In the fall of 1992 my wife and I were living in Richmond Hill, Ontario with our then seven year old son for a four month sabbatical at L’Arche Daybreak. Our emphasis was on sharing community living with the (mentally handicapped) core members and their assistants. At that time the United States was having the presidential election in which Bill Clinton defeated George H. W. Bush who was seeking re-election. Canada was also having a national election on a proposed Constitutional Accord that was intended to bring better balance and equity to the diversity of Canadian society, not just French speaking and English speaking but the increasing diversity, especially in western Canada. That effort was defeated, largely because the western provinces did not feel adequately represented and distinguished from English speaking Ontario. The Soviet Union had dissolved by the end of 1991. During those months I made a point of paying special attention to how these events were portrayed in the Canadian press.
The question that kept surfacing was, what does it take to hold a large, diverse society together as a cohesive whole? Without the Soviet iron fist, the Balkans degenerated into violent tribal and ethnic hostility. Similar tribal and ethnic clashes were erupting in the remnants of the colonial nation-states of Africa. As those have continued to escalate, Islam has emerged as a major global force. But Islam is far from monolithic, and sectarian conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites feed on ancient tribal and ethnic rivalries. We are in the midst of instability in the Arab dictatorships of North Africa and the Middle East with little assurance of what shape their future will take. The global economy is shaking the stability of the European Union.
While vicious politics are hardly new in the United States of America, I think most observers would agree that the rancor and divisiveness of politics has escalated dramatically in these past twenty years. A “no compromise” attitude seems to be infecting every election, every office, every debate. The vilification of one’s political opponents within and between parties seems rampant.
I have tried to think of what kind of center could hold together a large, diverse democracy. What could I endorse as a Christian living in the United States of America that I think my Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, secular and atheist neighbors could also embrace? I came up with these five ideas as a place to start a conversation.
1. Respect people – the dignity and worth of every individual.
2. Respect community – the shared environment, culture and history.
3. Justice – with compassion for the weak and poor, with restorative rather than punitive purpose for those who violate others or the community as well as protection from those whose actions threaten others and the community.
4. Integrity – honest, transparent interactions.
5. Rule of law – predictability of expectations, checks and balances.
A corollary, and I think much more difficult question to answer is, what compelling national mission could be a center to hold together a large, diverse democracy? An isolationist taking care of our own is too ingrown to inspire. To be the exporter of democracy to the world or the referee/police for every tragic conflict or to be the deposer of every brutal tyrant is unsustainable, not to mention arrogantly unethical. To posit any role that depends specifically on the United States of America is doomed hubris. Is being one catalyst for dialog, negotiation, justice and democracy among the community of nations compelling enough? Can our own diversity be a model for others who want to try to find a way for vastly different people to live with harmonious respect in a dangerous world?
As a Christian I have another question as well. What is the center around which my life coheres in a centripetal world? Can the Church find a center in Jesus Christ that will hold even if the centers of our nations and communities disintegrate? I would like to think that my center is reliably represented in these scripture passages and the Heidelberg Catechism.
“I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” Philippians 3:10-11
“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he stayed for a time in the land he had been promised, as in a foreign land, living in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.” Hebrews 11:8-10
“My only comfort in life and in death is that I am not my own, but belong - body and soul, in life and in death - to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.” Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 1
While not framed as an answer to my questions about finding a center that can hold a large, diverse democracy together, I understand the 9-12 Project is an effort to propose a national consensus. As I have read their Principles and Values, I have asked myself how my Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, secular and atheist neighbors would respond. Could they embrace this as the core of what it means to be an American? While quite a bit here could be appealing, I doubt they could claim it all or think it defined being an American.
As a Christian, I also asked myself can I embrace this as my own center, even if it was not suitable for all Americans? Again, I found much appealing but felt it fell short of the kind of vigorous Christianity to which I believe Jesus and the Bible calls not only me but the whole Church in a time of fragmentation and polarization, secularism and pluralism. I have responded in some detail to the nine principles of the 9-12 Project, not to reject or argue but to explore, maybe only in my own heart, what is the center I can count on to hold me no matter what comes.
The Nine Principles
1. America Is Good.
Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19) People sometimes say to me, “you’re good” as a compliment or expression of appreciation. I may respond lightheartedly by paraphrasing Jesus, “there is only one good, and it ain’t me.” Of course, people are not thinking of divine, absolute goodness when they say, “you’re good.” When the Rich Young Ruler addressed Jesus as “Good Teacher” he was being polite and respectful and not attaching absolute, divine goodness to Jesus. Jesus, however, immediately sidesteps his question and takes the cursory greeting with great seriousness. Keeping this distinction in mind is important when we designate something “good.”
Thus, to speak of the United States of America (or any other country or human institution) as “good” immediately raises a dilemma. Is the intention to convey something casual, polite and respectful such as “good morning,” “that’s a good price” or “she is a good cook?” This casual use of “good” hardly seems adequate to lead a list of pivotal principles with “America is Good.” The closer the intention comes to conveying absolute, divine goodness, the closer the danger of blasphemy and idolatry.
I believe a more realistic and responsible linguistic and theological alternative is to say that the United States of America has received many good blessings. Beautiful land, abundant natural resources, prolonged prosperity, 200+ years of peaceful transition of political power, and a diverse wealth of people, many of whom have contributed their genius, creativity and hard work for the common good. I also believe we can rightly say that the United States of America has accomplished and contributed many good things for its own people and the people of the world. The reconstruction of former enemies Germany (not to mention the rest of Europe) and Japan after World War II is a monumental example of good that came from the United States of America.
However, an honest claiming of these goods requires an honest acknowledgement of evils that have been and continue to be part of the history and culture of the United States of America. Expecting people from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to have the same moral sensitivities we do in the twenty-first century is unrealistic and unfair. However, even before the American Revolution Christians of conscience such as John Woolman (1720-1772) identified and spoke out against the evils of the treatment of the native peoples of America, slavery, racial discrimination, runaway commercialism, militarism, alcohol abuse, violence, family disintegration. To acknowledge that some things have been bad does not negate what is good. Rather, it gives both an authentic perception of the good and empowers the determination to continually address and correct what is bad. To dismiss what is currently perceived as bad (recognizing that different people will have sharply contrasting views of what is good and what is bad) as un-American is disingenuous and counterproductive.
The assertion that “America is Good” as a presupposition suggests the American exceptionalism that has become a shibboleth in certain circles (Judges 12:6 – contemporary politics would probably say “litmus test”). Drawing on some Puritan writing and preaching that cast their colonial venture as a “new Israel in the wilderness” and a “shining city upon a hill,” some have argued that God intended the United States of America to be the new chosen nation after the pattern of ancient Israel.
Before responding to that concept, an honest look at ancient Israel is in order. From Joshua to Zedekiah the years of national righteousness are few. From Elijah to Malachi, the Hebrew prophets relentlessly expose the sinfulness of Israel and Judah, calling for repentance. Psalm 106 is an historical hymn of the founding of Israel starting with Moses at the Exodus through the conquest of Joshua and the days of the Judges with cry, “Both we and our ancestors have sinned.” (v. 6) If the history of the national foundations for God’s chosen people of Israel called for repentance, how much more is contemporary and historical repentance required of a nation that cannot rightfully claim God’s choosing as Israel.
Besides receiving the good blessings of God’s common grace, all nations also stand under God’s judgment. Amos 1-2 catalogues God’s judgment on the nations in a kind of spiral that narrows in on Israel and Judah. The first readers of Amos may have cheered the condemnation of their pagan neighbors until they realized that they were not exempt, and God was pronouncing judgment on them. Failure at social justice more than personal piety seems to be the basis for this judgment of the nations. This certainly fits with what Jesus said Matthew 25:31-46 (the famous “as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” passage). The separation of the sheep and goats (v. 32) seems to be separating nations based on how they treated the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick and prisoners. Jesus makes this the distinction between those who “inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world” (v. 34) and those who depart into “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41).
As the Babylonians closed in on Jerusalem, the people of Judah sought assurance that they were exempt from this judgment because they were God’s chosen people and God would not let the Temple be destroyed. But Jeremiah (7:4) warned “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.’” If Judah was not exempt from God’s judgment, no other nation – not even the United States of America – dares think they are exempt.
God’s common grace for all humanity and God’s judgment on all nations does not mean that all societies are morally equivalent or interchangeable. A democracy that is seeking to address its deficiencies is certainly to be preferred to a dictatorship maintained by violent force and fear. To say that I would thankfully prefer to live in this country does not exempt the United States of America from acknowledging and addressing both past and present flaws. In fact, democratic government gives every individual not only opportunity but also responsibility for seeking improvement.
When God called Abraham, it was not to create a privileged God-club but to be the means by which God would bless all the families of the world (Genesis 12:2-3). Even in the choosing of Israel, God’s intent was for all of the people of the world, not an elite group. By reaching out to Samaritans, Gentiles and even representatives of the Roman oppression, Jesus repeatedly offended those who would have claimed a Jewish exceptionalism in his time. The centurion who came to Jesus in Capernaum (Matthew 8:5-13) dramatically illustrates what we would call Jesus’ global concern.
When Jesus sends the Apostles on the mission that has defined the Church for two millennia (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8) it is for all the peoples of the earth of every nation. And the vision of the culmination of history is of people of every tribe, language, people and nation gathered around the heavenly throne singing praises to Christ (Revelation 5:9; 7:9) There are no exceptional nations in God’s plan.
We who identify ourselves as disciples of Jesus, whether we live in the United States other remnants of Western Christendom, or in Sudan or Korea, Iraq or Palestine, share an allegiance to Christ that is of far greater power and importance than the social and political commonalities with share with our secular neighbors. From the martyrs of the New Testament and pre-Constantinian Church to the missionary martyrs who took the Gospel to northern Europe, Asia and Africa, to the heroes of the Reformation and the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany, the Church has celebrated the faith and courage of those whose loyalty to Christ could not be intimidated by government edicts and threats. Twenty-first century Christians in the United States of America will do well to be thankful for the freedom of religion that allows us to live an allegiance to Christ that supersedes the claims of any nation, even the United States of America.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
I readily confess that “Jesus is Lord” along with the Christians of the New Testament (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3) and the early Christians. In the Roman Empire that insisted that Caesar was lord, making that confession was courageous and treasonous. Indeed, I desire and work toward having Jesus Christ as the center of my life. Everything else in my life not only takes second place to Jesus Christ, but finds its legitimate place under the lordship of Jesus: country, nationality, race, class, community, gender, employment.
I have had the occasion to lead prayers in public and interfaith setting where many would not acknowledge Jesus as Lord. Out of respect for that context but with some misgivings, I omitted “in Jesus’ name” at the end of those prayers. I am very uncomfortable with a generic, even if quasi-Judeo-Christian, civil religion. I am concerned that homogenizing believing in God dilutes and distorts the Gospel as though intellectually accenting to the existence of God was equivalent to trusting Jesus and following him as Lord.
While accepting a generic belief in God may be a polite way to acknowledge religious diversity without offending, I am concerned that it is also disrespectful to those who are devout practitioners of their religions that do not proclaim Jesus as Lord. While more challenging and risky, I think asking people to explain not only what they believe but how they live it in exchange for explaining why I intend to live as a disciple of Jesus Christ is more honest and profitable to all. It does not have to be with imposed persuasion but mutual learning. I believe the Holy Spirit is more than able to speak to others as I live and explain how Jesus is Lord for me.
At the founding of the United States of America, a general Protestant social assumption prevailed. Even the Deists acknowledged it as they objected to it. A great example of that is Thomas Jefferson’s “New Testament” created by actually cutting up a New Testament, discarding what he found objectionable (supernatural, redemptive grace, etc.) and pasting together his own kind of feel-good-gospel. Immigration of Roman Catholics and Jews, largely from southern and eastern Europe modified this consensus as it morphed into the generic, Judeo-Christian civil religion of the 1950s. After World War II, immigration of people with non-Judeo-Christian religions and the rise of secularism, concepts like “the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man” came to seem quaint, sexist and actually offensive to some, such as Muslims who have a very different understanding of the relationship between God and humanity. To them speaking of God as a father is blasphemous.
For most of the history of the United States of America, the “free exercise” and “non-establishment” clauses of the Constitution were understood to encourage religion in general as long as no specific sect or doctrine was endorsed. An aspect of the recent culture wars revolves whether any kind of religious expression can be tolerated in the public square, not just government but also commercial (as witness the uproar over “Happy Holidays” vs. “Merry Christmas” in the advertising of products that have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus). The proportion of the population of the United States of America that either claims no conventional belief in a god nor practices any religion precludes making belief in God a viable element in a social consensus for the United States in the twenty-first century.
Many authentic Christians, serious disciples of Jesus Christ grieve this loss of social support for Christian faith. I am more inclined to think this trend toward a secular public environment is actually good for the health of the Church of Jesus Christ in the United States of America and other remnants of Christendom. We Christians are facing a world much more like the Church’s first three centuries when the Roman Empire was at best indifferent to the Church and became hostile when they recognized that with Jesus as Lord, the threat of force and violence could not control or stifle this growing minority movement. I certainly am neither hoping for nor expecting official hostility and persecution. But I do believe that when acknowledging Jesus as Lord clearly distinguishes Christians from their neighbors, faith will grow stronger. We will learn and articulate the Gospel more clearly. We will have an incentive for Jesus Christ to be the center of our lives, because having him on the periphery will not make sense or be worth the effort.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Jesus said, “Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’” (Matthew 5:37) Our legal system has developed a whole host of mechanisms to try to assure people’s honest: swearing oaths in court, signing and notarizing affidavits, layers of legal language in even the most basic contracts. I am not suggesting, as some do, that Christians abstain from these devices, but I would suggest that they are a sign of how lightly we treat honesty.
I think more than telling the truth is involved in being an honest person. I think Jesus calls us to a transparent consistency. That is to be externally the people we are internally. This is the basis of his relentless criticism of the hypocrites of his day. He was not talking at all about people who acknowledged their weaknesses and failures. Rather he was talking about those who tried to present a respectable exterior that covered what was actually in their hearts. Jesus said, “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart” (Matthew 15:18). As Henri Nouwen once said to me, “If you want to know what’s going on in your heart, listen to what you say when you speak before you think.”
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
While I would agree that families are a part of God’s plan that precedes and supersedes nation and government, I also know that we all need to be accountable. In a multi-generational society where households typically were made up of three generations and aunts, uncles and cousins were close if not under the same roof, just as children were accountable to their parents, the parents were accountable to the grandparents and to the extended family. In highly cohesive, homogenous communities, the families were also accountable to the larger community. Children were not strictly the domain of the parents of the nuclear family. The intervention of friends and neighbors was welcomed.
However, mobility (which is not really that new; family ties were stretched and even broken by immigration from Europe to the United States of America; by the westward emigration into the frontier; by the urbanization and sub-urbanization the followed World War II), growing emphasis on individual freedom, personal privatization and isolation, and increasing social diversity has significantly diluted this accountability to community. In fact, most parents will take offense if a neighbor or even a school teacher disciplines their children.
The more institutional, bureaucratic structures of government have taken over some of the need for accountability in extreme cases such as abuse, neglect, protection, clothing, nourishment and education. Parents are allowed to choose public or private schools or home schooling, but we expect government to require parents to see that their children are educated. Sometimes the nature of education in public schools becomes an issue when parents feel it is not supportive of their values. I’m not suggesting that government always gets this right, only that I believe these are legitimate areas for which government holds parents accountable.
Pushed to an extreme obviously not intended or anticipated in the principle that husband and wife are the ultimate authority for their family would be the claims of the right to abortion, or to deprive children of medical care or education, or to unlimited punishment of children and spouses. Yet, I think we need to be careful about ultimate and absolute statements.
When the principle specifies spouses as the ultimate authority, it may seem irrelevant to many families, especially single parent families. While the way this is worded would not preclude same-sex marriage, I suspect that was not its intent. I am not advocating that, only trying to recognize the difficulty of a true social consensus around family autonomy.
As a Christian, I do consider marriage and parenting to be sacred. I understand marriage as a covenant relationship with my wife in which we are a portrait (icon, sacrament) of Christ’s covenant relationship with the Church. As parents, we are God’s agents entrusted with the nurture of children that truly belong to God and not to us. As a family unit, we are a microcosm of the Church that only functions properly when we participate in the real life of a church community.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
I feel some degree of tension between this principle and saying that parents/spouses are the ultimate authority, not the government. Law does not exist in some abstract fashion. Other than what was delivered to Moses, the laws of any country including the United States of America are human inventions. They are made by people. Most of the time they are well intentioned; but sometimes they have unintended consequences; sometimes circumstances change and laws need to be adjusted; sometimes mistakes are made and laws need to be changed. Sometimes laws are unjust and need to be opposed and resisted.
Being a nation of laws, not subject to the arbitrary whims of despots, is a very good thing. But knowing that the laws are made and administered by fallible humans, vigilance about law is essential. Care must be taken that wealth or prominence does not give someone an advantage over those who are impoverished or insignificant. We must be careful not to overly demonize the person who robs a convenience store of a hundred dollars while excusing the account executive who defrauds the community of millions of dollars, just because one was done with a gun and the other with a computer.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
As a Christian I consider life and liberty to be gifts from God, not rights to claim. In Deuteronomy 30:19 God says to the Israelites, “Choose life.” Jesus said he came to give life and to give it abundantly (John 10:10). Israel is born as a nation when Moses liberated them from Egyptian slavery (Exodus 14). Jesus Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2). Such life and liberty are independent of whether I live in a democracy or totalitarian regime.
For a nation to secure life and liberty for its citizens through its government is fitting, falling into the basic concerns the Hebrew kings were to have for their people. Psalm 72 says it well, filling in details implied in the principles that were to guide the kings from Deuteronomy 17:14-20.
“1Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son. 2May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. … 4May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.” … 12For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. 13He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. 14From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight. … 16May there be abundance of grain in the land; may it wave on the tops of the mountains; may its fruit be like Lebanon; and may people blossom in the cities like the grass of the field.”
Psalm 146:3-9 gives an appropriate perspective to the sense of entitlement or guarantee of results. “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.” One part of this acknowledges the fallibility of all human beings, including those is positions of high responsibility and authority. It also recognizes that they are finite and limited. Some things just cannot be assured or accomplished.
The pursuit of happiness may represent Jefferson’s ideal of autonomous individual freedom. I know that the Declaration of Independence speaks of the pursuit of happiness not the possession of happiness. Nevertheless, as a Christian I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the pursuit of happiness, not just because it cannot be guaranteed but because it opens the path to destruction. While the pursuit of happiness may mean pursuing a satisfying marriage and family life, a fulfilling career, good relationships and reputation, prosperity and leisure, education and creativity, it can also lead to addiction, adultery, gambling, abortion, obesity, violence, greed, deception.
When Jesus said, “strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:33), I believe he is telling us that transitory things such as happiness are not legitimate goals but are the by-products of seeking the enduring goal of the righteousness of the kingdom of God. Thus those who are blessed with authentic happiness are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those who are persecuted for righteousness. (Matthew 5:3-10)
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
I believe this principle conflates and confuses two important Biblical principles: the voluntary, compassionate care for those who are weak and poor and the king’s (government’s) responsibility for justice for the oppressed and needy. They are not to be set in opposition to each other. It also unbiblically pits individual ownership against community well-being.
Before Israel established central government with a king God gave laws to protect and provide for the poor and strangers through the prosperity of the community: gleaning which plays a major role in the story of Ruth (Leviticus 19, 23), Sabbath years (Leviticus 26), jubilee with its provision for the cancelation of debts (Leviticus 25, 27).
In fact, the specific plots of land divided by tribes, clans and families were not thought of as private property to be dealt with as the owner wished but were held in trust for the community as a whole and for future generations. God said, “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants.” (Leviticus 25:23) The violation of these laws when Ahab confiscates Naboth’s vineyard is what brings his final doom. (1 Kings 21; 2 Kings 9) Furthermore, God cautions the Israelites against thinking that by their hard work they have earned what they have. “Do not say to yourself, ‘My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.’” (Deuteronomy 8:17) Paul extends this principle into a New Testament understanding in 1 Corinthians 4:7 “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?”
When Jesus quotes Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19, he sets the responsibility of the king to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind and freeing the oppressed in the context of his role as the ultimate, eschatological king who will bring to joyful completion the justice with which God had charged all of Israel’s kings (Psalm 72; Deuteronomy 17:14-20, Amos). In doing so, Jesus removes this from the realm of ancient Israel and makes it a concern for his people until it is fulfilled at the consummation of the ages. So even though from the time of Jesus on, the king (government) does not have the same temporal anointing that the ancient Hebrew kings had, justice for all continues to be a concern for the followers of Jesus.
The voluntary giving of alms and charity was also an intrinsic part of the life of the ancient Hebrews. It was included in the temple sacrifices. It was a part of the devout life. (Deuteronomy 14:28-29) In the laws about tithing, God says, “Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.’” (Deuteronomy 15:11) Jesus quotes this in John 12:8 when Judas objects to Mary of Bethany anointing Jesus. Sometimes it is interpreted to excuse not giving to the poor, but that would be entirely contrary to both the context and Jesus’ entire life and teaching. Deuteronomy 15:4 makes it clear that such charity is not useless but seeks a community in which there is no one in need among us.
For the first three centuries of the Church’s history, Christians were on the outside of an indifferent if not hostile Roman Empire. In a setting in which the government was more hindrance than help with promoting compassion and justice, the Church went to great lengths to care not only for their own but for the poor, weak and oppressed around them. From these roots grew the many charitable Christian endeavors that have persisted through the centuries. Immediately after Pentecost they pooled their resources to distribute to those in need (Acts 2:44-45). When they had an internal conflict over the distribution of food, they appointed seven spiritual people to oversee it (Acts 6:1-6). When the Apostle Paul reports the results of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) to the Galatians he writes that rather than burdening the Gentile Christians with Jewish customs, they were asked only to remember the poor, which Paul writes they were eager to do (Galatians 2:10). Also Paul’s discourse on generous giving that is often used in stewardship teaching (2 Corinthians 8-9) was occasioned by a collection for the churches in Judea who were suffering famine (Acts 11:28-30).
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
Nor is it un-American for someone to disagree with me and share their personal opinion. Such dialog is at the core of healthy democracy. To be effective, it must be done without attacking the character or motives of those with whom I disagree. Such dialog also includes differences of opinion about what might be thought of as good or bad about the United States of America, in the past and the present. It also means accepting and respecting widely differing religious opinions.
As a Christian I welcome such open conversation, believing that the Gospel has great appeal and power and doesn’t need the protection of government or community consensus. God is quite capable of protecting the veracity of Scripture. The Holy Spirit is quite capable to convicting people of their need to repent and trust Jesus, regardless of how well I make logical and persuasive arguments. I do not need to be afraid of competing philosophies or religions or try to silence their voices.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
This is pure John Locke – the social contract theory of government – the government governs with the consent of the governed. It was a powerful corrective to the abuses of the doctrine of the divine right of kings. However, it removes God from the equation entirely and makes government a totally human enterprise. At one level, recognizing that government is the work of fallible humans is essential for the discerning and evaluating, adjusting and correcting that must go on with every human endeavor.
But as a Christian I must recognize that “there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1) This is clearly not God’s endorsement of every existing government nor of any specific government. To understand it we must recognize that when Paul wrote it Nero was the Roman Emperor who would eventually execute Paul and Peter and other Christians, not to mention his cruelty to many others. Rather, Romans 13 acknowledges the importance of accountability for all people, even Christians who should want to be seeking righteousness. It also recognizes that nothing is outside of God’s purview, not even government overtly hostile to God and the Gospel.
I am uncomfortable with the implication in several of these principles that the government is separate from the country, the community and me. I am uneasy with the assumption that the government may even be hostile to the country, the community and me. I recognize that the government (local, state and national) is organized as distinct institutions that take on a kind of life of their own. I also recognize that not everyone who serves in government (elected, appointed or hired) has pure motives, but I’m inclined to believe most want to serve well. Nevertheless, I also believe that the government is an extension of me, my community and my country. The government is not some alien force imposed against the will of the people but arises from the expressed will of the people. Overtly that happens through elections, but it also happens in public dialog. I have voted for as many losers as winners in my life. I have been disappointed not only by those I did not vote for but also by those I have voted for. I accept as part of the rule of law in a democracy is respecting those who hold office even when I disagree with them vehemently. We are in the midst of a legitimate debate about the size and scope of government, but we dare not let that deteriorate to where we see the government as the opposition.
The Twelve Values
I have a much harder time responding to the Twelve Values than to the Nine Principles. They are virtues to which no one would seriously object. They reminded me of Benjamin Franklin’s catalog of virtues that he intended to cultivate one at a time. Perhaps they are also somewhat like the Boy Scout Law. From the perspective of Christian spirituality, this becomes an impossible task without the empowering of the Holy Spirit.
Honesty
Reverence
Hope
Thrift
Humility
Charity
Sincerity
Moderation
Hard Work
Courage
Personal Responsibility
Gratitude
I thought about what source I might use to come up with a list of values worthy of cultivating. The seven deadly sins are counterbalanced by seven heavenly virtues: chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, humility. The New Testament also recommends some virtues.
“Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Philippians 4.8)
“Make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love.” (2 Peter 1:5-7)
“Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.” (Romans 12:9-13)
After considering these suitable alternatives, I think the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 may best encompass the range of virtues being considered and include the realization that they are fruits produced by the Holy Spirit, not manifest works of righteousness.
Love
Joy
Peace
Patience
Kindness
Generosity
Faithfulness
Gentleness
Self-control
