the height of the America First movement and just prior to the outbreak of WWII. Anti-immigrant feelings were running high, if anything higher than they are right now. Racism was rampant, even worse than today. Ever heard of lynchings? They were still happening. (Now we just shoot them—not sure that's an improvement!)

The verses are bad enough in and of themselves, but the footnote is what really burned me:

This may be used as a children's patriotic hymn by use of the following stanzas.

Look, a hymn that pledges allegiance to any earthly authority as ultimate is bad enough. But to endorse it with the suggestion that it would be appropriate for children is just too much like brainwashing for me. I wonder if the irony of the tune title was lost on them: Germany. And the first line of the (real) first verse: "Father in heaven, who lovest all." Of course, that's offset by the last line, with its "undefiled heritage"—a code word in those days for eugenics.

I can somewhat understand that in 1939 the cultural climate was conducive to it, but I own the 1963 reprint—and it's still in there! I guess we didn't learn anything from the pledge to the fatherland and race and what it can do to people, did we?

What a way to start the new year…
</idle musing>

Gods, gods, and still more gods!

In addition to such “high” deities, there were also lesser and other divine beings that, nevertheless, figured regularly in religious practices. In Rome, for example, these included beings called Lares that functioned as guardians over various settings. The most common were domestic Lares of each household (Latin: Lares domestici), which represented spirits of family dead who had been elevated to a special kind of spiritual existence on account of their goodness and/or importance. These spirits protected the family, and all members of the household were expected to reverence them daily in offerings and prayers at the Lararium, a small altar typically placed in the Roman house. But there were also protective Lares of bridges, crossroads, and other sites, and even Lares Augusti, seen as guardians of the Roman state. In comparison with the more well-known gods, the Lares typically had more restricted spheres of power, but they likely figured much more frequently in the day-to-day ritual life of people.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, page 46

<idle musing>
And the Christians refused to worship them! Can you imagine?! Why, that would be just as bad as if a person refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance! Seditious! Rebellious! A threat to the social order! Away with them! They are a treasonous bunch! Feed them to the lion!
</idle musing>

Those blasted atheists!

When considered as a religion in that time, the most obvious oddity was Christianity’s “atheism”—that is, the refusal to worship the traditional gods. Yes, of course, as we have observed, Christians shared this exclusivist stance with Judaism. But pagans could write off the well-known Jewish refusal to worship the gods as an ethnic peculiarity. The aggressively transethnic appeal and spread of early Christianity, however, gave it no such character and made Christianity seem much more “in your face.” Other religious movements of the time had their oddities too. But early Christianity was not simply odd; it was deemed dangerous to traditional notions of religion and, so it was feared, also for reasons of social stability.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, page 184

<idle musing>
I always cast about for a good comparison—and I always come up empty. Perhaps the way we view an anarchist? But that's not quite accurate, either. But rest assured, the idea of Christianity was not readily welcomed by the ruling elites. It was unsettling. Chaos was at the door, and Christianity was letting it in—at least that was their opinion. Remember, the gods kept Chaos at bay. You served the gods to keep the status quo—it didn't really matter what you believed or how you acted, just as long as you placated the gods with the appropriate honors.

But along comes Christianity. It says that not only are the gods not to be worshiped with sacrifices, but indeed, those "gods" were actually evil demons! That idea isn't going to get a good hearing! Especially to those who have the most to lose. It is similar to the reaction that you get when you tell people that as a Christian you really should think twice about saying the pledge of allegiance...
</idle musing>

Perverse

He’s [God/Yahweh] the one who is. He is the One who was before you took advantage of somebody. He’s the One who was there while you were doing it, and He is the One who will be there when you finish doing it. And there is no way to escape Him. Where does the psalmist’s concern for the oppressed, the hungry, the prisoner, the blind, the broken, the foreigner, the orphan, the widow come from? All of that arose because he met Yahweh. I believe the proof that someone has met the living God is that he or she gets turned inside out and personal concerns shift from inward to outward. Do you know how badly we have corrupted that? What does “to be born again” mean to the typical American evangelical? Doesn’t it mean how to get my soul saved? Get me safe for heaven? I think that is an absolute perversion of biblical truth.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 37

<idle musing>
I just started reading A Farewell to Mars: An Evangelical Pastor's Journey Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace yesterday. He says the same thing—even more bluntly. By the way, if you are looking for a quick, but extremely challenging, read, then look no further. It's a great book—unless you are afraid of having your views challenged...especially if you have no problem waving a flag or saying the Pledge of Allegiance!
</idle musing>

Where then the motherland?

The point, in short, is that though I firmly reject the messianic, militaristic nationalism sketched earlier, I do not disavow a judicious, chastened patriotism. For the Christian, such patriotism is secondary in terms of identity. Baptism and citizenship in heaven trump citizenship in the nation-state. The Nicene Creed is the Christian’s ultimate pledge of allegiance. The cross and not the flag is the preeminent symbol of identification. The church is first family. God’s economy is wider [and] deeper than the neoliberal economy.— Naming Neoliberalism: Exposing the Spirit of Our Age, 135

<idle musing>
He's more willing than I to acknowledge the place of patriotism, however chastened. The problem as I see it from my experience is that patriotism too easily morphs into nationalism. The flag isn't content to take second place; it will continue to try to sneak into first place. Unless you are continually on your guard, you will find it once again on the throne.

Mind you, it isn't just patriotism, though. Anything around you wants to throw God off the throne. Think 1 John, the lust of the eyes, etc. That's why we are called to "fix our eyes on Jesus." If we concentrate on him, everything else finds its proper place in our lives. But, if we fix our eyes/desires on anything else, our priorities will become disordered.

Just an
</idle musing>

I pledge allegiance...

So politically I call for my nation to prioritize caring for the poor, the sick, the immigrant, and the imprisoned, and to renounce an ambition to dominate the world economically or militarily. I do this in the name of Jesus. I pledge no allegiance to elephants or donkeys, only to the Lamb. These are my politics for the simple reason that they are clearly the politics of Jesus. Jesus says so! Are you good with that? Or do your partisan political allegiances make it hard for you to accept the politics of Jesus? If so, you have some thinking to do.— A Farewell to Mars: An Evangelical Pastor's Journey Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace

<idle musing>
Now that's a pledge I can get behind! A few years ago I heard someone say that if you rejoice or cry at the results of an election, then your hope isn't in God, it's in the political results. I agree.
</idle musing>

Long weekend

Yes, a long weekend here in the United States. We call it "The Fourth of July" and, unfortunately, all too often glorify a country above God. Some good thoughts on that were posted today on Out of Ur. Here are a few snippets, but please read the whole thing for yourself:

Tony Campolo puts it this way: “America may be the best Babylon the world has, but it is still Babylon nonetheless.”

We are exiles living in Babylon, folks. Our corner may be called “America,” or “Canada,” or “France,” but it’s still all a part of the same thing: a world system that transcends borders, is dominated by materialistic consumerism and exploitation, and is fundamentally opposed to the Kingdom of God. And while love and affection for the people living in that system is entirely necessary, and while we should certainly pray for the peace and well-being of the place where God has set us, we need to avoid the mistake we see over and over in Scripture: becoming so enamored with our temporary dwelling—whether that’s called Egypt, Babylon, or even America—that we lose sight of what Hebrews calls “a better place.”
...
But most important, be careful what you pledge allegiance to this Fourth of July. Caesar is owed your obedience, your prayers for his health and well-being, and, as Jesus and the IRS both agree, your money...[ellipsis his] but your allegiance belongs to Someone Else.

<idle musing>
I would argue that what he calls patriotism is actually nationalism, which is a blinder form of idolatry than patriotism, but that is just a minor side issue. Otherwise, he is on the money. So, "Amen! Good preaching!" And may his tribe increase across the land so that people see true Christianity instead of a culturally diluted narcissistic nationalism dressed in christian clothing.
</idle musing>

Remember when

Remember when Bonhoeffer wasn't an Evangelical?

He isn't, of course; he was a liberal German Lutheran. But he's been "adopted" into the evangelical world, just like C.S. Lewis. But, he wasn't always welcomed by evangelicals; I was warned not to read him in the early-mid 1970s—I was told he was "dangerous." Ain't that the truth! But not for the reasons that person had in mind...

That change got me thinking about changes in general. Here's a few that came to mind:

Did you know that the "Pledge of Allegiance" was written by a socialist?!
Did you know that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge was added in the 1950s to distinguish "godly" America from the "godless" Soviet Union?
Did you know that the Puritans were against the celebration of Christmas? So much for putting the Christ back in Christmas, eh?
Did you know that "In God we trust" has only appeared on paper money since 1957? Check it out!