Tag Archives: citizenship

Marching to Zion

1 Reply

On Sunday, I shared with our bilingual groups some thoughts from the first three psalms of ascent. I talked about what most scholars think these psalms were used for: the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the annual feasts. I talked about us being on the same pilgrimage (“We’re Marching to Zion”), except that we are on our way to the heavenly Jerusalem.
Psalm 120:1 In my distress I called to the LORD, and he answered me.
2 Deliver me, O LORD, from lying lips, from a deceitful tongue.
3 What shall be given to you, and what more shall be done to you, you deceitful tongue?
4 A warrior’s sharp arrows, with glowing coals of the broom tree!
5 Woe to me, that I sojourn in Meshech, that I dwell among the tents of Kedar!
6 Too long have I had my dwelling among those who hate peace.
7 I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war!
Looking at Psalm 120, we looked at the psalmist’s anguish due to the society around him, a society full of violence, lying lips and people who sought war when he only wanted peace. We noted that when he describes his physical location, he mentions Meshech and Kedar. Meshech is to the north of Israel and Kedar to the south. The psalmist is not talking about a particular place, rather he is speaking of the plight of those Israelites who were dwelling far from their homeland.
Psalm 121: 1 I lift up my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come?
2 My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth.
3 He will not let your foot be moved; he who keeps you will not slumber.
4 Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.
5 The LORD is your keeper; the LORD is your shade on your right hand.
6 The sun shall not strike you by day, nor the moon by night.
7 The LORD will keep you from all evil; he will keep your life.
8 The LORD will keep your going out and your coming in from this time forth and forevermore.
In Psalm 121, we noted the psalmist’s opening phrase: “I lift up my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come?” (Psalms 121:1) As he traveled the perilous road to Jerusalem, he would have been apprehensive when approaching the hills. Yet the hills had another meaning for the Jews, for the high places were the places of pagan worship. During his trip, as he looks to his safety, there was the temptation to follow the advice of those around him, the people who would say, “Go ahead. Seek help from the gods of the high places. This is their land; they will protect you.” However the psalmist finds an answer, either from inside himself or from a fellow traveler: “My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth.” (Psalms 121:2) The psalmist makes a conscious decision to reject other sources of aid and look only to the Lord.
Psalm 122:1 I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the LORD!”
We finished with just the first verse of Psalm 122: “I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the LORD!”” (Psalms 122:1) We talked about how this was not just a “let’s go to church verse,” this was “Let’s leave our fields and homes and make the journey to Jerusalem to worship God.” It was a call to leave Meshech and Kedar, make a perilous trip, all as worship to God and a show of faith in Him.
Tying the three together, we spoke of Christians dwelling in Meshech and Kedar, living among people who are far from God, living a life of exile away from the new Jerusalem. Rather than trust in the things in this world, we look to the Lord. Our help will not come from the White House, the International Monetary Fund or the armed forces. Our help comes from the Lord. And we will share the joy of the pilgrimage, the exhilaration of saying: “Let’s go to the new Jerusalem!”

David Lipscomb on voting

1 Reply

As election day nears, this might be a good time to hear a voice from the past. David Lipscomb was a well-known editor, educator and minister in the last 18th and early 19th century. Here are some of his thoughts on Christians and the electoral process:

To the claim that a Christian is bound to vote, when he has the privilege, for that which promotes morality, and to fail to vote for the restriction and suppression of evil is to vote for it, we have determined that, to vote or use the civil power is to use force and carnal weapons. Christians cannot use these. To do so is to do evil that good may come. This is specially forbidden to Christians. To do so is to fight God’s battles with the weapons of the evil one. To do so is to distrust God. The effective way for Christians to promote morality in a community, is, to stand aloof from the political strifes and conflicts, and maintain a pure and true faith in God, which is the only basis of true morality, and is as a leaven in society, to keep alive an active sense of right. To go into political strife is to admit the leaven of evil into the church. For the church to remain in the world and yet keep itself free from the spirit of the world, is to keep alive an active leaven of morality in the world. If that leaven loses its leaven, wherewith shall the world be leavened? or if the salt lose its savor wherewith shall the earth be salted or saved? God has told his children to use the spiritual weapons, has warned them against appealing to the sword or force to maintain his kingdom or to promote the honor of God and the good of man. When they do as he directs them, and use his appointments, he is with them to fight their battles for them and to give them the victory. When they turn from his appointments to the human kingdoms and their weapons, they turn from God, reject his help, drive him out of the conflict and fight the battles for man’s deliverance with their own strength and by their own wisdom. Human government is the sum of human wisdom and the aggregation of human strength. God’s kingdom is the consummation of Divine wisdom and in it dwells the power of God.” Quoted from: THE ORIGIN, MISSION, AND DESTINY OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT, AND THE CHRISTIAN’S RELATION TO IT by David Lipscomb

/////
Also consider these words from the preface:

“While I failed to see then as I now see, that religion embraced every duty and every relation of man and moulds every thought, purpose and action of his being, the feeling would creep into my mind that even in political affairs man should do only what God commanded him. Finally the years of sectional strife, war, bloodshed, destruction and desolation swept over our land, and the spectacle was presented, of disciples of the Prince of Peace, with murderous weapons seeking the lives of their fellowmen. Brethren for whom Christ died, children of him who came to heal the broken-hearted, to be a father to the fatherless and a husband to the widow, were found imbruing their hands in the blood of their own brethren in Christ, making their sisters widows and their sisters’ children orphans. It took but little thought to see that this course is abhorrent to the principles of the religion of the Savior, who died that even his enemies might live. He had plainly declared that his children could not fight with carnal weapons even for the establishment of his own Kingdom. Much less could they slay and destroy one another in the contentions and strivings of the kingdoms of this world. It took but little thought to see that Christians cannot fight, cannot slay one another or their fellowmen, at the behest of any earthly ruler, or to establish or maintain any human government. But if he cannot fight himself, can he vote to make another fight? What I lead or influence another to do, I do through that other. The man who votes to put another in a place or position, is in honor, bound to maintain him in that position, and is responsible for all the actions, courses or results that logically and necessarily flow from the occupancy and maintenance of that position. A man who votes to bring about a war, or that votes for that which logically and necessarily brings about war is responsible for that war and for all the necessary and usual attendants and results of that war.” Quoted from: THE ORIGIN, MISSION, AND DESTINY OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT, AND THE CHRISTIAN’S RELATION TO IT by David Lipscomb

Answering some pledge questions

6 Replies

Let me try and hit this Q&A style:
Since Christ didn’t establish an earthly government, don’t we have to have allegiance to some government? Again, I’d point us back to the early church. They were told to be subject to the government, but that’s much different than being allied with the government. In the Roman Empire, many nations had to submit to Roman authority, but they wouldn’t see themselves as loyal to the government. Can you imagine the inhabitants of Judah pledging their loyalty to Rome? Christians would have been taught to be subject, respectful and obedient, but not allied with any human government.

But doesn’t it benefit the church to ally itself with the state? History says no. The alliance of church and state tends to strengthen the state and weaken the church. The church is the bride of Christ; can she unite herself with another partner and not have it be adultery?

Don’t Christians effectively have dual citizenship? I may have already spent too much time on this question (see “Good Citizenship” and “Alien Life”). However it often comes up in these discussions. We’re not dual citizens. When we were born again, we were born into the Kingdom of God, leaving the kingdoms of this world. The Bible speaks of it as a transfer. Paul, a Roman citizen, writing to the Philippians, Roman citizens, said, “Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven.” (Philippians 3:19-20) Our citizenship is in heaven. Powerful words, given the circumstances. We’re aliens here. Better yet, we’re ambassadors here, emissaries of the heavenly kingdom, living in a foreign country to act on our home nation’s behalf.

Aha! You mentioned Paul. He made use of his Roman citizenship. Shouldn’t we follow his example? That’s a good point, one that has troubled me in the past. In Acts 16 and Acts 22, Paul made use of his Roman citizenship to obtain legal benefits. While considering those passages, don’t forget this one: “Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.”” (Acts 23:6) Do we also advocate joining Jewish sects on the same basis? No, those are all things that Paul counts as skubalon (translated as “dung,” “rubbish,” etc. in the English Bible; apparently it was a pretty strong term he used in Philippians 3:8). From what we can tell, Paul didn’t go around flaunting his Roman citizenship. He didn’t even mention it in Philippi until after he’d been flogged and imprisoned. The only citizenship he talks about in his letters is our heavenly one. I think we’re on shaky ground to try and justify as much as we do by appealing to what Paul did on those two occasions. If anything, we can justify using our citizenship if we are ever arrested in a foreign country. I might appeal to the embassy that my tax dollars support if I ever found myself in trouble in another country. (Is that hypocritical? Feel free to point out any inconsistency you see there)

So do you say the pledge? I no longer do, but I told my kids the other night that I wasn’t ready to tell them not to do so. I explained my reasons for no longer saying it. My wife explained that it was a similar clause in the application for citizenship that kept her from finishing that application (it also spoke of bearing arms, something she’s not willing to do for any country).

Do you consider yourself anti-American? Hardly. I love this country and appreciate many of the things that it provides for its people. I pray for the well-being of America just as I imagine that Paul, the Roman citizen, prayed for the well-being of Rome. Our goal is to spread the gospel. We pray for peace and well-being for all nations, in order that we might further that goal. An ill-tempered commentator asked me about Cuba the other day, saying that my visits there should make me that much more supportive of our government. The church is growing by leaps and bounds in Cuba, growing over 2000% in the last 25 years. I do pray that the government there will be more respectful of human rights; I pray the same for our government and all governments everywhere. I don’t pray for regime change; my kingdom is doing just fine in Cuba. Adverse conditions can often be good for the church. We don’t seek persecution, but we don’t flee it either. The testing of the church makes it stronger.

Let me close with a poem I wrote for an earlier post called “I Pledge Allegiance…”:

I pledge allegiance to my God,
All else falls far behind.
No land, no piece of earthly sod,
Can my obedience bind.
May my love for this world and the kingdoms thereof,
Not make me forget what I read in the Word.
My citizenship lies not here but above.
My true loyalty belongs to my Lord.

Should Christians around the world pledge allegiance?

Leave a reply

As we consider the Christian response to the Pledge of Allegiance, we have to find some way to attempt the almost impossible: separate the pledge from its context. Its very tempting to make this a discussion of the relative godliness of the United States compared to other nations. But that’s the wrong focus. The question is: what relation should Christians have to any Christian (ed.–oops, meant to say “earthly”) nation? This question becomes more and more relevant as the church grows faster outside the United States than inside. Do we encourage Christians in other countries to make a similar commitment to their governments?
Ethnocentrism is the belief that your people’s way is the correct way, that everything should be evaluated by how your culture does things. Years of hearing “We live in the greatest country in the world” lead us to accept that as fact, without considering how other people might view their particular country. Are we going to encourage Nigerian Christians to make the same sort of pledge to their government? Russian Christians? Colombian Christians? What if the United States went to war with one of those countries like Nigeria or Cuba where we have thousands of brothers? Would our pledge of loyalty lead us to take up arms against brothers in Christ?
If we are to teach Christians in the United States to pledge their allegiance to this country, we need to be prepared to teach the same to Christians in every country. Loyalty to human government is loyalty to human government. It’s right or it’s wrong, for every Christian.
“But our nation is more godly than other nations.” I love the U.S., but I don’t kid myself about the morality of our government’s actions throughout history. I know that the faith and religiosity of the American people is one thing, and that of our government is another. If you want to believe that this country has always acted in a godly fashion, I’ll leave you to that. I just know that “more godly than others” doesn’t cut it.
But it’s not about bashing the United States. It’s about our living as aliens and strangers, pilgrims and sojourners. We’re not at home here. Our allegiance lies elsewhere.

What are we pledging? 2

Leave a reply

Well, you’re not much help! Just kidding. Since no one advanced any ideas about just what is being pledged, let me propose a few:
Literally we are pledging loyalty. Since the pledge was developed in the years following the Civil War in an attempt to unify the country, I’m guessing it was especially directed at southerners who still might feel resentment about the war.
I think that obedience is implied. That’s admittedly the part that scares me a bit. To some extent, the pledge is saying: “I will do what this country asks of me.”
To what extent are we pledging our loyalty? Some have said, “As long as the nation is under God.” How do we determine that? If we see that the government has done immoral things, do we stop being loyal? Let’s use the classic example: Nazi Germany. At what point would the country have lost your allegiance? Or would it have?
Can you picture Christians saying a pledge of allegiance to Rome? In any form? The Romans had a simple version of the pledge. It said: “Caesar is Lord.” Christians directly attacked that statement, countering with “Jesus is Lord.”
I’ve got some more thoughts, but I’d like to hear yours first.