Some links and brief thoughts on patriotism in the church

     Although generally I intend to follow the sidebar entitled “forthcoming blog posts,” nevertheless once in a while somebody will post something on their blog that gets the hamsters in my head spinning on their wheels and forces me to write. Recently my academic advisor posted two fascinating links on his own blog that I would like to share with you (http://www.daveblackonline.com/blog.htm Thursday March 31^st, 4:05 PM).

The first link is http://arbevere.blogspot.com/2011/03/we-must-reject-christendom.html Allan R. Bevere has written a forthcoming book that I am immensely interested in, entitled The Politics of Witness (Areopagus Critical Christian Issues; Energion, forthcoming). He offers this provocative quote on his website: “Functionally, by the church's political engagements and by aligning themselves with the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans, Christians in actuality display the unacknowledged belief that it is the nations that are indeed running the show.”

         Secondly, I am excited to read, on Nathan Akin’s blog (http://www.baptisttwentyone.com/?p=5285), a “Letter from a Minister about Patriotism in Corporate Worship” by music minister Carl Stam. Stam makes three key points on why his church will de-emphasize political celebration within the worship service on Memorial Day and July 4^th. I heartily concur with him, and would like to quote something Stam states in his first point: “It is just too easy to confuse what it means to follow Christ with what it means to be a loyal U.S. citizen. Especially when hard-hitting emotional presentations are made with flags and uniforms and pledges, it is too easy to get mixed up about where our allegiance should be. However, we ARE quick to pray for our country and for our leaders and we are quick to thank God for the freedom of worship that we enjoy.”

         Let me expand on that in light of my own theological "paradigm shift" over the past 6 years. In John 18:36, in response to Pilate, Jesus clearly states, “my kingdom is not of this world” (ESV). In Peter 2:9, it is the church, rather than any nation-state, that in this dispensation is given the title “a holy nation.” In light of that, Christians must be extremely careful about mixing in the glorification of any nation-state in with the glorification God when it comes to corporate worship.

         Let me take this a step further. In light of 1 Peter 2:9, I believe it is a misnomer to label any nation-state a “Christian nation”; in fact, by very definition, I believe there will be no “Christian nation” (other than the church, see 1 Pet 2:9) until Jesus Christ himself sits on the throne of David and rules the world from Jerusalem during the Millennium.

         Clearly God has blessed the US, but He has blessed all other nations as well, and ultimately we are forced to confess with Isaiah that “all the nations are as nothing before him, they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.” (Isa 40:17, ESV).

         One quick word to my fellow dispensationalists (with apologies to any Reformed or historic pre-mil reading this post; please bear with me as I deal with an “internal” matter). If indeed (as I firmly believe), God has done a unique work in this dispensation by founding the church at Pentecost, and if the church is to be distinct from both Israel and all other social-political entities, and if indeed Christ will reign someday in the future on the throne of David from a literal Jerusalem, then should not we dispensationalists be the first to recognize the danger of mixing nationalistic patriotism with corporate worship? Yet unfortunately the opposite has been true; we dispensationalists have, for all practical purposes, elevated the US to the position of both Israel and the church in God’s plan, despite the lack of Biblical support for any such position. We do so by glorifying the US in songs in church (though I have absolutely no problem with patriotic music outside the church, and can sing along in good conscience), pledging “allegiance” to the US flag (which, in my opinion, demonstrates that we truly do not understand the meaning of “allegiance”), and treating the constitution as if it were Scripture and the founding fathers as if they were inspired Apostles (e.g. I once heard Proverbs 22:28 applied from the pulpit to the US constitution). If anything, we dispensationalists need to be the first to recognize the dangers of such practices and to emphasize that among national entities, only Israel can claim such a massive role in God’s plan (though Scripture indicates that God will bless other nations as well, e.g. Isaiah 19:25; indeed, check out the entire context of this chapter).

         One more point: to those that are concerned that such a position means that I or others are somehow opening the door to the liberal, left-wing political agenda, let me quote Douglas Harink from his thought-provoking Brazos commentary on 1 Peter. While critiquing the journal First Things’ tendency to “often display in its pages a hope and vision for Christian America,” where “virtually all of the scriptural attributes of the mission of Israel and the church in the world, and God’s particular providence through them, are appropriated to the American nation,” Harink argues, “to be critical of that vision is not to be, as [Stephen H.] Webb suggests, ‘leftist’ or ‘liberal’; it is simply to assert a catholic theological vision of the people of God that accords with the teaching of scripture about the purpose of Israel and the church. Indeed, the leftist, liberal agenda gets its own vision and champion of Christian American in the journal Sojourners and in Jim Wallis’s God’s Politics . . . Wallis no less than Webb appropriates the attributes and mission of Israel and the church to the American nation and calls the church to serve it” (Harink, 1&2 Peter [Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2009], 59 fn50). A middle-ground is needed that recognizes that both “left” and “right” politics are ultimately irrelevant to the Kingdom of God. Some issues, such as abortion, do indeed hold spiritual significance and should command our attention, but the Christian’s response is first and foremost to be that of a “do-gooder” (1 Peter 2:11-12) rather than a political revolutionary.

         So much for “brief thoughts!” I do hope to write more on this topic in the future. For now, I urge the reader to check out the above posts and to read Douglas Harink’s commentary on 1 Peter, especially on 1 Peter 1 and 2. While I don’t agree with all of what Harink writes, I am grateful that he is dealing with issues that most commentaries on 1 Peter do not.