You bring up some good points. The problem, however, with America is this: to defend this nation in our military, you must swear an oath to uphold and defend our constitution (which is nothing other than how our courts interpret it). Our constitution currently is understood to permit abortion, adultery, rank idolatry, "gay" marriage, etc. If someone swears to uphold and defend our constitution, they are swearing to defend our supposed "rights" currently protected by our constitution (which, again, whether we like it or not the courts - not original intent - decide). Someone who swears an oath to uphold and defend the constitution swears an oath to oppose God and His law.
That being said, regarding the Roman Empire two-thousand years ago: historical context is very important. One of the most simple tenets of the Christian faith is that those to whom much has been given, much shall be expected. Those without a Bible, aren't expected to live according to every precept contained in it. For example, someone without divine revelation isn't responsible for not participating in the Lord's Supper, being baptised, believing in justification by faith alone, etc. Someone who does have the Bible, however, is responsible for these things. The light given to a person increases their moral responsibility. The same goes for nations. The Roman Empire was a pagan nation, existing in a time when all the masses knew were paganism. The United States of America is a nation that has Christian origins, descends from a Christian continent and nations (England, France, Spain, etc.), and there is a church on every corner. With regard to the moral obligations relative to God's requirements, the USA has much more to answer for than the Roman Empire did when it comes to legislation. The Twin Towers went down in the fury of God's wrath on this nation and, unless we repent, that was only a scratch on the surface of future judgments. To join our military, swear an oath to defend a nation that is obstinately the enemy of God (not just culturally, but inherently in our very public institutions like our schools), and then to go and believe you're a martyr if you die for it, is to stand opposed to God. Thankfully, I think many do it ignorantly and don't pretend to know the state of their souls. On the other hand, that our nation is an abomination to God is common sense to anyone who compares our institutions and culture to the expectations of the word of Almighty God. The USA is in *BIG* trouble with God, and I wouldn't be caught dead wearing those shameful uniforms declaring my "love" for this beast.
Your points are well-taken however - and I mean that. The questions and concerns you raised are ones that every Christian needs to consider. I hope my post hasn't offended you. I tend to be a person who would prefer to avoid conflict or ever sounding offensive in life, if at all possible. This subject, however, is one that I feel so morally constrained to announce to the world that I can scarce keep from preaching it on street corners. The individuals in our nation aren't just going to hell. This nation itself is in the midst of a cosmic collision with a very angry omnipotent God named Yahweh and it has only just begun. I fear if my mouth remains closed and I pussyfoot the subject in certain cases when it comes up by speaking euphamistically, my insides eat me up and I will displease my Maker.
Take care, John P.
Ezekiel 16:2, "Cause Judah to know her abominations."
Last edited by jmp; Tue Jun 01, 20041:17 AM.
"He that hath light thoughts of sin, never had great thoughts of God." ...John Owen
jmp brings up an interesting subject here. The problem is that you need to back up first and decide what is our role as a Christian citizen in a govt. that is wholly secular. I suggest, as a starting point, that you read the article titled "Christian Politics according to Abraham Kuyper" at this url: http://www.ucalgary.ca/%7enurelweb/papers/irving/kuyperp.html
By the way, I agree with Pilgrim that Theonomy is a perversion.
Very interesting article - thanks for the link. I just read it, and definitely believe it is something I hope to revisit and use as a "brainstorming" tool as I continue to study and consider a positive statement of the role of civil gov't. Thanks again.
That being said, while I agree that our nation is now secular (in a sense), I do affirm a unity of a state and its people throughout its history. Accordingly, as a state (and, even more importantly, people), our responsibilities aren't limited to our current apparent secularism, but also are regulated by our prior Christianity insofar as we were previously a colony of a Christian nation, with Christian laws, covenants, etc. In other words, while I agree that, if we were to consider our nation and its people today independent of its history, it could properly be understood to be secular. The problem is this: it is improper to consider it independent of its history. When our history is considered, we discover that there is a better way to describe our nation than secular, namly, apostate. So, the question is this: what is a Christian's role in an apostate nation. My suggestion is that a Christian must testify against it, not swear oaths to defend it.
Changing gears a little, pragmatism doesn't have the priority in a Christian's thought over God's law and plain revealed truth. People who oppose God's law being enforced in a modern nation universally appeal to pragmatism (i.e., it can't work, it won't work, it is unreasonable, how can it ever happen, it failed everytime attempted in history, etc.). I suppose if I were a pragmatist, I would also stop living for Christ because so many people have suffered, died, failed at accomplishing their Christian goals, etc. by trying to live such a life. Pragmatically speaking, it just makes sense to deny Him in our personal life as well. Why not? We deny believe we should deny Him in the civil realm, right? Why not our personal, too?
Sincerely, John
"He that hath light thoughts of sin, never had great thoughts of God." ...John Owen
I appreciate your reply and would like to make a few comments.
Concerning the history angle I agree with you in a sense. It is indeed very inportant to understand the history of a thing in order to form ideas about it. Our nation is apostate. And I agree that we should not be swearing oaths to it. But then again, all Western thought is apostate, not just our nation. So what do we do about it? As you said we must testify against it. But as Pilgrim mentioned we need to be very careful that we don't embrace the Reconstructionist movement. Until Christ himself comes to live with us on The New Earth there will not be a nation that is not apostate. Personally I consider myself to be a citizen of The New Jerusalem. I will not say "The Pledge of Alligence" because I think it is a prayer, and I literally don't want to be caught dead praying to that god.
On your comment about pragmatism. You have really hit the nail on the head there, maybe even more than you know. Since the French Revolution (modernism) the "gods" that control Western philosophy are pragmatism and rationalism. Our whole worldview is shaped by those "gods". As Christians we need to develop a different worldview. One that places Christ at the center of our philosophy. (This is different than theology). I can see that you have a burning desire to be faithful to Christ in all areas of your life. That is a fine thing. Praise and thank God that he has given you that blessing.
For further study on how a Christian should respond in the public sphere check out this website: http://www.cpjustice.org This organisation actually wields some influence in Washington. It's stated purpose is "a comprehensive Christian political foundation", without being involved in Theonomy (Reconstructionism). Also run a Google search for two men who strived to form a Christian philosophy. Both are in the reformed tradition. Van Til Dooyeweerd It's heady stuff, and a bit over my head. I am not a scholar but have come to realize that these issues are important for all Christians. So I try to wrestle with it and understand as much of it as God will allow.
Personally I consider myself to be a citizen of The New Jerusalem. I will not say "The Pledge of Alligence" because I think it is a prayer, and I literally don't want to be caught dead praying to that god.
That's an interesting perspective on the pledge. The "indivisible" and "liberty and justice for all" parts, I believe, aren't the best thing to say today. On whose authority can we say "indivisible"? Just because the Union won the Civil War does not make this country indivisible. Plus, not all divisions result in the literal split of a country.
The "liberty and justice for all" part is not entirely true either. Where is there liberty and justice for the unborm, for example?
Having gone to a Christian highschool, we said three pledges at the start of each day. We pledged to the American flag, the Christian flag, and to the Bible. It just now struck me as odd as to why we did the American flag pledge first. Here are the words to the second two pledges:
Christian Flag I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag And to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands One brotherhood, uniting all Christians in service and love
Bible Pledge I pledge allegiance to the Bible, God's Holy Word A lamp unto my feet, a light unto my path Its words I will hold in my heart So that I might not sin against God
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
