Hello, Micah,
Somehow I seem to have overlooked your posting from 9/18! So let me get with the program here....
How could I really compare those two realities? I can only go by the examples they give me and what history has written down. I guess if my family was being slaughtered by savages, or I was forced to execute a friend, or placed under some kind of torture (like the Revolutionists were) than I could relate to the earlier Christian martyrs in the sense that torture is torture and a loss of a loved one in brutal fashion is the same no matter what time period it takes place in. I think both time periods were of equal brutality just in a different sense. Also, if you think it was just taxes that the Revolutionists got upset about I suggest you do a little more research on the subject and at least read the Declaration of Independence.
Well, I listened to your advice and took a look at the Declaration. What was striking to me is that Messer Jefferson spends a lot of time complaining about political issues - mostly about the extension of royal power - and very little time complaining about actual brutalities and barbarities. This seems telling about the actual state of affairs.
But as for your list of offenses - why should not the natives have been engaged as allies of the crown? There had already been armed resistance in the colonies by the time of the Declaration. At Concord, an American rebel had bashed in a wounded British soldier's head with a hatchet, scalping him. Armed rebellion is surely a governing crisis, precipitating drastic measures. As for the "execution of a friend," Jefferson here appears to be referring to naval conscription, which is not an untoward practice for a government, and given the requirements of the colonies' distance from the homeland, it was only natural that British commanders should conscript Americans to provide troops to thwart the rebellion. These Americans were, after all, British subjects. It is common for Americans to overlook the gravity of rebellion and the propriety/necessitude of response from the British standpoint.
As for torture, what exactly are you referring to?
I don’t regard these things as comparable to the callings of my faith;
But your argumentation suggested otherwise. When I pointed out ways in which Americanism failed to harmonize with Christianity, you raised these points as if they posed a relevant defense. If these things are not comparable to the callings of your faith, then they do not serve as an adequate defense for the ways in which Americanism fails to harmonize with Christianity.
Also, what revealed paradigms of God would you have us follow? Did not God ordain governments in the first place? America lays a foundation that allows one to not be human centered, but to be God centered if they want to be. That is what is great about this country. It allows us to be either one and the choice is up to you.
The revealed paradigm for community structure can be found in the Torah. Unlike the American system, this paradigm does not allow for religious freedom, or freedom of adult sexual conduct, for example. The problem with America is not that it allows one to be God-centered, but that it allows one to be anti-God and receive the full protection and advocacy of the government. That is what is
not great about this country.
You act as though humans were never given the ability to govern at all. Wasn’t it the Israelites who wanted a King and God granted them their desire? Yes, it would be better to be ruled under the authority of God alone because he is just and fair, but he allowed us to have our way and he appointed those he wanted to be into power.
God granted the desire for a king, according to the tradition, but the tradition also indicates that the choice was a rejection of God. Now, God has allowed many kinds of governments, from the stellar to the abysmal. But that point is irrelevant to the propriety of pledging allegiance to a non-Christian government in the context of Christian fellowship - which is, after all, our topic here.
At least the American system allows people the chance to correct those that do overstep their bounds instead of being held mercilessly at the hands of a brutal dictator. Unfortunately, we as a people have not held our due diligence.
The American system, in fact, fundamentally shelters those who work evil. Placing oneself in opposition to God is the quintessential overstepping of bounds, and the American system champions the civil right to do so.
So, is it better to oppress people into obedience about something they have no desire to be obedient? If people want to practice evil they are allowed to do so, but that doesn’t mean they are not going to be held accountable for their actions. We are still held to the moral laws of God and suffer the consequences of breaking those laws even if a human government doesn’t apply any consequences.
It is definitely better to impose the pressure of authority (including punishment) to discourage people from disobedience. This is why we
parent, for example. It cannot be denied that social climate and circumstances can pave the way to disobedience; it is easier to remain pure in a less tainted environment. The American system has led to an open sewer, culturally speaking, and its toll on the character of the American people is obvious. (I know - you will likely object that the American system only
allowed this to happen. But this does not salvage the system from the charge of dereliction of duty. If the government should allow gangs to rule urban streets, it would not itself be running drugs and pimping girls, but it would nevertheless be responsible for allowing/tolerating the situation.) When the government regulates societal behavior, however, it creates habits of thought and conduct that remove obstacles to obedience, and that may even encourage obedience when the fruits thereof become apparent.
But your comments here seem to correlate with a certain flavor of Christian bias. For some Christians, everything must come from the inside. Jews know better - the Torah was given because the flow goes both ways, and the inside is shaped by the outside too.
Like I have always stated if something does not contradict one’s Christian beliefs than I have no problem with one pledging their loyalty to it, also if any of those entities that you mentioned had any contribution to allowing me to worship in Church without fear of retribution than I see no problems honoring it as a blessing from God.
You have made your lack of objection clear, although I fail to see why one would pledge loyalty to an institution that shelters and champions one's own mortal enemy, and the enemy of one's God. Pledging loyalty goes beyond appreciation. But on that point: yes, a measure of liberty has been obtained, but at a serious cost. I speak not of the blood of citizen-soldiers that you splash around as a whitewash/trump, but rather of the unjustifiably libertine society that is the natural fruit of your fundamentally flawed system. You ask too little from your government - as long as it leaves you alone to do your thing, you absolve it of its responsibility to champion righteousness.
Quote: And certainly the American institution does not allow reciprocal privileges. Does the United States incorporate a pledge of allegiance to Christianity into any of its activities?
Actually, there is a prayer before every meeting of congress. Does that count?
What do you think? If you actually thought that it did, you would not stoop to phrase it as a question. And if it actually were such a pledge, it would be unconstitutional and thus void.
Quote: Our society is sometimes imprecise about what it considers "judging." My prior statement involved personal appraisal. Judgment involves the rendering of a verdict that is held to be authoritative.
By the tone of your text used it seems you were judging these things as bad, were you not? How can you have an unbiased appraisal of things that go against your beliefs?
I am not sure that I made my point clear here. Judgment involves rendering an authoritative verdict. I acknowledge that my appraisals are not authoritative. Thus, such appraisals are not judgment. That does not mean that my appraisals are incorrect, and it does not mean that I do not act upon them. It just means that I speak and act as someone who is not a judge, but rather an agitant or advocate.
And certainly I have a biased appraisal, in accordance with my beliefs. Your point is? But I take issue with persons whose beliefs fail to impart a sufficient bias to orient them against that which shelters evil.
Quote: By this you show that it is more important for you to inject a secondary, non-Christian value into the Christian fellowship than to celebrate in unity without distraction.
That is not true because you’re defining that accusation by your own definition of unity. Like I said before there are many things Christians disagree on and it is very likely you won’t find a church that agrees with every position you hold on every theological subject. Does this mean that the church should stop every single thing that may be debatable to Christians because they might break up over what you consider unity? There are things to break up unity over and other things that are just not important.
Let me refine my point:
By this you show that it is more important for you to inject a secondary, non-Christian value into the Christian fellowship than to celebrate in harmony without distraction.
Quote: What is more, you are willing to risk alienating a non-Christian visitor from the gospel for this secondary issue. This alienation is one stumbling-block which you do not see:
If they are going to leave a church because of a pledge than one has to ask were they really seeking God in the first place?
I will not mince words: this argument is diabolical. Touching a person's heart with the light of God is not a matter of rewarding their noble seeking - it is an imperative ministration to someone in dire need, regardless of their inclination to help themselves.
It would seem that you care more for your political system than you do for the life of your fellow creature. Which do you think God cares more about? How do you think he would triage the competing interests of (on the one hand) a loyalty-pledge to a republic that will benefit or suffer in only the most negligible terms from it, and (on the other hand) an opportunity to make an eternally significant investment in someone's life? We may gauge God's priorities by considering that the redeemed individual will endure in the world to come, whereas the republic will vanish.
Quote: You are willing to cast a potential distraction or obstacle into the path of one who might otherwise be more receptive to the light of your faith.
Beyond this, you are willing to cast the stumbling-block into the path of your brother who might scruple at pledging allegiance to a nation. Would not your apostle counsel you to deny your preference for the sake of the weaker brother, at least within the community life?
The only time where that idea is stated in scripture, that I can remember, it is referring to an actual sin. So, the question really comes down to saying is the pledge a sin or not? In my opinion it is not as long as what you’re pledging your loyalty to doesn’t go against your Christian belief. One may argue like Steve and you have about what our country does today, but in my heart that is not what I am pledging to uphold.
Unless I am mistaken, the passage in question deals with matters of conscience, not just outright sin. Paul may feel everything is clean to eat, but that does not allow him to place a stumbling block in the way of one whose conscience says otherwise.
As far as I am concerned, many current problems are natural fruit of the warped tree which you pledge to uphold.
That’s too bad, because good men gave you that freedom with their blood.
Christians sometimes seem overimpressed with the willingness of someone to die for something. Martyrdom does not demonstrate truth, and it does not create a claim on me.
Good men also died to preserve my being under the governance of the British crown. Good men also died to preserve the Southern slave culture. Good men even died to extend the reach of the Third Reich. How shall I accomodate all the martyrdoms of good men?
Thank you once again for the blessing of the challenge!
Shalom,
Emmet
P.S.: Edited once to remove off-base comment
.