Christianity, Patriotism, Nationalism; do they conflict with one another or do they relate to one another?

Been a little busy lately, and I promise to get back to my review of Jay W. Richards' book. But I wanted to come back with a bang, so here goes. . . 

About ten years ago during a National Holiday weekend, I remember our church singing a patriotic song. Upon the beginning of the song people began to stand up and you could almost see a pride well up in many of the congregants as we sang these patriotic songs, especially within the veterans. Now, most of us would think that this would be a non-issue, and in many churches they would be proud of their patriotism. But while many members or many churches would be proud, I was disgusted, because in our church we had the policy where we left standing during worship up to each individual. What ultimately happened when we left it up to the members whether or not they should stand was that they would choose to remain seated throughout the entirety of the service. However, this one day, when we started playing and singing patriotic songs, the entire congregation stood and gave reverence to the United States. However, on every other Sunday throughout the year when we sang songs that were only aimed towards our love and reverence for the Triune God no one ever choose to stand. In other words, our congregants were willing to honor our nation in a way that they refused to honor God, our country was worth standing up for, but our God was not!

This type of thinking is now playing itself out in another arena, as Goshen College (a small Mennonite University near my home) is now refusing to play the national anthem before sporting events after trying it out for the past year. So why is playing the national anthem a problem for Goshen College? Because our National Anthem is a song about a battle in the war of 1812 and the Mennonites abhor war. This is due to the fact that they are serious about the pacifist principles taught by Jesus within the scripture. Now, this is not the first time that a principle of the Mennonite faith has come into conflict with the American culture. For years the school has refused to fly an American flag with the belief that nothing should be above the cross. This was a major problem when 9/11 occurred and one of my friends was doing some electrical work at the school. The workers for the electrical company were so upset that they hung a flag at their worksite they had on the school grounds as a way to protest Goshen’s refusal to fly a flag after such a horrific tragedy. This stance that Goshen College stubbornly stood by was a symbolic way to show that God should come before everything else, including our nation.

So how ought we as Christ followers to live in a society? Can we be patriotic and followers of Christ? Or does one trump the other? First, we have to look to what scripture calls us Christians who live in the world. Peter calls us exiles and aliens in I Peter. In other words, we as followers of Christ do not belong to the world for this world is not our home. Rather it is just where we reside for the time being. Rather our home is with our Father, and while we are in fellowship with him thanks to the actions of His Son, and the work of the Spirit. But despite this, one day we will be called to our eternal home.

So this means that as followers of Christ, we need not care about the current society that we live in, right? No, actually we are told by another biblical figure in the Old Testament that those in exile ought to strive to make their new residence a great nation, and that we are to live in a manner that helps our current residence prosper (Jeremiah 29:7).  

But the question then becomes, how can we help our society prosper? To do that we must look back to see how the Jewish exiles helped make the nations that they lived in prosper. I feel that there is no better place in the Bible than to the first six chapters of Daniel, where we are given detailed information on how four young men (possibly three) lived as faithful servants of God and of the empire in which they found themselves. The interesting thing here is that while they had no qualms about serving the empire that conquered them, they made sure that they were going to do it on their own terms; or perhaps more accurately stated, on God’s terms. They made sure that in serving their new land that they would first and foremost serve their god, YAWEH. And the thing is, these men ended up being key players in their new home and took on roles that could help the nation to prosper despite not honoring the gods or practices of their new nation that conflicted with YAWEH.

 My friends, this is what we must make sure we do when we serve God and country. We must make sure God is served first and foremost, and then understand that by serving God, we actually serve our country. This was the order that these four men took in Daniel, God first and nation second. This is what I think the Mennonite administration is trying to convey in their abandonment of the National Anthem. There are plenty of teachings of Jesus that promote pacifism and if we are going to take Jesus seriously as a whole, then we must acknowledge that Jesus taught us to love others, not just those who are close to us, but those outside of our ethnicity, and even those who are our enemies. So how is bombing our enemies, or even glorifying the bombing off our enemies through a song glorifying Jesus? Quite frankly it isn’t! This is something that our Mennonite brothers and sisters take very seriously. To them killing is wrong no matter the circumstance. And to glorify violence is to go against the teaching of God, and as a result is putting our worldly standards above God’s standards. However, just because they fail to play the anthem does not mean they do not want the nation to prosper. In fact the reverse is true. I feel that the Mennonites would love nothing more than for this nation to prosper. However, they are not going to blindly accept the standards of this nation which glorifies violence in its anthem. Therefore, the administration is seeking out another way to promote this nation, a way that is also glorifying God as well. And as Christ followers we too ought to make sure that we always serve and glorify our country through God’s principles and not vice versa.

Reaction to the Death of Bin Laden

So I have recently just heard the news that Osama Bin Laden is dead and I am kind of confused as to how I feel. Part of me is happy that he personally can not harm those who are innocent any longer. Part of me is worried that he will become a martyr and many troops and civilians alike will be at risk, as his followers may retaliate. And a third part of me mourns for the death of a man, a man who was someone's child, a man who was not just someone's child, but was a creation of God. The fact that unless there was some miraculous conversion before his death means there is a good chance that he will unlikely spend eternity in Heaven with God.

Despite all of this confusion as to how I should feel, what I do know is that more than likely God was out looking for a sheep, one sheep out of a hundred, and that sheep has died. God more than likely was unable to save this sheep in this instance, because this sheep kept wandering and did not head the voice of its shepherd. I feel that God desired to have a relationship with Bin Laden, but it seems more than likely that Bin Laden rejected that relationship. For this I feel God mourns.

One other thing I know is this, a life is gone, no matter how evil that life may have been, dancing and celebrating in the streets is the wrong response. After all, the Arab world, who views the United States as the personification of evil, did the same after the attacks of 9/11. And if you were like me, it only angered me even more. But the only outcome of a similar reaction will only bring us down to the level of those who hate America, a level where I would rather not go.

So we can be happy that justice has been served, but please, don't be happy that a person had to lose their life, very likely their eternal life. I know that God mourns for the lost soul, and because He mourns, I mourn too.

Money, Greed, and God Review: Part 2

Chapter 1: Can We Build a Just Society.

Summary 

            Richards begins this chapter with a journey into his past. He traces his early flirtation with communism/socialism back to his time in a youth group with a youth pastor who was more concerned with social issues of the day more so that with the death of Christ. This is followed by an account of how we was taught communistic/socialistic principles at a college that was once Christian, but by his time had turned into a school that was more Liberal Protestant. His brief biography ends with the admission that while he loved communism/socialism as an ideology, reality soon got in the way of the intellectual ideology.

            Richards follows his history with communism/socialism with a history of communism beginning with Marx and ending with the fall of the U.S.S.R., with Richards mainly focusing on the deaths that leaders like Mao and Lenin caused. Richards then moves on combat the belief that the early church and the early pilgrims were in fact communist, by stating that the early church voluntarily gave away their possessions and that even Paul instructs that people are to work for their own food. Finally he states that communism in the early Pilgrim colony was a failure, and even they had to turn to private ownership.

            In the end Richards says that the reason communism/socialism fails is because it tries to bring Heaven to earth with God. Richards states that only God can bring about his Kingdom, and that any human attempts to bring about total equality will result in the suffering of people. But this does not mean we are to sit idly by and wait for God to bring the Kingdom, but that we have a part in it as his church. Then Richards says to compare capitalism with Heaven would be wrong, rather we must compare it to the extreme of communism and by doing so we will see that capitalism is the best answer.

Concerns/Questions

            My first concern is that Richards essentially tossed himself a slow mush ball to hit out of the park rather easily, rather than attempting to hit a fastball by taking on the much tougher criticisms of capitalism, or even less extreme versions of socialism in this chapter. The position that Richards combats is such an extreme position of communism that less than one percent of Americans agree with. A statistic given by Richards himself! I mean come on, anyone who wants U.S.S.R. or Chinese style communism/socialism is either a fool or has their head in the sand! Or maybe there are other options, but the point is that anyone can see that Lenin and Mao’s version of communism was extremely deadly; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. What Richards is doing is attempting to make it look like anyone who supports anything but capitalism is supporting death and suffering. But the truth is that this is unfair, because not all people who criticize capitalism support Maoism or Lenin style communism, heck they won’t even support Marxism. Instead they realize that while capitalism is better than communism that capitalism has its own issues, issues that they desire to be fixed. Now Richards’ tactic is widely used by people from many different backgrounds, so let’s not act like Richards is the only person ever to do this. I am however more disappointed that a person with the credentials that Richards has would resort to such a tactic.

            That being said, I love that Richards brought in the “Not Yet but Already Kingdom.” For a second I was beginning to get scared that Richards was going to pull out the, “this is how it is and it can’t be changed until the Lord comes card.” However, in this section he only declares that this type of thinking is wrong, he fails to go into how we ought to live in the “Not Yet but Already Kingdom.” However, I am guessing that he will do that in other parts of the book. So I am not giving up on the hope that Richards will show how capitalism ought to work in the “Not Yet/Already” time period.

I do have one question though. I wonder what Richard’s view of human nature is. He implies that humanity will refuse to work unless made to do so and that is why communism/socialism fails. However, that’s about all he says. I wonder if he ever takes into account the view that it is in the nature of humans to desire mammon, or stuff, and to sometimes obtain it at any cost. I mean mammon is something that is a rival to God when it comes to what we worship. Also God knew that humanity had a coveting problem when he gave us the Ten Commandments. That being said, I wonder how coming to the realization that humans by nature like things, shiny things, expensive things, fun things; and are willing to do immoral acts (not necessarily illegal) to achieve such things, would affect his views on unregulated capitalism.