I have not read Colson's book, so I can't really comment on what Boyd calls dual allegiances. I can certainly understand a dual allegiance as long as there is a prioritization. God has my allegiance, but so does my wife. If I'm careful to keep those in the right place, they don't conflict--in fact, they compliment each other.

I believe it can be the same with an allegiance to our country. I see no reason not to love and have allegiance to our country as long as it is subordinate to our allegiance to God's Kingdom. If we love the U.S. more than we love our brothers overseas, or even those needing to be reached overseas, we have a misplaced allegiance.

Surely our main agenda must be to love God, love others, and make disciples of all nations.

After that, it's great to want to change laws etc, but I don't think it is our agenda.

Interesting thing about slavery in the New Testament. Paul didn't try and get the laws changed about slavery. Rather he encouraged slave masters to love their slaves, and slaves to submit to their masters.

Changing laws won't change the world. Only Jesus can change a heart, and only a changed heart can change the world.

The difference between a "dual allegiance" when it comes to loving God and your wife (as opposed to dual allegiance to God and country) is that one is biblically mandated, and the other is not. I suspect that is Boyd's point, although I can't be sure from the brief quote above.

And the idea of subordination is a good one - obviously it is not a bad thing in and of itself to be loyal to a country. But it has to be said that American Christians have typically had a very difficult time with subordinating allegiance to the country under allegiance to the Kingdom of God. Far too often we conflate the two, so that allegiance to the U.S. is seen as a Christian duty - and from a biblical standpoint, it simply is not. Obedience to the law of the land (insofar as it does not conflict with obedience to God) certainly is a biblical ideal - anything further is not.

Charles Colson states: "Our job is to make the state as righteous and conformed to God’s standards as possible." Really? Is that our job as followers of Jesus?

How does that role or philosophy differ from that of Muslim fundamentalists goal of "making their states as righteous and conformed to God's standards as possible" through adopting and enforcing sharia law?

How far are we as "Christians" to go in fulfilling Mr. Colson's goal? Has this not been tried throughout the history of the church? How effective is such an agenda? And what truly motivates it? Is it for God's glory and to extend His kingdom, or is it to create a comfortable place on earth for believers to live? And can our efforts, in making our nation righteous and conform to God's standards, actually hurt our witness and hinder our ability to reach others with the message of the good news of new life in Christ?

I also question the notion of equating love of neighbor with loving a political entity like a nation state. I think we must be diligent to love God and love our neighbor. But what if our neighbor is a brother or sister in Christ living in another country at odds with ours? Whom do we love more? Who deserves our loyalty, support and love more?

I get very leery when people unreflectively mix God and Country. I get angry when people consciously assert it.

I read Colson and had flashbacks to attending a church leader's meeting where a board member prayed:

Lord, help us to remember that we cannot honor you if we do not honor our country.

That's practically verbatim.
This stuff is idolatry, people.

It shouldn't have surprised me when people started clamoring before Sunday worship about "not being able to really see the American flag on the platform". (It was between a large fake plant and the drums.)

These people just didn't want to see it, they were angry about it too.

There's really only 2 sins Evangelicals don't condemn or even care about: nationalism and gluttony.

If you think about it, they go hand in hand very nicely.

I have read Boyd, but not Colson.

Boyd's main point on this issue is that the government is about controlling actions, Christ's grace/love is about transforming hearts. The end result may appear to be similiar but clearly they are not.

Boyd also points out how our nationalism could sometimes be due to a lust for power, which is a desire to control not transform.

These are my interpretations of Boyd's position. Krista Tippett on Speaking of Faith has a dialogue with these two on this very topic. Shane Claiborne is in on it, and the format is to get 3 perspectives from 3 generations.

Jesus has given us the charge, not to Christianize the world, but to be his followers oursevlves. Jesus is looking for a Christian church. As Stanley Hauerwas so pungently says, "the church must be the church so the world can know it is the world."

The call of Christ on the church is to BE the gospel. The call of YHWH to Israel was to BE the messgae. Not enforce it on other people, not abstract it into philosophies and systems, but to live it. We are the "living letter." We can only influence the state to the degree that we are BEING the Body of Christ. That is our political statement. The churches political power is rooted in its powerlessness and its deference to God is sovereign. Not Nero, Domitian, Clinton, Bush, or Obama. It is precisely in the powerlessness of the church who alone is formed and empowered by the Spirit of Christ that we can BE an alternative to the world of Empires.

John Calvin was commissioned to build a theocracy (Christianize) Geneva and it was disasterous. Baptism or God talk became the mark of citizenship. Thus the life of discipleship got reduced over time to public civic responsibility. This is why it is so scary to and backasswards for Christians who are zealous to try and Christianize the United States.

People always say the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. Nope. It was founded by Puritans fleeing religious persecution who then became the very thing they were fleeing in England. That is why the entrepreneurial settlement in Jamestown argued vigoriously for separation of church and state. That is why we are not like Islamic fundamentalists because in the U.S. a pluralistic democracy keeps guys (at leat till now) like Pat Robertson and John Hagee from becoming president.

What do we really mean by "loving our country?"

To some, loving our country means working for prosperity within our borders without regard for the rest of the world ("What is in America's interests?"). To some, it means speaking well of our system of government, our elected leaders, our armed forces ("I support the President"). To some, it means thinking highly of a particular combination of cultural norms ("Baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevoret.")

I resonate with Lincoln's version of love of country, as manifested in his second inaugural address: calling us as a people to account for the wrongs committed, calling us to care for one another.

My country is my context, not my Kingdom. "The Almighty has his own purposes," Lincoln said, and I believe my mission is to work in this country for His purpose, whether through the political system or outside of it.

(I think Colson understands loving country as a subset of or means to loving neighbor. I think Boyd sees this as a slippery slope away from allegiance to Christ.)

I think that both Coleson and Boyd have valid points to make concerning this debate. I think as Boyd asserts that Christians need to understand that their ultimately allegiance is to Christ and the kingdom of God, but I also think it is a mistake to miss out on the wonderful opportunity that we have in our nation to be apart of the shaping of the nation through the political process. I think God has given us unique opportunities in America to be involved in the process so that we can use it for His glory.

Do I think that the Church should be come nationalistic, absolutely not! But I also don't think that Church should seclude itself from opportunities the God has given us to help shape culture instead of just being shaped by the culture.

"Our job is to make the state as righteous and conformed to God’s standards as possible."

/sigh
I would love to see his face when he hears the words from the Y'shua himself...

"Charles, you have heard 'love your neighbor as yourself' and I say unto you, love doesn't mean legislating morality, passing laws to make people be your definition of 'Christian,' and forcing non-believers into a thought process that is completely foreign to their minds.
Love means...you know...actually loving them as they are. Love makes you vulnerable, and open to hurt...that is love. Love, Charles, doesn't make you all-powerful to compel obedience, it makes you all-accessible that draws people to you. Remember that and you will do well."

the bible does not speak to everything with which we must deal in our life here. surprise. perhaps the reason the bible doesn't speak more strongly to what our relationship with our country and/or leaders should be is because of the endless types of countries, governments, etc. that have existed throughout history.

americans today hold lots of different opinions about our country. i personally am ashamed of the administration we've had the past eight years - and i voted for w twice (i'm sure 1 john 1:9 applies here somehow...). yet i still believe america is the best country this planet has seen.

and that's why we can love america - not because the bible does or doesn't say 'love your country.' we have generally stood for good, for helping the oppressed both here and abroad. we have come to the rescue of the world time and again. yes, we have some black marks in our history - america ain't heaven. but because of what it has generally stood for the past two hundred and thirty-odd years, americans need not apologize for genuinely and understandably loving their country.

and, just as an aside:

it's easy here in the usa to say there's truth in romans 13:1, and that it will ultimately decide who our next president is. yet, being logical, i have a very hard time thinking God put Stalin or Mao in power. all i can figure is He must have settled upon those of their ilk after He had completed 'electing' all those who would go to hell. He must have been in an especially bad mood that day...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

I get very leery when people unreflectively mix God and Country. I get angry when people consciously assert it.

I read Colson and had flashbacks to attending a church leader's meeting where a board member prayed:

I think that is the big problem in this debate: we get too caught up in the narrative of what people have done or said and lose our focus on the normative as given from the Bible.

First, I would want to point out that we all know that Paul was a Roman. But how do we know this? From some biographical note in the Bible? No, it is because he frequently said it. Paul was thankful for his Roman citizenship and was unashamed at declaring it throughout his ministry and taking advantage of the things which this afforded him.

Second, when we look at the writings of Paul in Romans 13, I think we need to be sure we don't miss some key phrases. We are keenly aware that it says to "be subject to the governing authorities" (v.1), but the question is why? Because they are "from God" (v.1), "instituted by God" (v.1), and this "for your good" (v.4). Then, if God saw it fit to put these people and this government in front of us, shouldn't we be thankful for it and not resentful or ambivalent? God is sovereign over all and as such he was sovereign to give you the national citizenship which he did.

Lastly, the claim that we should not actively try and influence American politics rings hollow in regards to the Scripture. Through passages such as 1 Timothy 2:1-2 we are called to pray for our leaders. Besides this and sharing the Gospel with the authorities (which Paul also practiced) there was not much the people at that time could do. Even still, Paul instructs slaves "if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity" (1 Corinthians 7:21). If Paul says that then then how much more should that apply to us now under democracy? If we can gain for ourselves a more God-honoring society, why should we not avail ourselves of it?

Yes, there are a lot of people who screw this up. What else is new? Nonetheless, the failings of individuals does not change the immutable will of God in our civic actions.

Oooh, fireworks!

/Lots of noise with brief flashes of light
//Yes, it's sarcasm

The love of country can never override love of God and love of neighbor. To see where this has had an impact one only needs to consider what western history would have looked like Christians would have only loved each other enough not to kill one another, indeed world war I and II would have looked much different, so would have the Civil War, the Spanish American War, the war of 1812, the Revolutionary War, the French and Indian war, just to name a few. Obviously in each of these cases love of country has overridden love of neighbor and love of God.

For whatever reason, it is easy for liberals to pick on conservatives as "legistlating morality" while forgetting that liberalism does the same thing: trying to get the government to enforce "acts of righteousness" through tax laws and a welfare state. Whether you think this is right or wrong isn't my point, only that both liberals and conservatives take the same approach. And please remember that, through Prison Fellowship Ministries, Chuck Colson has indeed shown a real love for "the least of these." Be fair in your appraisal of him.

We live in a different context from Paul. In a democracy, we are all (and inescapably) to some extent "the rulers" and so have at least some of the obligations of "governors." In my own view, if we do agree that Boyd is right, the only honest answer is the Anabaptists': Opt out of government service and participation. Most of us won't go that far.

I sat in church a couple of months ago on Memorial Day and watched a video of tanks and bombs and soldiers and patriotic music and all of that. My church regularly has petitions in the lobby for people to sign in order to ban this or that or overturn this law or that, or whatever. I really struggle with it all. I'm all for patriotism. I love the USA. I'm very thankful that I get to live here. But the rest of the world doesn't think our tanks and our bombs are so cool. It also doesn't seem to be in line with something the Prince of Peace would be celebrating. I'm also not that excited about the church being a political force. Jesus never tried to seize power and be the dominant force in culture. I'm pretty sure that system was already in place (that is Rome). Instead he overthrew that culture with sacrifice and love. Shouldn't we be doing the same?

Interesting thing about slavery in the New Testament. Paul didn't try and get the laws changed about slavery. Rather he encouraged slave masters to love their slaves, and slaves to submit to their masters.

If we observe Paul's instructions to slaves in his first letter to the Corinthians, we find something quite peculiar:

"Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)" -1 Corinthians 7.21

So, Paul tells these slaves that if they can gain their freedom then they should by all means do it. In light of this, I wonder what Paul might say to someone living in a democracy who is being subjected to a condition of living which is not preferable to God? Might we read something like this:

"Were you subjected to the destruction of human life when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can make changes to protect the innocent, avail yourself of the opportunity.)"

I'm sure people will protest, but I think that the Apostle Paul, as well as Jesus himself, were in favor of Christians exerting their influence over government. The rub was how to do it without dishonoring the authorities God has instituted over you (Romans 13:1,7). This was difficult under an emperor, as was the case during the New Testament's writing, but is not so hard now in places, like America, who have a form of representative democracy in which all citizens can participate.

Colson's claim that patriotism is basically an extension of the 'love thy neighbor' principle doesn't make a lot of sense. Clearly the implications of Jesus' teaching on who thy neighbor is suggests that we should no more value he who lives in our Nation-State than he who lives in any other.

Colson's argument sounds a lot like the rumblings of someone who wishes he could find NT justification for his own presupposition.

I'm a lurker on this blog and I have to admit I'm surprised at the comments. I would have assumed the majority of comments would have sympathized more with Colson than Boyd. Boy, was I wrong. Now I have to wonder if the majority of readers/posters of this blog are similar in viewpoint to their congregations, or have I "mis-assumed" on that one too?

I am wondering what Abraham Lincoln and William Wilberforce would say to these questions were they alive today. It seems to me like these men understood well the necessity to differentiate between the two kingdoms of God and man, yet engaged both in a way that was transforming. Forcing people to live under rules which they didn't appreciate, perhaps. But I wouldn't want to be the one to explain that to the endless amount of Africans who benefited from the causes of these men.

I appreciate a nuanced discussion of patriotism in the church. Thanks for this!

Nate summarizes: "I think Colson understands loving country as a subset of or means to loving neighbor. I think Boyd sees this as a slippery slope away from allegiance to Christ."

I think that's right. And I think it's why I find nobody's view obviously right and everybody's view ultimately unsatisfying. Sheerahkahn bemoans 'legislating morality', where Christians are trying to get the government to insist that everybody behave like them (read: sexually). It's an important critique. But whenever legislation is about justice, it's about morality. Oughtn't Christians contribute their voice to the call for justice? I fear a campaign to 'stop legislating morality' would backfire pretty seriously. What else should we legislate? The interests of well-funded lobbyists? What's wrong with being active citizens with noble policy agendas?

That is: Colson's view precipitates quasi-theocracy; but Boyd's view precipitates quasi-isolationism. Both seem wrong.

Part of what confuses all this, I think, is the grandeur and lunacy that is democracy. Democracy calls each voice to contribute, wise or foolish. But that's very awkward for the Church. By constitutional right, a Christian has a voice in government. (Which is very different from, say, the Roman Empire: and this is why it gets very difficult to draw comparisons with the context that Jesus and Paul spoke into.) But it's only one voice among many. But why should The Truth be one voice among many? The Church is more comfortable either a) governing everyone, or b) isolating itself. It will accept power or reject power, but doesn't like to share power.

I stand soundly persuaded that the issue of Christian patriotism remains open and unresolved.

For me, the issue is not if we should be involved in government, or choose to opt out or choose to opt out while raising a public prophetic cry against injustice.

You can try to "bracket" what people have done in favor of the "immutable will of God", but the simple truth is that "what people have done and do" is the reality we live in and minister in. "What we do, is what we really believe."

The simple fact that I have witnessed people, Christians, get angry about the placement of a flag during a worship service reveals a deeply bankrupt and sinful idolatry that confuses "submission" to government with nationalistic fervor.

The fact that that board member--ostensibly a spiritual leader--prayed what he prayed was blasphemous.

The fact that I have read published materials from a well known Christian organization that takes the Galatian's passages about "freedom" to mean "freedom" as understood within this strange American mix of Lockean liberal political theory and Western Judeo-Christian ethical imperatives demonstrates a profound problem.

That problem being a deeply broken misunderstanding of Scripture, at best, or a twisting of Scripture on par with what these groups accuse the liberal boogeymen of doing, at worst.

To say Paul was patriotic goes to far, to say unfettered support of country, etc. is somehow commanded by God also goes to far.

So much for the "plain meaning" of the text and keeping your finger on the verse.

I'd love to see the "for your good" argument offered to the secret church in Saudi Arabia, or the christians meeting in caves in North Korea with a straight face. The intellectual (?) gymnastics would be entertaining.

This conversation has only served to convince me that so-called "conservatives" are just as guilty of the same things as so-called "liberals". Different brands of the same idolatry and sinfulness.

A couple of thoughts one of which is yes Paul was quite vocal about his Roman citizenship granting him freedoms of jurisprudence that he would not have had if he were a "subject" person. However, it should also be noted that Paul was not carrying water for Ceasar or his policies.
An important, if overlooked distinction that seems to be lost on those who like to point to Paul's mentioning of his "citizenship".
Secondly, when the Church starts backing "liberal" political policy (for example, starts carrying the Democrat's political water), I'll be whining about that as well.
The church over history has often sought temporal solutions to spiritual problems by coercing governments to cede to their demands. And on a moral scale some of these demands were reasonable, but yet when the church gets a taste of political power and the way it can be wielded...look, do you all really want me to dredge up all the church's past failings just to prove a point?
Neither do I, so what can I say that will sink in that will leave a lasting impression?

Tolkien understood the nature of man quite well when he described the desire men had for the one ring...as when Boromir was seduced by the "good" he could do for his people by using the one ring, so is the Church seduced by the idea of political power and the "good" she can do for G-d's kingdom.
People, as human beings, and members of the church we've replayed this scenario a thousand times in the past...when will we learn the hard reality...G-d's ways are not the worlds ways, and so it should be with us. We must do G-d's work G-ds way, and accept the fact that some will listen, some will ignore us, and the rest will want us to go away.
That is the reality of the world, and we need to come to accept the fact that we can drag a horse kicking and screaming to the water, but from there we have a choice to either drown it or let it go. Of late we've been choosing to drown it, lets try letting it go and putting our efforts back into convincing the horse that it's thirsty. Yes it's harder work, yes there will be failures, but at least we're doing it G-ds way.

Nathan and sheerahkahn, I was wondering, are either one of your guy's objections to what I wrote based on narrative or on what is written in the Scriptures? I never claimed that we are to have "unfettered support of country", since I believe that the Bible clearly tells us to take a stand if the laws of the kingdom of man start to encroach upon the laws of the kingdom of God. Nor did I ever say that Paul's regard for his Roman citizenship was expressed by his "carrying water for Caesar or his policies." However, the fact remains that Paul used his God-granted citizenship in Rome to his advantage in furthering the cause of the Gospel. To this I can see no other way but that it was God's will that he would be a Roman and that that was another blessing which Paul would have rejoiced in.

As such, I believe that our citizenship in America, with it's blessings of freedom and access, are something which we should be thankful for because it allows us to, I don't know, have this conversation, per se. At the same time, I think that Saudi Christians can be thankful for their citizenship in Saudi Arabia because it has driven them to pursue Christ in a purer and more complete manner than most Westerners will because it doesn't make much sense to be a lukewarm Christian when your life is at risk.

Finally, do you have any reason to deny that Paul would have been in favor of Christians making efforts to improve their ability to live in freedom from worldly oppression and contempt if the oppotunity was given to them? Yes, the world will hate us, but I don't think that means that we should bear more than we have the ability to control. Just because people have screwed this up doesn't mean that Paul was wrong. (Which, by the way, I would argue that all the screwing up comes from the fact that humans being are totally depraved, but I would be surprised if you guys shared that viewpoint.)

Todd...either you are confused, or you are not articulating your thoughts as well as you had hoped.
I will grant the latter until proven otherwise.

You state in your opening thread some key elements...

"First, I would want to point out that we all know that Paul was a Roman...Paul was thankful for his Roman citizenship and was unashamed at declaring it throughout his ministry and taking advantage of the things which this afforded him."

Which is the only thing that supports your later statement of...

"Nor did I ever say that Paul's regard for his Roman citizenship was expressed by his "carrying water for Caesar or his policies." However, the fact remains that Paul used his God-granted citizenship in Rome to his advantage in furthering the cause of the Gospel."

Because right after that you totally contradict yourself with...

"Second, when we look at the writings of Paul in Romans 13, I think we need to be sure we don't miss some key phrases. We are keenly aware that it says to "be subject to the governing authorities" (v.1), but the question is why? Because they are "from God" (v.1), "instituted by God" (v.1), and this "for your good" (v.4). Then, if God saw it fit to put these people and this government in front of us, shouldn't we be thankful for it and not resentful or ambivalent? God is sovereign over all and as such he was sovereign to give you the national citizenship which he did."

So how does this...

" Finally, do you have any reason to deny that Paul would have been in favor of Christians making efforts to improve their ability to live in freedom from worldly oppression and contempt if the oppotunity was given to them?"

fit with the preceeding statement?

I leave it to you to explain to me your thoughts about what you are conveying.

Todd,

To answer your question:
Frankly, I haven't seen anyone here say we shouldn't raise our voices in the culture, etc. To persist in raising this only distracts from the real issue and neutralizes a deserved critique of the sin of nationalism.

Like I said before: It's not about involvement in government or our uninvolvement in government, or using our voices and our position as citizens of whatever country we find ourselves in.

In effect, one on this thread said: America is my context, heaven is my citizenship.

Do I want the country I live in to be at peace and just? Of course, but no more than I want that for every country. When we consider the simple fact that the modern nation state is a temporary and malleable construct, it puts it's value in perspective.

As a Christian my eternal relationship, and therefore more significant, is the connection with my fellow believers regardless of their country, ethnicity.

This is the ground from which a Christian witness within America can promote reconciliation, justice and peace with real integrity. Not as those who must offer assurances of our loyalty once we hit the border or the water's edge. But as the uncompromising voice of conscience to all people, American or not, Democrat, Republican, etc.

Again, I think you go too far in your reading of God's pragmatic use of Paul's citizenship as a means to mission.

I mean, those other apostles without citizenship...so useless. (I kid, I kid.)

In the end, I don't see isolationism in Boyd. I see proper distance in perspectives and values and heart's treasure from which we can critique and raise the prophetic voice with integrity.

Colson's perspective only makes our identity murky, our loyalties unsure, and places us at risk of becoming intoxicated by earthly power.

Oops, I'm sorry. I forgot. That's all happened already.

I leave it to you to explain to me your thoughts about what you are conveying.

sheerahkahn,
My statement in regard to us improving our conditions through government was directed towards another comment of mine (in a separate post) on 1 Corinthians 7.21 and the conduct of Christians in democracy, which I was interested in hearing your guy's thoughts about. I believe that the key lies in the tension that I stated between the desire to exert influence over the government for advancement of the Gospel and keeping from dishonoring the authorities which God has instituted over us. Paul's condition in the government of the Roman Empire would be different than the condition we experience in a representative democracy and so we must try and interpret his writings in consderation of this.

Hopefully this will clarify the confusion.

Nathan,
I respect your position even though I would have to say that I disagree. It is a fine line that we walk between biblically appropriate behaviors and dangerous idolatry, but I am convinced that this is something we can and should strive towards. I don't think ptriotism is something that is commanded of Christians, but I also don't believe it is something that we should flattly decry.

Again, thank you for your discussion with me on this. Have a nice day.

"But whenever legislation is about justice, it's about morality."

Phil,
I wanted to think about this some more before I answer, but now I think I can organize my thoughts in a coherent manner.
Legislation "sometimes" is about justice, and more to the point "sometimes" about morality.
The key ingredient is motivation of the individuals involved, so lets take a look at the rest of the thought...

"Oughtn't Christians contribute their voice to the call for justice? I fear a campaign to 'stop legislating morality' would backfire pretty seriously."

In the call for justice, the effort of christians is not self-serving, but rather benefits the whole of society. Note there is no call for the removal of justices when Christians took to the streets to denounce segregation, no call for "rewriting" the constitution for arguing for basic human rights, and yet when christians don't get their way there is a hue and a cry for overthrowing the government to install "G-d fearing magistrates."

"What's wrong with being active citizens with noble policy agendas?"

There is nothing wrong with being politically active for a cause that is just and right, and benefits everyone; However, there is plenty wrong when the cause is a spring board to launch ones claw and crawl to the top of the power structure.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

render unto ceasar that which is ceasar's and unto God that which is God's...

There is a tension between the two kingdom's and we have privileges/rights in both. Yes, we are pilgrims and need to live like it, but that doesn't mean we treat love of country with disdain (although making love of country the same as love of your neighbor the same thing quite a leap, but that's colson's m.o.).

we can vote. so vote. we can serve. so serve. we can worship, so let's worship. vote your conscience. but think. if your conscience doesn't equal the party line, that doesn't make you wrong before the Lord. The fact that there's even a debate about that should prove that.

there's tension in life. don't look for easy answers. work through it and don't depend on anybody to make up your mind for you. that's just lazy...

todd (re-)states what my 'aside' referenced above when he writes:

...governing authorities ... are "from God", "instituted by God", and this "for your good". Then, if God saw it fit to put these people and this government in front of us, shouldn't we be thankful for it and not resentful or ambivalent? God is sovereign over all.

how anyone - not just todd - can see history and its steady stream of cruel dictators who have tortured and murdered millions upon millions of fellow humans and simply say, "Well, I'm ok with it - God is sovereign" is completely beyond me.

and completely beyond rational thought.

listen: if that's the way God works, then words like 'sick' and 'sadistic' apply much more accurately to God than does 'sovereign.'

and if torturing and ultimately murdering someone is 'for [their] own good'? well, at that point we must admit that such an incomprehensible definition of 'good' renders communication with God completely impossible.

so think twice before saying, "God bless America": who knows what He might have in mind?...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

There is nothing wrong with being politically active for a cause that is just and right, and benefits everyone; However, there is plenty wrong when the cause is a spring board to launch ones claw and crawl to the top of the power structure.

This one is going to take a minute to get so please don't overreact at first and just let it sink in. Yes, I believe that civil rights was the right thing to fight for and to obtain for peoples of all color and creed in America, but I was curious how you think equal civil rights benefits everyone? What benefit was there in equal rights for blacks to the middle-class white guy?

I don't say this to try and decry civil rights but I want to make the point that something we all agree was the right thing to do is not necessarily a thing which had direct benefits for everyone, so maybe we need to reconsider that element of the argument for being politically and socially active. Sometimes the right thing is not so obviously right or beneficial to everyone and yet needs to be fought for regardless of the opposition (say, the abortion debate).

Well, mike rucker, since you suggested I run for office some time back, I suppose I better comment here.

I kind of agree with both sides of this equasion and some of the arguments on either side have merit. I really like your statement, "...yet i still believe america is the best country this planet has seen." I just wish you had elaborated a little more on why this is so. You spoke of the good that America has done - yet not without black marks here and there. You obviously have studied some American history, an activity which seems to be sadly lacking with many commenters here (or they think what their liberal university professors told them was true).

I believe that this country has been immensly blessed by God because of the level of righteous biblical thought and belief of the original leadership (folks, please don't tell me they were all diests). It's not that they were all Christians, but they basically had a Biblical worldview. So did most of the citizens. Proverbs 14:34 says, "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people."

Strangely, there is much criticism of conservative values on this site from people who ought to know better. It seems that the motives of conservatives are called into question as though they are somehow 'power hungry'. Maybe some are, but does that make a cause like seeking to end abortion wrong? Does that make seeking to prevent 'homosexual marriage' wrong? This is a government '...of the people, by the people, and for the people'. Christians are part of "the people". Conservative Christian people have done far more good works than liberal Christians seem willing to give them credit for. They just don't stand up in church every Sunday and brag about it.

One final comment about Chuck and Greg. It seems that Chuck has been seeking to minister to people in prison for 25+ years as well as bring some much needed correction to a corrupt government (if anybody ought to know it's him). He has done this without having to try to tear down liberal Christians. I can't see why liberal Christians are so bent on tearing him down. And yes, sheera, power corrupts, but that is just as easy at church as in government, right? It even can happen in the family.

Strangely, there is much criticism of conservative values on this site from people who ought to know better.

How so? Why should people "know better"?
I don't know if anybody is advocating for just laying back and let abortions go unfettered, etc. etc.

That's not the point.
So I'll say it again:
The point is the sin of nationalism.

Some on this thread continually inject these hot-button issues into the meta.

It's also not a "conservative vs. liberal" issue. So that's another distracting non-sequitur.

It's not "liberal" to want Christians to have pure allegiance Christ and to call them to consider where they've blurred the lines.

"but I was curious how you think equal civil rights benefits everyone? What benefit was there in equal rights for blacks to the middle-class white guy?"

Fair enough Todd, one question deserves an answer, so here is your answer:

What do you, as a Christian who has allegedly surrendered all aspects of life, thought, concerns, desires, and wants to the will of G-d, think of one man excluding another man by way of socialized stigma, educational exclusion, and fiscal opportunity from the benefits of the pursuit of a better life?

What do you, as a Christian who has allegedly surrendered all aspects of life, thought, concerns, desires, and wants to the will of G-d, think of one man excluding another man by way of socialized stigma, educational exclusion, and fiscal opportunity from the benefits of the pursuit of a better life?

I whole heartedly support what was being fought for in the Civil Rights movement and I believe that the eradication of oppression towards people of different colors and creeds is a very Christian thing to pursue. However, that wasn't my question. The question was directed towards someone who said we should only legislate things which are beneficial to everybody, and I was trying to point out that this was not the case for something which we would all agree was an appropriate situation for Christians to involve themselves in lobbying for. The passage of the Civil Rights Act bore little if any benefit for the middle-class white male, and so my argument is that just because a movement does not have a direct benefit towards every person in a society does not disqualify it from being a legitimate venture for Christians in a democracy to undertake. Does that make sense?

“Strangely, there is much criticism of conservative values on this site from people who ought to know better.”

Interesting…lets see about that “ought to know better” statement Melody…

Torture? “I don’t care how they get the information, any thing is acceptable when it comes to protecting Americans.,”

War? “We don’t want to discover how far Saddam’s nuclear program has advanced by seeing mushroom clouds over American cities.”

Hate mongering? “Liberals are the traitors, and will betray you at the drop of hat, they’re almost as bad as the terrorists!”

Race baiting? “If Barack wins the presidency, do we still call it the white house?”

“It seems that the motives of conservatives are called into question as though they are somehow 'power hungry'. Maybe some are…”

Maybe, Melody, you should be more discriminating with the company you choose to keep.

con't

“but does that make a cause like seeking to end abortion wrong?”

When Abortion was illegal, and :::gasp::: yes there was a time when it was illegal, how well did that stop the women from seeking abortions?
And as an aside…do you know how far in the hazy distant past abortificants were being used by our ancestors?
So in short, making Abortion illegal is doing something for something’s sake because it’s easier to legislate a law than to actually go out and either give hope to a pregnant woman, or prevent unwanted pregnancies…”well done my mediocre and lazy servant.”

“Does that make seeking to prevent 'homosexual marriage' wrong?”

Melody, seriously, this is a red herring that should’ve been buried as soon as it sprung up in your thoughts. When divorce and separations in the church pair with the divorce and separations of non-believers I think it prudent that we deal with the plank in our own eyes before we go haring off and try to deal with the speck in the unchurched eyes.

“This is a government '...of the people, by the people, and for the people'.”

Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten the counsel of one of the founding fathers...

“A Republic madam, if you can keep it.”

sheerahkahn, I think your bloviating towards Melody goes a little too far. There is something to be said about accurately representing someone's position versus just making a caricature to try and tear them down.

I think that your comments about abortion would have a hard time being rectified with the teachings in Scripture. Same as those for gay marriage. We need to decide if we are going to stand on the Word of God or just relativize based on the world around us.

That seems to me to be one of the big problems with liberal emerging Christianity, they want to sit back and point out the 2x4 in the eye of Bible-believing conservative Christians and not lay claim to the fact that they are carrying a big liberal agenda 2x4 in their own eyes. Just look at the current heroes like Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo, who are just as quickly erecting the Religious Left as they are trying to destroy the Religious Right. There comes out this arrogance that all they want is to be politically neutral, but their actions completely belie this thought.

If people like you and others here are truly concerned about the role of Christianity in trying to influence governmental policy then I would suggest you start by calling out the culprits on your own side. But as I see that is unlikely to happen I guess you will eventually have to come to terms with the hypocritical nature of these attacks on conservatives.

"The passage of the Civil Rights Act bore little if any benefit for the middle-class white male..."

Alright, in the idealized world...for the white male it means that his tax dollars are not being spent on supporting welfare recipients who can't find a job because they aren't white, or male.
It means that his daughters are not trapped in a world-view that says they're little more than a birthing oven, and that they can become what G-d has envisioned them to become whether that be an executive manager at a Fortune 500 company, or a executive manager of her own household.
The civil rights act actually liberates the White male from the social and cultural expectations derived from the past, which placed the burdened of success and achievement of family, community, nation on his shoulders.
The white male is as free today to be a household executive manager to being an executive manager of a Fortune 500 company without the stigma of being considered a failure if he chooses to be just a house-dad. The civil rights act...opened the door for our nation to move beyond it's past...we're crawling, but now we're all benefiting from that act, somewhat.

"If people like you and others here are truly concerned about the role of Christianity in trying to influence governmental policy then I would suggest you start by calling out the culprits on your own side. But as I see that is unlikely to happen I guess you will eventually have to come to terms with the hypocritical nature of these attacks on conservatives."

Todd,
Just for my own edification...and to satisfy a curiosity of mine...do you read what I write before you post?
And by reading, do you allow your mind to entertain the thoughts I present, both explicity and implicitly?
Because no where have I espoused a liberal doctrine, nor a liberal political slant...just wondering if you're filling blanks I have overlooked, or if you're just donning the mantle of assumption by way of dismissing, vis-a-vis marginalizing my presentations as that of a "liberal."

Sheerahkahn, sheesh! I apparently struck some of your sensitive nerve endings without meaning to.

I must admit to being puzzled by your reaction to my comment. You have accurately quoted me with the first and last statement of your response, but I did not make the intervening statements. To whom do you attribute them?

Let's look at your attitude toward abortion. Prior to 1973 abortion was rare. And the number of death to the mother caused by illegal abortions then was about the same as death to the mother from legal abortion now. In all cases, the baby dies. It may interest you to know that the organizations doing the most to support unmarried pregnant girls and women are pro-life organizations. When you see people protesting outside an abortion clinic (something pretty rare these days) more often than not, those same people are more than willing to adopt the child whose life they are attempting to save. What are you doing to help?

Your sarcastic attitude toward traditional Christian beliefs makes me wonder what Bible you read. You are correct in stating that many Christians have done a lousy job of following God's command of marriage for life. But since when does failure in one area of obedience to God's laws justify disobedience in others?

Todd,
Just for my own edification...and to satisfy a curiosity of mine...do you read what I write before you post?

Sheerahkahn,
Okay. Besides the fact that you just ran off about 20 different talking points for the left wing, your repeated animosity towards America and patriotism (which, by the way, I think you need to lookup the difference between patriotism and nationalism. They're not synonyms) certainly doesn't come off in a politically neutral manner. I am not going to even attempt to respond to what you have said any further, other than to say that as your comments have gone on they have made less and less sense. This was fun while it lasted but I think that dialogue has been officially turned off on your end so I'll see you on some other thread.

“Okay. Besides the fact that you just ran off about 20 different talking points for the left wing, your repeated animosity towards America and patriotism (which, by the way, I think you need to lookup the difference between patriotism and nationalism. They're not synonyms) certainly doesn't come off in a politically neutral manner.”

Todd,
I find myself torn between my desire to counsel you against the path you are following, and the realization that the best education for you would be for you to complete the journey you are currently on.
So, I have decided leave you to G-d, and his infinite mercy.
Fare you well.

However…

“You are correct in stating that many Christians have done a lousy job of following God's command of marriage for life. But since when does failure in one area of obedience to God's laws justify disobedience in others?”

Melody, you, of all people, should know better, and yet you do not…I am truly puzzled by this.
You, like Todd, are advocating faithless moralism and tyrannical oppression of non-believers much like the Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and a few others of the dominionist movement who have ensconsed themselves into the national goverment.
So let me ask you this...
Where in the bible does G-d command you, or the church to legislate morality?
Where in the bible does it order you, and all other followers of G-d to legalistically enforce all scriptures on a national level?
On a community level?
We are not Israel, and we are certainly not under the Law of Moses...so where are you getting this faithless moralistic/works base doctrine from?
I want you to show me in the scriptures on your web site because I think OoU cannot handle the bandwidth of what you need to explain to me. I’ve booked marked your website, and I will read and study what you have researched and concluded because I think you are so far off the trail of G-d’s will that I’m willing to entertain the possibility that I may have stepped off somewhere along the line!

As of right now…

"Your sarcastic attitude toward traditional Christian beliefs makes me wonder what Bible you read."

...if this is how you see what I wrote...you are right...you and I are most certainly not reading the same bible, nor are we following the same G-d.

Todd, I find myself torn between my desire to counsel you against the path you are following, and the realization that the best education for you would be for you to complete the journey you are currently on.
So, I have decided leave you to G-d, and his infinite mercy.
Fare you well.

First off, I find it offensive, and a little funny, that the response to my disagreement with a position is that I am not educated enough. This is the same tactic that emergent types use against orthodoxy, and it is not any more valid there.

You, like Todd, are advocating faithless moralism and tyrannical oppression of non-believers much like the Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and a few others of the dominionist movement who have ensconsed themselves into the national goverment.
So let me ask you this...
Where in the bible does G-d command you, or the church to legislate morality?
Where in the bible does it order you, and all other followers of G-d to legalistically enforce all scriptures on a national level?
On a community level?

I believe that this is a fundamentally incorrect appraisal of what I believe. "Faithless moralism"? What type of legislation is not some sort of moralism? How you should live, how you should spend your money, what type of licensing rules and regulations you must follow. Do you mean to suggest that murder should not be illegal because that is one of the 10 commandments? Obviously not. What is meant here is that you disagree with certain moral legislation. I in no means want to legislate all of Scripture, but there are pieces of "good conduct" (Romans 13.3) which Christians in a democracy should fight to have ratified.

As to my beliefs, I will link a sermon by John Piper on my blog which speaks on the roles of Christians in an American-type democracy which I agree with 100% and which will serve as a much better way of articulating my convictions on this matter than I could.

Bottom line is that Jesus said we are to love our enemies. Paul echoes this command when he says leave vengeance to God and instead feed the enemy and overcome evil with good. These two commands are at odds with what America does in the world. The two allegiances (to God or country) are in conflict. It is time the church realized that she is an international entity. Christians need to stop killing people. Jesus said to put down the sword.