I am a person of faith. I am a Christian, at least in so far as I self-identify as a "Christ follower". I believe there is a God; i.e. a single supreme being who created the multi-verse in which I presently exist as a physical human being.
As a citizen of the United States of America in good standing, this is my inalienable right. Isn't it? This is absolutely not a distinction in search of a difference.
Sometimes, it is only when a right is abandoned, surrendered or even taken away that its value becomes both clearly apparent and significant. Before assailing my proposition, first consider it. (I do actually know and understand the First Amendment and it's "establishment" clause.)
What I wish to highlight here is the sometimes tangential argument which follows from it; perhaps wrongly, but perhaps not. Focus is required here. I invite you to settle in, pour a cup and have a dialogue.
You are not required to agree with my beliefs (many "Christians" don't, in fact). You are not somehow required to ascribe to them, or recognize them. You do have the right to disagree with my beliefs; to challenge them (if you are sufficiently able). You do not, however have the right to disrespect me or my beliefs because I have them, to cast aspersions upon either my beliefs or myself simply because I, and they exist. To do so is a violation of my right to freedom of (and from) religion. I may not require you to agree to, or with my beliefs, nor may you require me to disavow them, turn away from them, deny them, or either publicly or privately refuse to express them in the ways I choose. My expressions of my beliefs, likewise, cannot either purposely or incidentally, by design or accident, bring you harm (given the usual definitions of "harm").
Those things which I require of, or expect from you I must also extend to you. This is true because this is a right, an inalienable right which we, as citizens of the United States of America share; given to us by a piece of paper which we accepted long ago as the foundation stone of our national identity.
There is no room in this diary for debate about whether or not we are a Christian nation; that is neither its purpose nor its scope. There is no place in this diary for argument regarding the IDF, or a Two-State solution. These things are off the table here.
Any attempts to do so will simply display before the world your misunderstanding of this diary, and (dare I say it) your ignorance--if I present myself well and accurately. If I do not, have at it. (Now, how's THAT for a preamble, citizen?)
Notice, please, the flow here. A notion, prescribed by others, extending to me as a member of the group the notion was intended to serve and/or protect. From the document to me. It has never, does not now, nor will it ever flow the other way. It just wouldn't make sense. And, to a very large degree, that is the fundamental thesis of this diary, so it is important to understand. Not even arguing that, this diary addresses a completely different point.
What if, by some particular and specific machination (say legislation, for instance), that were to change? Not, mind you, that the flow were to change, but rather the fundamental right itself were to change? Impossible to imagine, you say?
In Israel, in this past week, it did. Whether or not you support, defend, or oppose Israel is not specifically the topic, or the point here. But that there was a fundamental change in the definition of Israel, by Israel as a nation state IS the point. I believe it matters-- a very great deal. Your mileage may vary (YMMV).
If this is a subject of interest to you, I hope you will follow me below the squiggledoodlethingey fold, and let me tell you why.
For purposes of fair play, decency, and transparency, I will again iterate that I have been, for a vast majority (now) of my life of sixty years, an ordained minister, a Chaplain, and erstwhile practitioner of the Christian faith. As a Theologian, I have often run afoul of my compatriots. I have never found this to be a very large stumbling block, either to my faith or theirs.
There have been, in my ministry, a few central points which I have attempted to convey.
One has been a simple question:
"How can you possibly carry out the Great Commission--unless you carry out the Great Commandment?"
I have consistently stated that, in my opinion, you cannot. Taken in their component parts, for those who may not know of what I speak:
The Great Commandment:
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13: 34-35)
The Great Commission:
"19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:16-20)
To shorten the length of this particular diary, let it be simply stated: I have just tons of trouble with a lot of Christians. The simplicity of, yet the distinctions between these two pieces of our Holy Scripture often drives me to absolute distraction!
I believe that I am not alone in this regard. Many sermons have been delivered, just by lowly me on this disparity between these instructions--and evidences lived out of them throughout the course of history, and certainly in our common day. I am of the belief that IF we do, indeed follow the Christ who uttered them, the proof will be in our carrying out of them. Many times, this is not the case--at least to the understanding of many (most) other Christ followers, let alone those of other (or no) faith.
This gives rise to the second of my rather contentious, yet consistent sermon themes, as given by one of my theological heroes, mentors and teachers: Oswald Chambers. Giving a talk to a building full of young, pimply-faced future ministers back in the early 20th century, Chambers said:
"PREACH THE GOSPEL! By all means, preach the Gospel. And, if all else fails, open your mouths!"
Chambers did not intention these words to be the exclusive directive of only ministers or theologians. They were intended for all believers to be sure. But they were certainly directed by him to all ministers of the Gospel...FIRST!
Before launching into the third of my "Triad of Christian Complexities" arguments (so named by one of my most loving and beloved congregations), I'd like to make a rather important point here.
All three (among many others) of them are specifically stated in all of the Abrahamic religious traditions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They are also specifically stated in almost every other identified religious or theological following as well. Hindu, Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism....it really is a long list. It is for this reason that I generally feel safe in addressing them. It is more true, however, that it is not merely a sense of, or need for safety that compels me; it is the seeming endless need to do so by the thoughts, words and deeds perpetrated by my fellow Christ followers. For those so inclined, "The Golden Rule" is a religious tradition that is one which has been found in virtually every religion ever identified. Google it.
One of these shared points of view, at least within Christian and Judaic belief traditions has to do with a particular promise (Covenant) which, according to Holy Scripture, God himself made to the (His words) "People of Israel". Conversations regarding just exactly who that refers to has been the catalyst for war, and for peace, too--since the phrase was first recorded.
The Jewish tradition generally asserts that God's covenant promise of a land for His people to inhabit was for the Jew alone. As might well be understood, in the Christian tradition, we are taught that God's chosen people can be any person who, to put it simply, chooses God. Which brings me to my third trusty, dusty. Who is it that God's people actually are?
Well, if you follow Jewish tradition, the answer is to be found in the Book of Names, which is to say the lineage of the house of Abraham. (Let's keep it simple, okay?)
In the Christian tradition, it is anyone who confesses God as Supreme Ruler, and Jesus Christ as Lord. In our faith, by our baptism we are "grafted" onto the family tree, onto the lineage of Abraham via the line of King David. (Like I say, let's keep it simple, okay?)
I hope you are still with me. Here's the conclusion of this point.
Both are mis-interpretations of what God actually said. From Genesis, through Numbers, all the way to Acts and Revelation, God speaks consistently on this point. We consistently mess it up. It's a major cause of irritation among the brethren and sisteren of Christendom; our Jewish kin included--along with our Muslim cousins.
God works conditionally. (Perhaps teaching a course in Propositional and Predicate Logic is paying off, after all!) If...then.
The third of my "Big Three!" can best be examined via 1 John. Often considered one of the lesser letters in the New Testament, in reality 1 John is a scathing letter to "mature" Christians everywhere. Consider:
"10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." (1 John 3:10-14)
Diasporaic Jews (those not dwelling in Israel), and more specifically those living in the United States of America today, are looking at Israel with new confusion today, for many reasons. To be accurate, this statement is true universally among the Jewish community. The confusions all deal with God's Promise to His people. The "IF" here is very simply and clearly stated in 1 John (and other places that folks will immediately know and recognize better than I could quote here). The "THEN" part has to do with an earthly dwelling place supplied by, and inhabited with God. Not the other way around. (See what I did thar?)
Last week, the Israeli Knesset, the ruling legislature of that nation state, passed a bill which changes Israel's relationship to itself, it's people, and to the world. Given its unique history across the ages, both in peace and in war, from slavery to (and beyond) the Holocaust, there are very few (until recently) people in modern history who should more very clearly understand the requirements of 1 John as it regards the promise of God to abide with His people.
Terrorizing innocent civilians isn't it. Killing children doesn't cut it. Creating systematic genocide really isn't what it's all about. For Israel, for America...for anyone. What we hear from AIPAC, the PLO, or any other politically or ideologically based interest group must stand up to the heat of bright light: the truth.
Fascism, for example had a problem with the truth...so it changed the truth. For a short while (at least for most folks) that worked. But it was only successful so long as the propaganda spread was consumed without question by the masses. Death in our midst is not really death in our midst because we are much too good a nation for that. Until, of course, we aren't.
Democracy works because of diversity. Until, of course, it doesn't. The Democratic State of Israel isn't, any more. As of last week, it is "The Jewish State of Israel".
I'm not making this up. I don't presume to waste anybody's time here. I want us all to consider what Israel has said to the world, and what that will cost...everyone. Theirs is an exclusive statement, by the way, not inclusive.
Over my political life (yes you really can have both, Virginia!), one of the persons I have always noticed, and very rarely shared dialogue with, has been Naomi Wolf. I have found myself in admiration of her journalism, while often at odds with her personal politics. This week, she gave an amazing talk at Oxford University's Debate Society (of all places!).
While I am pleased to hear she is back to complete her D. Phil. there, she gave a thirty-one minute talk concerning her relationship to, and history with the nation of Israel, as a Jewish woman. I offer her words to you because she is one of those journalists who has both the very unique relationship with this subject on many different aspects, and the sophistication to accurately relate her views. It is well beyond my ability, and I want you to hear and consider reality in Israel, and perhaps in America as it IS, or as it could be.
Her words form the basis of this report to you. I hope you will take what has come before into your mind, and
Consider another opinion:
http://youtu.be/...
Wolf's journalistic reportage is generally accepted as first rate, a view I share. Her theology is, in my mind, sound as well on the points I have raised. It may well take a bit of vigor to realize that this person's talk is neither pro or con at all. It is an examination, which concludes with a journalist's update, and a personal conclusion based upon that report.
God's covenant carries through even today, and tomorrow, and forever. This I believe. Look at recent history, and consider again why it is that the first addition to our Constitution was determined to be the most important of all of them before or since. As citizens of America herself, we carry a unique position, power and purpose. We chose, partly with relation to our immediate past history with England, to prevent our government from creating a national religion. We also prevented the government from keeping any citizen from freely exercising the religion of their choosing.
While it may be a source of great debate as to whether or not we are a Christian nation, I do not hold that there should be any debate at all that we have a unique position, and a very specifically unique responsibility to our own people, and the world.
In my personal view, we should concentrate on living out our personal faith personally, privately. This sometimes gets me in trouble. To me, this is how we as a nation became great. It's only one reason, but it is a very important one.
It is not a reality I would favor us to abandon, or allow to be taken away. I am a minority several times over. It is not unique to me. We are, every single one of us, members of several minorities--even in the United States of America, the land of the free, and the home of the brave. Remember?
We do not do what is right because we are commanded to. We do what is right because it is the right thing to do. That is true in our personal relationships, our business relationships, and our relationships with other nations. That is our history. That is our legacy. That is our hope. That is not any requirement of religion, or even of faith. It is a part of our humanity.
Regardless of all the politics, debates, and confusion, we as human beings do really know what the right (and wrong, too) things to do are. If democracy is anything, it is the protector, defender, and advocate of doing what is right. Every single one of us knows that. We agree, more than 90% of the time on what the right thing is. We should really remember that. There's power in that truth.
Israel decided to change her definition of what is right last week, in some truly significant ways. Regardless of any personal opinions about that, it is in our best interest to carefully, and seriously consider what that change makes possible both in Israel, and around the planet.