RESPONSES to One Nation
under God
A column by Keith
Drury
I
think a nation under God would care about people and would use all available
resources to make the world a better place. Fair wage laws, health care for
all, educational opportunities, foreign aid, environmental stewardship and
other similar issues would be priorities. The type of nation described in this
article is exactly what many evangelical fundamentalists would love to impose
on our country, with no separation of church and state. Former president Jimmy
Carter recently published a book titled "Our Endangered Values", a
great read, especially for Christians who are interested in these very issues.
JustKara said...
Interesting!
Could there be coming a convergence of fundamentalism--so that in the future
Christian fundamentalists and the Moslem fundamentalists will link up to
together bring the social change they seem to agreed
on?
Boy that would be a curious marriage of convenience!
"What
luck for the rulers that men do not think!"
-Adolf Hitler
Mark Klass said...
Great
idea Keith! Actually, why not make it illegal not to be a Christian too.
Surely, one of the most important issues would be conformity of beliefs. We
would have to extrapolate additional laws from Biblical principals to deal with
things that aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible but that wouldn't be too
hard for those in charge. And, of course, with all the conformity, there's
really very little need for free will because everybody knows what is right and
what is wrong. There really wouldn't be much in the way of decisions for people
to make. Actually, doing this would make last week's blog unimportant. That
would be legislated too. Great idea! But I was wondering. Who's in charge?
Mark Klass said...
P.S.
I have a friend named Jim Jones who is looking for a ministry. I could give him
your number.
The AJ Thomas said...
One
nation under God doesen't bring
about true and lasting morality. The Jews and the Catholics have both had a go
at it in history and it just doesen't work. If
someone is going to live a righteous life God has to change their heart and it
won't matter how much opposition. In fact I think it's arguable that the less
"under God" a nation is the stronger the christians in it are.
I
think the basic premise of American christianity
is flawed. America was based on fleeing persecution. The idea being that it shoulden't have to cost me to follow
Christ. I think many of the problems in the american church are a result of that thought being
carried to the Nth.
Kevin K. Wright said...
You've
just identified why "American" democracy will not work in Islamic
countries. For muslims,
there can be no separation of mosque and state, much like Christendom post
Constantine. My gut feeling tells me that "Christian" nations rarely
achieve their stated purposes, a fact even supported by history. When
Christians get into power, the entire means of effectiveness for what it means
to be a Christian changes. Instead of trying to be a eucharistic community committed to orthodoxy and orthopraxi, you wind up with people who will compromise
Christian beliefs and ethics in order to preserve the power structure. Let the
Church be the Church and the world be the world.
nate richardson said...
i think you are talking about the OT. it didnt really work back then
either
Great
post! You’ve described the new Iraq constitution precisely—something we never
intended I don’t think. But you also exposed the common ground on social issues
between “Christian world-changer fundamentalists” and “Islamic
fundamentalism”--they are both working for a similar culture where the
Bible/Koran rules and sin is illegal.
I wonder which will happen:
A.Seeing the Koran-controlled Islamic countries
complete with their spiritual Gestapos will make USA
fundamentalist world-changers like Jerry Fallwell,
Pat Robertson and James Dobson wake up and quit trying to turn their country
into a Christian nation.
OR
B.Seeing the Koran-controlled Islamic countries
complete with their spiritual Gestapos will make USA
fundamentalist world-changers like Jerry Fallwell,
Pat Robertson and James Dobson more motivated to do the same here?
Interesting. Apparently there is no difference (in some peoples' minds,
anyway)in James Dobson and the Ayatollah Khomeni, or the Koran and Bible, or the America of the 19th
century and the Islamic countries of the 21st. There is plenty to criticize as
to our history, and we have never been a Christian nation in any absolute sense
of the word, sure.
I contend, however, that even with our many faults we were better off when
adultery, for example, was considered a crime, when Bible reading and prayer
were a feature in our public schools (I know of two older people who speak of
that influence as part of the prevenient grace that brought them to God), when
sin carried with it some stigma that, at least in some cases, kept people from
it.
Does anyone really fear that the fundamentalists are going to take over here?
Of course, no one would have imagined that a nation with the rich cultural
history of Germany would ever end up with Hitler in power. But I think what
people may fear is a perverted Orwellian form of "Christian
government." Anything is possible, of course. But if George Bush is an
example of conservative/"Christian" leadership might be today and in
the future, no one should worry too much, he is going to spend us into oblivion,
and as other Republican presidents have done, give (mostly) mere lip service to
social issues.
JohnLDrury said...
I
suspect the American Christian fundamentalists have too many American enzymes
in their system to let morality trump freedom at a wholesale level. They have
built-in limits to their "Christian" values because they have just as
strong "American" values, and when they are in conflict, the American
values often trump the Christian ones. So I think this article does not expose
the radicality of the Christian Right but rather
their inconsistency, incoherence, and assimilation.
just a thought...
jld
You
forgot something. The most important thing of all for a
nation to be "under" God. Circumcision,
and that of the heart. No circumcision, no under God.
Rules without circumcision are just that, rules! And if you have jsut rules, you have just rule keepers, right?
Oh,
it also says that wrath never brings about the will of God or something similar
to that. And since the law brings for wrath, you do not have a nation under God, you have a nation under the wrath produced by the rules
of God.
I
loved this post. First off, I would like to say that this is something that
anyone who claims to be fighting for a "Christian" nation needs to read,
whether that "Christian" nation takes the image of a legislated
morality (the traditional right) or a legislated equality (the traditional
left) Both sides are in error here because they miss the main focus of the
Bible, especially the New Testement--Choice.
As long as there is Choice, and people are allowed to use that choice, there
will be no "Nation Under God" because to say that the entire nation
would submit to these laws, be it morality, or equality (such as the laws the
first responder proposed in regards to "fair wage" and "health
care") when history tells us that people will not. Christ could have ruled
the world in a very real, very physical way. Not only did He have the power to
take this world by force, but Satan offered it to Him as well (a so called
"peaceful" regime change). Yet he refused the power. God Gave us a choice. The only way to truly have a nation under
God is to protect that choice, AND to work to show others the choice that is in
their best interests (Salvation)
I am sorry for rambling, but as a student at IWU, the "we should legislate
Christianity" (be it legislating morality or forcing equality, two Ideas I
really don't think Christ would support) God Bless, and have a good week.
Just
one major problem with the proposal (well maybe more)...
A nation under God would be a nation more like America already is rather than
like Islamic fundamentalist nations. What do I mean? God gave us choice and
consequence. I don't believe that all evil or disobedience waits for hell to
balance the scales. Sometimes it happens a split
second after the choice; sometimes longer. As we seek a more just nation, we do
far better to seek good more than attempt to eradicate (good holiness word there)
the evildoer.
One of my favorite descriptions in Scripture about Jesus is that he went
everywhere doing good. The human tendency is to try to
contain evil; the divine is to let the light dispel the darkness.
Matt said...
Tom
Monaghan, the founder of Domino's pizza is giving it a try. Check out the story
at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2058771,00.html
I
think the funny thing is that our "great" nation had almost all of
these laws (without blasphemy but including Blue laws) in times past and we
have slowly "rolled" them back. Just because there are parallels in
Islamic fundamentalist nations shouldn't concern us. I read scripture to
suggest that the main purpose of government is the restraint of evildoers. The
suggestion I hear from most of the posters here is that if the terror of
Christian fundamentalism takes over we will end up like Cromwell's England--I
doubt it.
Wes said...
I
guess in that scenario I would be jail and so would my parents and most of my
friends and some professors and pretty much everyone at my church. In fact that
would make it hard to live life all together, mostly because I am complete
screw up...
p.s. I don't understand a word John says but for some reason it makes me
laugh...
WUPATE.com
Thinking in Ohio said...
The
truth seldom lies in extremes, that's what I think.
While I'm not cheering on our country's plunge into secularism... I agree with
many of the responses here that legislating morality isn't the answer.
But give the Christian fundamentalists a break, John Mark, John Drury and Scott
are all right... there is a limit to which fundamentalists would go (simply
because they are Americans) and a throw back to 1950's morality wouldn't be a
bad thing... of course, I wouldn't want to live back then myself either!
Regardless, I don't believe the hope of the world lies with government. God
didn't commission George Bush to "make disciples" he commissioned the
church to. And because the world HAS CHANGED we do need to make room for our
secular neighbors. I say take down the 10 Commandments from the courthouse
square and put them back up in our homes. The Supreme Court may have removed
prayer from the schools but the TV took it from our homes long before that.
That's only one example of how we've lost our integrity in the eyes of the
world.
Does this make me a "secularist"? Well, it's a post-christian age/govt/nation we'd
better get used to it.
James Petticrew said...
Let's
not forget that Christianity has had a little experiment with this too, it was
(is) called Christendom. The more I think and read the more I conclude that the
church was seduced by Constantine and it took the church into some very
damaging directions that totally subverted the authentic DNA of the Body of
Christ. Don't tell me there was nothing else they could have done, some other
groups, such as the Donatists were able to imagine a
church not incestuously involved with the State.
Ryan Schmitz said...
If
a nation were totally committed to Christ, then there would be no need for laws
or a constitution, because our desire, as individuals, would be to live lives
that would glorify Him.
If the Israelites would have been capable of accepting His authority alone,
they wouldn't have need the 10 Commandments or the more than 600 other laws
that followed.
Because we are a fallen race, laws became a necessary evil.
Fortunately the combination of Christianity and Legislation produced the US
Constitution, which inevitably produced the greatest freedom (that John
referred to earlier) ever permitted by a nation-state for its people.
Our faith can coexist with this freedom, because it also teaches us that in the
end, God will hold all of us accountable.
It
sounds wonderful...although I don't believe you can legislate righteousness...
Just imagine if "Christians" lived as "One people under
God" and actually lived the way the Bible teaches. What if
"Christians" actually kept God's commands? Instead, we excuse sin and
try to walk with God while holding hands with the Devil...
Adam said...
John
Drury -
"Enzymes"? The biologist in me beams. Maybe you'll make the word as
usable and common as "DNA" now is (right J.Petticrew?).
Larry said...
24 comments by Monday? I told you not to write about sex ;-)
Show of hands: how many remember Prohibition?
Americans aren't very good at prohibiting anything ... except intolerance.
I dare you to write about that.
Jerry
Falwell, Pat Robertson (and in a smaller way, James
Dobson) are the trailing-off voices of an ill-conceived movement to place
Christian in government and "re-establish a Christian Nation." The
movement is actually at its peak now…Christians hold the high ground on the
battle-field. In a decade I see one of two results:
EITHER: the sort of reformation you outlined will be far closer -- we really
will become a Christian nation (again?).
OR: The entire attempt will have failed and it will be considered by both the
world and church as something like prohibition--a foolish and misguided thing
(and the church will return to trying to get the CHRISTIANS instead of the
nation to become the people of God).
I favor the second future, but I wonder if the rise of Islamic
fundamentalism who unashamedly merges God with
government might actually incite this country to turn to its own God as we
march to the nuclear mount Carmel.
Aaron said...
I
see where you're going Drury so here is my question: As a Christian should I be
for abortion? SHould Christians just not go in
politics?
This sounds a lot like the seperatist movements of
days past "Academia is bad we can't change it so we will avoid it."
That worked out real well huh?
So what do you expect a Christian in politics to do?
Also don't say we can't "legislate morality" cause
we do it all the time. Everyone chooses where and why their particular morality
should win.
The
answer to Coach's question is in the Lord's Prayer--"thy kingdom come on
earth." It is unreasonable for us to pray for such a thing without working
actively as world-changers to make it happen.
All the old pastors here citing past failures of making a Christian nation do
not recognize that faiure or success does not make a
thing right but the command and cause itself. God has commanded us to bring
this world into alignnemnt with His will. To do that we must change the world and "legislate
morality." While we can be tolerant of non-Christians in this
country, if we answer our calling right we will indeed make this nation a
Christian nation again. But even if we fail to do it, we are called to try. (though I'm not sure about banning spring break dancing--that
is a "venial sin" not mortal (to quote a recent chapel speaker.)
G.R.
''Scott'' Cundiff said...
The
change must come, not from laws and regulations, but at the heart. Making rules
seems easier, but as happened so often under the O.T.
Kings, national reform failed because hearts were unchanged. The need is not
for legislation, but for revival.
Craig Moore said...
Keith
Your scenerio will not work because those who already
claim to be "under God's law" do not practice this ethical code
themselves. Look at every local church and you will see all these moral
standards you mentioned in your post violated by those very people who would
probably be in favor of these laws.
Before I would be in favor of this kind of society where God's moral standards
are forced onto the secular world, I think the followers of Jesus will have to
take the log out of their own eyes before they can attempt to fix what is wrong
with America.
Siarlys
Jenkins said...
I
appreciate your answers to the question Keith, because I detect a subtle note
of sarcasm within them. So I will not compare you to Hitler or Khomeini. If the
United States were truly a nation under God, ALL of us would be dead. None of
us could live up to that standard. As an Orthodox rabbi once told me, God originally
intended his creation to be ruled solely by justice, then realized that the
creatures he intended to populate the world with would rapidly become extinct
under that standard, so he added mercy.
Let's be honest, there is NO SUCH THING as a Christian nation. Nations, by
definition and by nature, are not moral. If we are very lucky, the people we
elect to office may have some strong moral character, but that hasn't happened
in my lifetime.
Going
off the subject just a bit, if a average Christian had
to decide to support one law or another where would he or she fall of the log?
Illegal Abortion or Euthenasia?
Illegal Prostitution or Ban on SUV's?
Ban on Pornography or Censored TV?
Ban on Homosexuality or Right to Polygomy?
Illegal Adultery or Don't ask Don't tell Marraiges?
Illegal Divorce or E-file Divorces?
Remove “lascivious dancing” or lowering all ages of club entrance to 18?
Keith.Drury said...
I
don't usually respond to my own columns... but it is Tuesday afternoon and I
thought I'd chime in and probe your thinking on my final line:
Of course you don’t have to imagine it—such nations exist already. This is
precisely what Islamic fundamentalist nations are.
I was trying (though without doing so very well) to raise questions about how
Islamic fundamentalism has already accomplished much of what American
world-changing fundamentalists aim to accomplish. I’ve delighted in reading
responses above though—probably I should have written on the larger question of
should we try to be world-changers in this way…which is what many
responses address... but I was trying to show that Christian fundamentalists
and Islamic fundamentalists seem to have the same aims when it comes to some
things—right down to bump-and-grind dancing. Since I was writing
tongue-in-cheek I deleted my usual questions at the end and just let the
discussion go as it pleases—and it’s been a fun ride so far—but I do hope I can
jump in here and also prompt discussion on the other question: Here are the
questions I had in the article before I decided to put my tongue-in-my-cheek.
---Do you think there be a social alliance between
Moslem and Christian fundamentalists in the future like there is now between
Baptists and Catholics on Abortion?
---Do you think the success of Islamic fundamentalism taking over government
embolden American world-changers to do the same here so we can set up a god-against
god contest?
So, what do you think?
Thinking in Ohio said...
"No,"
to question #1--Christian fundamentalists would consider such an alliance a
grave compromise, like Judah's kings consorting with Egypt... "syncretism" they would call it. Although,
I could be underestimating their pragmatic resolve... hmmm...
"No," to question #2--Because in America we cherish our individual
freedom too much. The term 'American' increasingly includes the adjective
'secular' alongside it. Most believers in the States are "Christian
Americans" not "American Christians" freedom of choice is the
mantra of the age.
As an aside to those questions: Granted that some morality is
"legislated" (of course, murder is illegal), as Americans we want as
much liberty as possible--thus we have our legalized prostitution in Nevada to
choose on vacation. Are there "sins" that should be made illegal? Of
course! But where do we stop? And who decides what standards will be imposed on
the world? The Episcopal Church? The
Wesleyans or Nazarenes? How about the Quakers? Can we drink a few beers
with our Catholic brethren or will we reinstate the prohibition laws? Will we
require women to wear their hair in buns (again!) or will we ban them from the
“workplace” like in the good old days?
I, for one, wouldn't want to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia--or 1950's America. I
suppose that's my fear... where would be "draw the line" and live
with compromise? Moreover, aren't most middle-eastern countries managed through
fear and intimidation? Aren't most Afgans grateful
the Taliban is gone? Wouldn't most Saudi Arabians like to elect their own govt? I fear that Christians would simply become the new
terrorists in a world yearning for "freedom". Some already see us
this way... "we don't use weapons to manipulate
and control, we use laws". I'm not saying that they're right--I'm just
saying it's happening.
I
dont see an alliance with Muslims as likely. The
intellectual leaders of the Christian right ( I would
suggest Marvin Olasky, Joel Belz,
D. James Kennedy, Chuck Colson and Al Molher) are
Calvinists or very conservative Baptists who value doctrine heavily. Mark Noll
and others who have favored cooperation with the RC church have not done so
lightly, and I can't imagine at this point them ever seeing Islam as anything
but a threat. MUslim hatred of the west would
probably preclude much cooperation on their side. And their leadership seems to
be made up of radicals that make Pat Robertson look totally harmless.
As for taking over the government, I don't know what could be done that is not
being done now, which is to challenge people to vote based on certain values,
which is done by both parties and activists on both sides. Terry Mattingly sees
the hard right and hard left as very small groups, with most Americans in the
middle somewhere. I think the real crisis facing our future is the one J. D.
Hunter spoke of in Culture Wars, the schism in the church, which is far greater
than any political threat, as orthodoxy is threatened. I can well believe in
the possibility of what some people suggest; further moral breakdown, leading
to anarchy in the society, then some form of repressive government being
embraced to restore order.
I
am a SBB—a Southern Baptist Boomer. My first response
to your question is “No way!—we will NEVER link up with Moslems to pursue a social
agenda. NEVER!
But on second thought I’m not so sure. In the 1960's 95% of the Baptists I knew
believed that all Catholics went to hell. And most also believed the Pope was
the anti-Christ. To be honest, I never met a Christian who DIDN'T believe this
until I went to college in the 1970's. And, even then (in the 1970’s) other
Baptists I knew only admitted it was POSSIBLE that a Catholic could be
saved—they still thought it was extremely rare.
How things have changed. Almost all Baptists I know—including my whole
congregation—are linked arm-in-arm with Roman Catholics to fight the evil of
abortion. I can hardly find among my church members a person who does not
believe "there will be Catholics in heaven." (I do have one cranky
old man who still claims the pope is the anti-Christ but he is treated as a
lunatic by almost everybody in my church.)
So, while I say NEVER! To inking up with Moslems—people we believe worship a
false god I’d have to admit that the lessons of the last 30 years teach me to
be cautious about who we might link up with in the future. I still doubt it
could happen—but if I were a Baptist living in Amsterdam instead of North
Carolina, and I was concerned about the plummeting morality and wanted to
“change things” instead of going underground—I just might consider an alliance
with others opposed to abortion, blatant homosexual practice in the streets and
recruiting young people into porn shows… I just might…
God
has commanded us to bring this world into alignnemnt
with His will. To do that we must change the world and
"legislate morality.
I don't think so, he said go a make disciples. You
decided that you needed to bring the world in alignment as have the muslims.
As if God is not big enough to change people or nations Himself. "I knew
He wasn't God after all--unable to do what he says!" And to think I wasted
so much time.
Pastor
Bill, The only way we can have on nation under God is to get rid of all the
sinners. I think that is called Judgment Day. You can't legislate
morality, even in extremist Islamic states. The punishments are harsher, but
violations of their law still occur. Sharia law here
would shore make fur a lot of hypocrites.
Gary Collier said...
Great
thought provoking column (no surprise there!). No, I don't think "one
nation under God" will ever work. You can't legislate
morality! It has to come from the heart - as Jesus said, the things that enter
a man don't defile a man, but the things that come from a man, these things are
from the heart, and these defile a man.
It's still discipleship.... one true convert at a time, focusing on the things
of God and how they apply to THEIR life. That, in action, will continue to
brighten the world, one believer at a time.
Gary Collier
Atlanta
JohnLDrury said...
Q:---Do you think there be a social alliance between Moslem
and Christian fundamentalists in the future like there is now between Baptists
and Catholics on Abortion?
A: Yes. It is already happening. There was a recent pro-life conference at
Princeton University that brought together Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Q:---Do you think the success of Islamic
fundamentalism taking over government embolden American world-changers to do
the same here so we can set up a god-against god contest?
A: Embolden, no; necessitate, yes (at least in the minds of many). I think
there is a genuine fear of Islamic states among Christians and non-Christians
alike, and this fear can fuel a desire to build a corresponding Christian state
that is able to withstand the threat. As both a Christian and an American I
think this is a terrible idea and should be resisted prophetically and politcally. But it certainly is a brewing option.
This post has been removed by the author.
Pew Potato said...
What
about Christian Exodus?
www.christianexodus.org
ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to
reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian
principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under
our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore
our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has
come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like
South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under
the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Elliott Innes said...
I
know this doesn't answer any of your questions, but your post has got me
thinking:
How can we even fantasize about one nation under God when we can't even get it
right in our own lives.
Well,
this is interesting! I pulled out my new international dictionary and found the
word muslim: a true
believer, to resign oneself to God. Well let me see, that is what the Jews and christians say as well.
Then I had to look up:
monarchy: a single and sole ruler of a state; a govt
or state headed by a king, queen or emperor called absolute when no limitation
on monarch's powers and constitutional when there is such limitations.
theocracy: the mystic union of the soul with God; the
rule of a state by God; group of clerics with political power
democracy: govt by the people, either directly or
through elected representatives; majority rule; the acceptance and practice of
rights, opportunity, and treatment.
Well, I guess Elliott, fantasy works for all (Jew, Muslim and Christian) cause none of us have it. We are great mardi gras parade participants
aren't we?
I was looking at Mr. Appleby's book last night and it is interesting what he
said. Here are a few tidbits:
- Expr must be seen as an attitude of the heart,
which will indeed regulate the outward life. Legal conformity is no guarantee
of inward purity.
- Circumcision of the heart is an inward relational experience whereby a man
becomes God's man, spoiled for the world, utterly dedicated to God in an act of
commitment as clear as the act of circumcision. The inner submission to God and
to His will.
- Circumcision was an outward sign to them of tehir
allegiance but only each person knew (well, maybe two, and his Dr. :)) if they
were circumcised. He was on his honor to remember his circumcised stated and
honor it.
Doesn't what is happening with the muslim
religion have a hint of the Jewish pharisee-ism in it
and legalistic christianity (as others have noted)?
Let's make laws, force everyone to abide by these laws and hire minders to
watch and punish when they don't. No need to really get to know God or have an
internal relationship with God which would make me automatically keep his law. That would mean I have to love others (no more
randon killings) and myself (meaning, no more
chopping myself up with knives for "some holy purpose/day"). I would
already be holy/His.
And, what is amazing to me about all of this regardless of whether or not muslim governments are religious
or not is how they view their mosques. Does God dwell in the mosques or in the
people? Just seems to me that if they love God as much as they say they do and
are so zealous to prove (or maybe they are only zealous to prove their love for
Mohammed, I don't know), and they want to be pure, and God is to dwell in them,
how can they go around randomly killing others because their mosque was
damaged.
I personally think they are totally confused and are shooting in the dark.
Their government is no more of God than the government of the US! You folks are
correct. To call it that is a lie. It is not a Government of God until God calls
the shots like He did in the desert.
Gotta give the credit as Keith did though for a few
things:
- Ex 10:10: told to make a difference between the holy and non-holy (that they
are trying to do with their rules and minders)
- Ex 19:6: commanded to be a holy nation to God. (If all the folks keep all the
rules because they have to and don't break one, are they a holy nation to God
or do they ahve to have something going on in their
hearts as well to be a holy nation? If you have minders to make you adhere, are
you really holy?)
- Deut 10:16: Circumcise therefore the foreskins of you heart, to be no more stiffnecked. Well if they are randomly killing each other,
they are not obeying God's law. And if you are not obeying God's law does that
automatically mean you are stiffnecked and cannot
possibly be God's people?
Gosh when you think that we all came from the same bloodline and that what we
have (nations under sin) is greater than what we don't have (nations under God), you would think that would make a difference. I heard a
sermon the other day on a donkey. Seems fitting.
Diane Muir said...
Well,
I think that the original post sent us in the right direction in the very first
paragraph, where you read "What if we wrote God—the true God, our
God—right into our constitution?"
Scholars, thinkers, shepherds, popes, priests, common men, have been trying to
figure out who the true God is for centuries. And all of it
to no avail.
Each of us has a moral identity with which we judge the outside world. Each of
us would describe God just a little differently. We tend to link with others
who view things similarly to us, but at the same time - there will continue to
be slight differences.
So ... the question for me is not necessarily should our nation be committed to
God - but, to whose interpretation of God?
For heaven's sake, most churches can't agree how to do things - and those
already are a theocracy. Any person that has input,
brings a varied view of who God is and from there, they base their sense of
right and wrong, interpretation of law and mercy, and a liberal or fundamental
view of religion.
So ... whose God would we have to choose if we were to be "one nation
under God?" Because, I have a few gods that I'm not going to vote for!
Diane Muir said...
Oh
... and I didn't ignore your last line about how the Islamic Fundamentalist
nations are already living this way. That simply makes me shudder! I'm reading
through Leviticus right now - and I wouldn't want to live like God originally
ordained for His chosen people to live either. Some of those rules scare me
witless! Thank heavens that grace and mercy have been extended along with
redemption through the cross!
Fundamental
Islam believes that Jews and Christians are infidels, worthy of death. The
prospect of alliance between Jews, Christians, and Moslems is remote so long as
one group is committed to eradicating the other two.
Atheistic Communist governments have laws prohibiting theft. Shall we no longer
prohibit theft for fear of becoming Atheistic Communists? The suggestion that
since Islamic governments prohibit abortion, we who reject Mohummed
as a false prophet, should allow the slaughter of the innocents is ridiculous
on its face.
Of course our nation's laws should reflect the moral principles revealed in
Scripture, confirmed by experience, and blessed by the Lord. "Happy is
that nation whose God is the Lord."
bumble said...
Dr.
Drury, please follow up this article some more.
In the one hand, something is wrong with the picture you described.
On the other hand, would heaven be less attractive without all the vices?
And what about Jesus's call for
"The Kingdom of God"?
Surely, if there exist a nation like what you describe
without the legalistic "outlaw the vices" then it would be ideal,
would it not?
Which bring me to another tangent: will we have the capability to sin when we
get to heaven? If so, then would we really have "eternal life" or
"life as long as we submit to God"?