I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Interestingly you don’t find the controversial phrase “under God“,or even “of the United States of America“. Both of these phrases were later additions to the Pledge, leading to the final version that we all know today:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

So, enough about history. I’d like to propose that there are two primary reasons (if not more), why Christians/followers of Christ should NOT say the pledge. Before we get into those reasons I’d like to start with defining some of the key words in the pledge so we are all on the same page as to its meaning.

Related: Daring to Call it Idolatry, Nationalism in Worship – by Craig M. Watts

Pledge: To offer or guarantee by a solemn binding promise, similar to an oath.

Allegiance: [1] the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign. [2] loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like.

Flag:  A usually rectangular piece of fabric of distinctive design that is used as a symbol.(In this case, a symbol for the Republic of the United States of America)

From these definitions we can understand a couple of things. Making a pledge is basically the same thing as an oath. And, giving your allegiance to something or someone is basically committing your loyalty to that entity. Also, the flag stands for something more than itself. It stands for the country/government it belongs to. In short, to pledge your allegiance to the flag means that you are making an oath of loyalty to the country, the United States of America.

Now for the two reasons why I think Christians should NOT be making an oath of allegiance to the United States or any other earthly government.

#1 Jesus directly and without any qualifiers condemns making an oath to anything for any reason.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’  But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:33-37)

The people in Jesus’ day had a practice of making oaths for almost anything. The practice of making oaths was to guarantee before men and God that the person making the oath would fulfill his obligation or carry out a promise. It was looked on as a criminal offense to break your oath. Thus, the Jews had been commanded to “fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made”. Jesus, however, changes things. Notice that he does not say, ” Do not swear an oath and then break it.” No, he says: “Do not swear an oath AT ALL”!!! He says that as people who follow God, less words, more often than not, is better than more. Simply say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and do not swear an oath AT ALL!

#2 Jesus also teaches that men cannot serve two masters at the same time.

When teaching about worldly treasures, Jesus says we should be more concerned with the things of heaven and God’s kingdom than those of this world.

Also by Matt: For the American Part of Me…I Am Sorry (My Confession)

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” (Matthew 6:24)

We can’t give our loyalty to two masters and be pleasing to both. Whether the choice is between God and money, God and man, God and a government or nation, the choice is always the same, one or the other. It seems that Jesus is saying ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it too’. In light of this it just doesn’t seem possible to me to give my loyalty to God, and then try and give it to a government at the same time. Jesus also said ” My kingdom is not of this world”. Jesus has a kingdom, and just like an earthly kingdom , I can’t be loyal to two kingdoms at once. It would be impossible to be loyal to the USA and Iran at the same time! It’s the same with being part of the kingdom of God. Jesus calls us to be loyal to his kingdom, and if we have given our loyalty to God’s kingdom, how then can we try and give it to America or any other worldly kingdom?

To sum up: Pledging allegiance to the flag equates to making an oath of loyalty to an earthly kingdom. Both acts are condemned by Jesus. I’m ready to stop pledging loyalty to the United States or any other kingdom other than the kingdom of heaven. How about you?

—
Matt Young is a U.S. Soldier turned pacifist. An Anabaptist, non-violent, lover of God and people, Matt is a follower of Jesus Christ. He is married to his beautiful wife, best friend, and mother of their newborn son, praying that God’s will be done “on earth as it is in heaven”. You can contact and follow him on Twitter and on his blog, The Rejected Path.

Advertisement

The post The Pledge of Allegiance: 2 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Say It appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

The Global Immersion Project from The Global Immersion Project on Vimeo.

Jesus says some stuff in the inaugural speech of his ministry that really upsets the status quo of both the religious and non-religious.  In essence, he says, “If you are to follow me as King of this newly inaugurated Kingdom of God, you will need to start loving your enemies as much as yourself.  You will need to start getting creative in how you deal with your oppressors in order to choose the way of love and reconciliation rather than the way of revenge and contempt.  In fact, when you live as peacemakers, you best reflect what it looks like to be children of God.  Those of you that choose this way of life will be blessed.”

A few years later – after Jesus has been announcing the good news of the Kingdom through both word and deed – he looks over Jerusalem and begins to weep.  Here is the people and the city that is to symbolize right relationship with God and humanity.  It is to be a place of shalom where salvation flows through all aspects of life.  It is to be the city of peace.  Instead, Jesus stands on the Mount of Olives overlooking the city and laments, “If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace!”

Finally, Jesus, as king, messiah and deliverer models this way of life to the point of death on a cross.  Refusing to accept the lure of power through military might or pursuing peace through violence, Jesus embodies the life of suffering and self-sacrifice that he is calling his followers to emulate.  Jesus, as the ultimate peacemaker, shows us that the life and work of peacemaking isn’t some fairy tale euphoria, but the gritty, subversive and sacrificial life of faithfulness to a God and kingdom that lives by a different standard than the systems and powers of the world.

I was sitting with a friend of mine a few months ago discussing the work of peacemaking as a central calling to those of us that follow in the ways of Jesus.  He and his family live in the West Bank and daily experience the weight of military occupation and oppression.  Even though his family owns their land, they are not allowed to build any structures above the ground.  They had recently erected tents to host local children for a summer camp promoting reconciliation, and even those had been destroyed by the occupying military.

Rather than fighting back with violence or getting so discouraged that they withdraw, his family got creative.  Because they can’t build above ground, they decided to build below.  Now they have caves throughout their property where children and teenagers are being taught vocational skills and the practices that make for peace.  He is the type of modern day hero that doesn’t make any headlines or is given any medals of honor, but by the standards of the Kingdom Jesus came to inaugurate, he is a hero.  Our conversation concluded with him saying, “Yes, we live surrounded by those who claim to be our enemies, but we refuse to be enemies.  As followers of Jesus, we have no other choice but to see them as our brothers and sisters.”

Choosing the way of peace is not glamorous, soft or easy.  It is subversive, gritty and requires that everyday we reorient our lives around the Prince of Peace.  One peacemaker recently told me, “Those who choose non-violence expose themselves to the most violence.”

We live in a culture that associates bravery and bravado with war making and violence.  I would argue that creatively living into our vocation as everyday peacemakers not only requires more bravery and bravado, it requires faithfulness and trust in the Good News of Jesus in the most real and tangible ways.  My friend, Lynne Hybels says that peacemaking is the most clear form of discipleship.

As humans designed for right relationship with God and others, we have to take this seriously.  In Jesus death and resurrection as first born of New Creation, we have each been given a new identity as Resurrection people who are to live as agents of reconciliation.

Peacemaking has been disintegrated from our understanding of the gospel.  It has been stigmatized and outsourced rather than embraced and embodied.  Living as everyday peacemakers allows us to fully embrace our Resurrection identity as New Creation and reintegrates our role as reconcilers back into our understanding of the gospel.

The work of peacemaking doesn’t just happen on an international, political level; it happens in our neighborhoods.  It can no longer be outsourced to politicians.  Peacemaking is a grassroots movement that begins to sow seeds of hope that ripple positively into our global village.

What does it look like to be a presence of reconciliation in your neighborhood?  What might it mean to follow Jesus INTO conflict with initiatives of hope rather than withdrawing out of fear?

It’s looking into the eyes of the woman and child without a home and acknowledging their dignity.  It’s having that conversation with your friend or family member that will finally clear enough space for your relationship to begin the road to healing.  It’s asking the hard questions of the impact of your business decisions on those outside of your direct contact. It’s giving a voice to those that don’t have one on your neighborhood councils, business groups and rec centers.  It’s choosing to first and foremost view “the other” through the lens of a shared humanity.

Friends, we must be resourced with the practices that makes for peace in our families, relationships, faith communities, neighborhood and world.  It is our calling and it is our identity.

In the end, choosing to live as peacemakers may expose us to the most violence.  But with Jesus as the Ultimate peacemaker, we understanding that peace can only truly be made real as we follow in the sacrificial Way of the Cross.  And when we live into this reality, we rediscover again what it truly means to be human.

—
Jon Huckins is on staff with NieuCommunities, a collective of missional communities who foster leadership and community development.  He also co-founded The Global Immersion Project which cultivates peacemakers through immersion in global conflict.  Jon has a Master’s degree from Fuller Seminary and writes for numerous publications including, theOOZE, Burnside Writer’s Collective & Red Letter Christians. He has written two books: Thin Places: Six Postures for Creating and Practicing Missional Community (Beacon Hill) and Teaching Through the Art of Storytelling(Zondervan).  He lives in San Diego with his wife Jan, daughter Ruby. Jon blogs here: http://jonhuckins.net/.  You can also follow Jon on Twitter and Facebook.

The post The Violence of Peacemaking appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

Here are the five greatest reasons parents “lose” their children from Christianity:

1) Falling into the temptation of using religion to control their children through guilt and shame.

“Jesus is watching you!” Even the best parents can find themselves wanting some divine backup in a conflict with their children. However, using God for intimidation in a conflict with children has two major issues. First, it means children are associating God as “against them.” Second, it means that the parent is not building a personal relationship of trust with the child. It is better for parents to use their faith to help the child understand the reason the parent, themselves, act the way they do. We need more of “God gave you to me and I am doing my best to honor that gift by raising you well.” We need less of “God says to obey me, and you are disobeying God.”

Related: Seven Reasons Why Young Adults Quit Church – by Christian Piatt

2) The parents seem to be afraid of the world, instead of empowered to live in it.

Christians see themselves as “apart from the world,” but that is so we can help the world, not be afraid of it. Christian parents who constantly talk about the world as an evil, malevolent, and dangerous place which must be avoid as much as possible, it paints a grim view of the future for young adults wanting to find their own place in life. If a parent lives in fear of the world, the children will pick up on that and will naturally seek alternative beliefs. Christ did not give us a spirit of fear of the world, but compassion for it.

3) The children do not see the parents drawing any joy from their faith.

If a parent’s religion is maintained out of guilt and obligation, their children will pick-up on that burden. If parents are full of joy, love, and enthusiasm for their faith and community, their children will pick-up on that as well. How a parent behaves in their faith is more important than what they tell their children about their faith. A parent can be the best apologetics scholar in the world, they will not win over their child while they are spiritually depressed.

4) The children are discouraged from finding answers to their questions.

Each generation of young Christians are going to challenge their parents with new questions about Christianity in the modern world. It is impossible for parents to prepare for or know all the answers for these questions. The only way to address this need is for parents to ask these questions with their children. Parents who ignore, suppress, brush off, or give trite simplistic answers to their children’s questions are at risk of greatly frustrating them. No one needs to have all the answers. Children will not only respect a “I don’t know, let’s find out together,” they will remember such journey’s for the rest of their lives. It is also the most powerful opportunity for a parent to grow in their faith, to experience Christianity again through young eyes.

5) The children believe they have nothing to offer the Christian community.

Parents who are engaged and active in a church community are more likely to have children who find ways to participate in the Christian community at large. Parents and churches have a responsibility to help children know they have gifts, talents, and inspiration that are not only welcome in the community, they are vital to it. If children feel like Christianity is just following other people, it will not be relevant to them as they grow. Christianity needs to be understood as something we all work together to build.

Also by Yaholo: The Age of Intimacy – A different look at our cultural struggle over sexuality

If Christ Inspires You, You Will Inspire Your Children

Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6, ESV)

Even the best parents will still seem to “lose” their children for seasons as they grow. A person’s faith must be their own, and often that means they have to depart from it for a time. The bottom line is that the best way to make sure your children will grow up in Christ, is if you are growing in Christ. Examine your own heart and your own life. Is it something to look up to? When a child looks at their parents, they see their future. How does their future look?

—
Yaholo Hoyt is a practical mystic, a passionate writer, a paltry poet, and an old-school Jesus freak. You can find him at http://yaholo.net or read his blog at http://practicalchristianmysticism.blogspot.com

Advertisement

The post Five Reasons Christian Parents “Lose” Their Children appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

As any gun rights advocate would remind us; “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people”.

The same is true of words; words don’t deceive, offend, attack or infuriate; people do.

Technically, this is possibly true. Words and guns don’t hurt people – it is people who use those words and guns that hurt people.

As I said above, it is true; preposterous but true.

A gun in a holster, or even better, in a gun-safe, or even in the hands of someone qualified and authorized to use it, should not be a threat to anyone.

Related: What does Micah 6:8 really mean? – by Dominique Gillard

Words kept in a dictionary won’t hurt anyone either.

But that’s not why guns – and words – were developed.

Weapons (and tools of all sorts) and words were developed to use.

And we expect every tool to be used responsibly and appropriately.

Every tool (or word or weapon) can be used clumsily, carelessly or dangerously.

Who of us, for example, has not used words to injure or destroy?

Sometimes, perhaps even more often, deliberately.

Words can kill – and inspire to kill – far more than any individual weapon.

It is not, as the gun advocates tell us, the gun (or word) that kills, it is the person.

The deranged, evil or enraged person with the gun may use it, but the gun itself is innocent.

Just as words are innocent.

And, just as in my opening quote (one of the most commonly misquoted verses of the Bible), money is innocent.

Also by Morf: “I Am a Sexual Predator. I Need Help.” Ariel Castro

It is not money that is the root of evil; it is our love of money that is the root of ‘all kinds of evil’.

It is one of the many ironies of human history that we pass laws regarding the use of weapons, money, drugs and yes, words when the real problem is none of those things. Every weapon, gun, drug or word is perfectly safe.

It is those pesky humans, with their love or passion, that make everything dangerous.

Footnote: For the grammar nerds out there, ‘of money’ is a prepositional phrase that acts as an adjective to modify the subject. The word ‘love’ (not ‘money’) is the subject of that sentence.

I am not distorting or misinterpreting that familiar verse; those who say ‘money is the root of all evil’ are.

—
Morf Morford considers himself a free-range Christian who is convinced that God expects far more of us than we can ever imagine, but somehow thinks God knows more than we do. To pay his bills, he’s been a teacher for adults (including those in his local county jail) in a variety of setting including Tribal colleges, vocational schools and at the university level in the People’s Republic of China. Within an academic context, he also writes an irreverent ESL blog and for the Burnside Writers Collective. As he’s getting older, he finds himself less tolerant of pettiness and dairy products.

Advertisement

The post Love is the Root of All Evil appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

A few weeks ago I was away from my home city staying in a suburb in which 30% of the inhabitants are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, transvestite and intersex, hanging out with them to deepen my relationships with LGBTI people there who are exploring what it means to follow Jesus in a faith community. Just by being with this community, I was aware that I ran the risk of attracting a certain amount of criticism from some of my friends, family and Christian groups. Then, a talk in a church on Sunday morning while I was there, based on Luke 15, raised the question, “Am I willing to allow my reputation to be damaged for the sake of my relationships?”

I had been brought up in an environment in which my family, friends, church leaders and society highlighted repeatedly the importance of protecting my reputation. My family feared that I would bring shame on them if I was caught with the “wrong” people or doing something not approved by them, the church or society. My friends wanted to be sure that I didn’t hang out with people that they would feel uncomfortable being seen with (unless we were on a mission trip). The church didn’t want me to associate with people who might undermine my faith and who don’t fit the standards for those who are welcome in the fellowship. And society expected me to support the status quo by doing what the majority finds acceptable.

Related: Am I A Christian Bigot? – by Stephen Mattson

But, sitting in that church a few weeks ago, I was impressed that Jesus has a different view on reputation. Luke 15 opens with the mutterings of religious leaders complaining about the company Jesus kept. Jesus proceeds to tell three stories about three people who place more importance on looking out for something or someone that is lost than on sticking with what is already safe. It is this Jesus who is concerned for those who are lost who calls me to put relationship over reputation. I suggest that, when we think about relationship and reputation, a close reading of the gospels leads to the conclusion that Jesus didn’t worry about his reputation amongst his family, friends, religious institutions and society.

I got to thinking about my own situation as a white, heterosexual male mentoring and life coaching immigrant (mostly female) young people and LGBTI people. I didn’t chase down this life of mission. It found me through relationships with people in these communities over the past 40 years. But it has resulted in numerous incidents in which my reputation has been called into question by family, friends and church leaders as I have been caught in the act of maintaining relationships outside of the safe norms accepted by the establishment. Caught in the act of:

• being seen in public with my friend who is a prominent leader of the gay community and getting hugged and kissed on the cheek and called “Sweetie”;
• marching in the Sydney Mardi Gras to say sorry for the way the church has treated LGBTI people and being hugged and kissed by semi-naked LGBTI people – just being in the parade was enough to damage my reputation in the eyes of some people. (Even more damaging to my reputation was my inability to dance in the parade with anything like the moves of those around me.);
• being assumed to be the partner of a younger man whom I attended a church service with at an LGBTI church in my home city;
• in daily life, often being seen in public alone with a variety of young Asian women in cafés, restaurants and other places and being presumed, by those looking on or acquaintances I happen to run into, to be with them for a variety of wrong reasons.

All of these have drawn comment about the impression my behaviour gives and my motives. But, Jesus seemed to attract similar comments when we read the gospel accounts. And, furthermore, it would appear that, for Jesus, reputation in the eyes of family, friends and religious leaders was not the issue. Relationship with those outside of those circles was the issue. He seemed more concerned that his relationships reflected and replicated the relationship that his father wanted to have with him and those around him.

Related: How does a Red Letter Christian read the Bible? by Derek Flood

So much of our time and effort can be taken up with concerns about our reputation in the eyes of people who already think they are in the kingdom of God when, instead, Jesus is calling us to a life of relationships with people who consider themselves outside the kingdom of God. From observing the life of Jesus and from my experience, I would suggest that, when reputation with those already “in” is not the issue, authentic relationship with those who are “out” grows and it reveals Jesus to others and ourselves.

Another observation from reading the gospels and my own experience is that the attribution of a bad reputation to me is usually made by those who are uninvolved with society outside of their ecclesiogical ghettos and who fear that, by sacrificing my reputation in the religious structure for relationships outside of organized religion, I might “fall” or cause others to “fall”. But, I believe this fear is founded on a faulty view of involvement in structured Christianity (which I have explored briefly in a previous article, “Church is Fantasy”) and morality for which, in the last two articles I have written for RLC, I have explored the practice of a redeeming morality rather than a judging or condemning morality as well as arguing for a quantum morality that puts the will of God to be with people in their need, ahead of the desire to prove what is right or wrong.

If we can see beyond the fabrications of organized Christianity and embrace a morality that values redemption and the will of God, I believe we will be free to reflect how Jesus dealt with people both inside and outside of the religious constructs of the time and emphasise relationship with those who are “out” rather than reputation with those who are “in”.

In the early days of Jesus’ ministry, where he is tempted in the wilderness, his responses to Satan’s temptations appear to damage his reputation by his refusal to be relevant (bread was something that everyone would have welcomed and made Jesus a hero as a religious leader), powerful (control of the kingdoms of the world would have given him absolute authority and power to mandate adherence to his religion globally), and spectacular (by performing a feat that would have established his fame forever and convinced people to follow his religion). And yet, after appearing to miss all these opportunities to enhance his reputation in the eyes of the religious, the rich and the powerful, we read that he returned to his neighbourhood and, without any apparent broadcasting of what he had just been through, his reputation spread throughout the countryside – a good reputation in the eyes of the people who were longing for redemption and a bad reputation in the eyes of people who thought they had all the answers.

Interestingly, for many Christian leaders caught in a morally disreputable act, there is a variety of responses that seem to illustrate the connection between reputation and relationship. People in the church looking on either choose relationship with the fallen one and facilitate genuine redemption, or choose reputation to either exclude their fallen brother or sister or to explain away and whitewash his/her transgressions and restore the fallen leader back on his/her now doubtfully reputable pedestal. People outside the church may initially hurl justifiable accusations of hypocrisy at both the perpetrator and the institution but often revert to a sigh of relief that, yet again, a reputable Christian leader has been exposed as no better or worse than them. For the transgressor, s/he may choose reputation and fight to excuse his/her actions and attempt to reclaim their reputation, or s/he may, as a few of my friends in this situation have done, recognize the folly of chasing reputation and choose relationship and discover a new way of following Jesus and proclaiming the gospel through humbly connecting with imperfect and often disreputable fellow travellers on the road to redemption.

Also by Mal: Redemptive Morality – Non-traditional Marriage and Les Mis

I have been encouraged over the past few months to see evangelical and political leaders in New Zealand, the UK and the US espousing a change of opinion on the marriage equality issue. As I read their statements, they all seem to have one feature in common. A close friend or family member coming out has changed their perspective on the controversy and given a human face to the issues. I’ve been excited to see these leaders risking their reputation with the political and religious establishment for the sake of their relationships with people who matter to them and who are in jeopardy of being pushed out by their family, friends, church and social groups because they have come out. This seems to me to reflect more authentically the behaviour and teaching of Jesus.

It seems that when we take a moral approach that values redemption and the will of God over judgement, condemnation and right and wrong, our reputation may suffer in the eyes of religious leaders but it will be enhanced in the eyes of people who want to connect with Jesus in a meaningful and authentic way.

And this is what I believe we are called to do as followers of Jesus – to fulfil the will of God to bring redemption to those around us by being caught in the act of making our relationships with them more important than our reputation in the eyes of those who already think they are righteous.

—
Mal Green is a member of Incedo, a mission order in New Zealand exploring what it means to follow Jesus with young people 24/7 outside of the structures of Christianity so that we can invite them to join us in our faith adventure. He has been hanging out with young people since 1969 while studying, lecturing, mentoring, pastoring.

Advertisement

The post Caught in the Act: Reputation and Relationship appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

This “new” Christianity is sick of culture wars, political agendas, hypocrisy and legalistic doctrines. They prefer inclusion over restriction, dialogue over debate, practice over preaching, and love over judgment. Authentic communities are preferred over institutionalized organizations, and grassroots groups gain wisdom and knowledge from relational interaction, social media, the web, and an array of other sources—there is no monopoly controlling leadership or sources of information.

Previously ignored issues such as environmentalism, social justice, equality and human rights are back at the forefront, and the love of Christ is starting to supersede any social, political or religious agenda.

Related: For the American Part of Me…I Am Sorry (A Confession) – by Matt Young

And while many traditional Evangelicals decry this movement as being shallow, theologically weak and even heretical, many see it as a step in the right direction—a revolution similar to that of the early church: authentically living out Christ’s model of service, sacrifice and holistic love.

Revolutions involve excitement, energy, rebellion and inspiration. But revolutions can quickly devolve into self-righteousness, where the distinct sense of what is right and wrong—the clarity of vision—can turn into elitism and pharisaical hypocrisy.

For modern Christian revolutionaries, it can be an easy temptation to judge Christianity’s past mistakes: They clung too tightly to political organizations, idolized their religious affiliations, publicly berated others, were violent, were bigoted, refused to engage in meaningful conversations and routinely spewed apocalyptic judgments against those with opposing views.

We see the past and current Evangelical atmosphere as “conservative,” “old-fashioned” and “ignorant.” And while these classifications are often deserved and warranted, what we often fail to understand is that at one point in time, they were just like us—the revolutionaries.

It was only a few decades ago, during the turbulent 60s and 70s, that a similar Christian revolution was happening. House churches were forming, Christians were distancing themselves from political and traditional religious institutions, and the idea of loving people in a way that copied the example of Christ was sweeping the nation. Revival was in the air, and it was reshaping the American Christian landscape.

But then the fervor of following Christ subtly changed into distinct ideologies—each with small but nuanced theological differences—that slowly turned into idols. Factions formed based on their preferred beliefs, and these groups were formalized back into “official” churches, organizations and denominations—each seemingly holding an exclusive ownership over what was constituted as “truth.”

These groups then refused to listen to those that went in different directions, the unity was lost, and Christians began to splinter. The simple idea of following Christ was complicated by vicious and constant infighting, debating, accusing, indoctrinating, propagating and proselytizing. They craved power, privilege and the desire to decide what was right and wrong.

Also by Stephen: The 6 Worst Things About American Christianity

For the current revolutionaries, it’s almost impossible to see the “legalistic fundamentalists” of today as inspired revolutionaries who were once in our shoes—but they were.

When it comes to following Christ, it’s easy to get distracted by things that don’t matter, and Satan is always trying to divide and destroy. This is how something as simple as following Christ’s example becomes a complicated mess filled with thousands of theologies, practices and conflicting beliefs.

The reality is that our current revolution has happened before, and is actually a movement that is recycled every couple of decades—let this be a somber warning to us. Never stop being humble, always focus on love, and constantly strive to emulate Christ. When this happens, the revolution will never become a religion, but will instead become an inspired relationship with God.

—
Stephen Mattson has written for Relevant, Sojourners, and The Burnside Writer’s Collective. He graduated from the Moody Bible Institute and is currently on staff at Northwestern College in St. Paul, MN. Follow him on Twitter @mikta.

Photo Credit: Peter Scholz / Shutterstock.com

Advertisement

The post When Revolutions Become Religions appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

But now the truth.

They are getting ready for civil war. Not a metaphorical culture war – but a real, bloody civil war. As unbelievable as this seems—as much as I would love to be proved wrong—the evidence is out there.

At the NRA annual convention, the face of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, said recent gun control efforts in Congress are efforts to “destroy us and every ounce of our freedom.” It is part of a larger culture war, indeed, but the rhetoric goes so much further.  And so many people believe it.

Alarms about imminent gun confiscation are an NRA staple, despite its implausibility. We do have a constitution and the Supreme Court has made it clear there is a right to bear arms.

No one but the far right fear-mongers are talking about confiscating weapons! And every time they do they reliably send firearm owners back to retail counters. Sales are booming.

And 3 in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released last Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

According to the AP, the incoming leader of the National Rifle Association, James Porter has called President Barack Obama a “fake president,” Attorney General Eric Holder “rabidly un-American” and the U.S. Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression.” And on Friday at the convention, he repeated his call for training every U.S. citizen in the use of standard military firearms, to allow them to defend themselves against tyranny.

Related: Following Jesus, The Best Gun Control Ever! – by Kurt Willems

All this because of efforts to pass universal background checks, which are supported by 88% of Americans according to the most recent poll data.

In other words, if they cannot win at the ballot box, they’re ready to start a second civil war.

Like good Christian citizens of the old South stood against Northern aggression, Porter implies, so now stand against … what? Liberal aggression? Multi-cultural aggression?  Non-white aggression?  Non-Christian aggression?  Our elected government?

In LaPierre’s Dec. 21 appearance, he called for armed security in all schools, scorning gun-free classrooms as an enticement to “every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.” More broadly, he described the country as plagued by surging bloodshed and dislocation. “Add another hurricane, terrorist attack, or some other natural or man-made disaster,” he said, “and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.”  Sadly, this rhetoric is nothing new for LaPierre.

According to an article by Paul Barrett, in 1995 he spiced a fundraising appeal with references to “federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms” who “seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.” Those comments struck some NRA members as over the line, especially after April 19, 1995, when insurrectionist Timothy McVeigh blew up an Oklahoma City building housing federal agents, killing 168 people. Former President George H.W. Bush quit the NRA in protest.

And yet the Columbine (Colo.) high school massacre, which took 13 innocent lives in April 1999, prompted LaPierre to lean slightly in the other direction. At an NRA convention in Denver shortly afterward, he endorsed gun-free schools. “We believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools,” he told attendees. “That means no guns in America’s schools, period.”

In congressional testimony, he urged lawmakers to expand the computerized Federal Bureau of Investigation background check system for sales by federally licensed retailers to cover “private” transactions at weekend gun shows and elsewhere.

LaPierre’s Columbine response earned him no affection from gun control backers and mostly disdain from “the base,” says Richard Feldman, author of a 2007 memoir, Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist, and a former NRA operative. “Wayne took incredible grief among the more extreme elements, and he must have resolved, ‘never again.’”

So this hypocritical opportunist who receives nearly a million dollar salary has completely reversed himself so as to placate the far right of his organization and keep his lucrative post.

Related: Put Your Guns Away – by Patrick Anderson

Apocalyptic rhetoric reverberates through American gun rights circles. Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, a Christian-right advocacy group, warned in a Jan. 11 article on the WorldNetDaily website that by pushing gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook, Obama was “playing a very dangerous game of chicken” with firearm owners: “I fear this nation, already on the precipice of widespread civil unrest and economic disaster,” he wrote, “might finally spiral into utter chaos, into a second civil war.”

The battle on this issue is so much along the lines that divide Republican and Democrats, rural and urban, white and non-white.

Those raised with guns on farms and in rural areas see them as positive tools for sport and work, as well as for defense against wild animals.  Those in cities tend to see guns negatively as that which causes so much unneeded death and destruction in the hands of anyone, including abusive spouses, drug dealers and young men in gangs, and suicidal people.

We all know how much of society needs fixing.  The mental health system struggles with way too much need and too little resources.  We constantly work with how to help the neediest among us without hurting the middle class.  And we shudder at the inequality of the super-rich who control so much of the power of society, while also trying to allow for the incentive of private initiative in our capitalistic system. We know the problems of keeping government accountable.

But if we do not start really listening to each other and try to find common goals, instead of preparing for violent confrontation, we may well experience a new civil war as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I read comments from conservatives online that say, almost literally: “Liberals and progressives and anyone else but us, are too stupid, naive and immoral to understand the peril we are in. So since we can’t persuade you by our logic and evidence, then we will have to preserve our peculiar American way of life by force. By imposing your values on us you leave us no choice.”

Forget the ballot box and elected officials and trying to win the court of public opinion.

This attitude—blaring in online blogs and by radical right commentators—says in effect:  “We will not let you take our guns like you’ve taken our moral values, and bankrupted our economy by your socialist income distribution schemes like welfare. We will die first before you destroy our country, and force your immoral, gay rights and abortion rights ways on us anymore. And because you won’t defend the country properly against the threat of Islam by sending missiles and troops to destroy Islamists, it means you actually support them and we will need to defend ourselves from that invasion as well.”

Is it any wonder then, that nearly 30 percent of registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years?

The Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.  Eighteen percent of Democrats said an armed revolt “might be necessary,” as compared to 27 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans. Support levels were similar among males and females but higher among less educated voters.

This is where the NRA and conservative, political fear-mongers’ rhetoric is heading the country.  The lie is stated over and over again that the true goal of any kind of gun-control effort is disarming law-abiding citizens in preparation of taking away the rest of their constitutional rights.  Universal background checks will inevitably lead to government tyranny, they say.

This is ridiculous fear-mongering, and an outright lie.

Instead of trying to understand where the other is coming from and working to forge a common goal, these people want all or nothing.  And if it is not their way, then they now state they are ready to war against those who disagree with them.

Also by Tom: Why this Republican Voted for Obama but is Not (Yet!) A Democrat

This is not a new American Revolution.  Unlike the first, we have representatives now, even if we don’t like the taxes they sometimes enact.

This is a second Civil War brewing.

Much like the first Civil War, it is about a way of life perceived as being threatened by a majority with whom the minority disagrees.  There is so much fear of what might be, stoked by all too many who profit by the paranoia they create.  Fear is good for fund-raising and for radio show hosts.

They demonize their opponents so they can dismiss them, and avoid having to consider the other’s point of view as anything with any validity.

And like our first Civil War those who proclaim to be Christian have wrapped their faith in cultural values and made them one; so much so that they cannot see that they are or should be different.

Sadly, this is the same situation as with the Taliban and other radical Islamists.  Religion is used in the service of cultural and tribal convictions, and violence is deemed acceptable because one’s lifestyle and culture are being attacked, even and especially by fellow religionists who are so wrong as to be the enemy.

America does not need the heretical abomination of “2^nd Amendment Pastors” (as one minister wrote in a widely circulated email) preaching that your guns will set you free, so get ready for the coming revolution.

Jesus must be weeping.

With fellow citizens like these, God help America, indeed.

—
Tom McCrossan is an ordained minister in the Reformed Church of America, serving in special ministry as an Assistant Chaplain at a local rescue mission. His grandfather was a minister first in the Methodist and then in the Presbyterian Church. His uncle served at the Victory Service Club of the Union Rescue Mission in Los Angeles. He is married with three grown children and lives in Schenectady, NY.

Photo Credit: Mark Van Scyoc / Shutterstock.com

Advertisement

The post The Lie of Gun Right’s Advocates appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

The outcry has been predictable, and loud, and well deserved.

One of the more popular responses is a video titled “Abercrombie & Fitch gets a Brand Readjustment”(above). The video consists of a man handing out Abercrombie and Fitch clothing to persons who are homeless, as a ‘snub’ to the clothing brand. Because, after all, what could be worse than seeing clothes made for the beautiful people on poor people?

The only reason this “works” as humor is because we see people who are experiencing homelessness as “the other”, as someone who is different than us, and not only different, but offensive. It should, we are saying, offend Abercrombie and Fitch that “these” people are wearing our clothes.

If you doubt this, consider how you would feel about this story if, instead of “homeless people”, the story was that a man shot a video that sought to offend the brand by giving its clothes to black people or gay people. The internet would be in an outrage, rightfully calling the video racist or homophobic.

But give the clothes to homeless people and the Huffington Post calls it a “funny and creative way to readjust the Abercrombie & Fitch brand.”

Sigh.

This is wrong. It is, to use a word I do not use lightly, evil. It is stigmatizing an already stigmatized group in order to “strike back” at a brand that let you down. One of our idols failed us, and so we critique them by shooting video of vulnerable people wearing their clothes in order to lampoon the brand.

Also by Hugh: Do I Deny the Resurrection?

I mentioned on Social Media that I have a problem with the video, and several folks implied I was being overly sensitive. After all, the narrative, the story, is that A & F is bad, and they must be punished. And after all, homeless folks need clothes, right? The guy meant well, after all.

No. This is really a story about us. About our wanting to believe that we are just and good and, dare I say it, holy. And that any cause we champion is just and good and holy as well, and after all, we are helping out some homeless folks who need clothes…

It is never okay to stigmatize people in the defense of your cause – no matter how just or good it is. It is never okay to use poor people – or, in fact, any people, as props or object lessons or teaching tools. Ever.

People who are experiencing homelessness are people. They are not extras in a movie about you.

—
Hugh Hollowell is a minister in the Mennonite Church USA based in Raleigh, N.C. He is the founder and director of Love Wins Ministries, which tackles the problems of homelessness by focusing on relationships, not outcomes.

Advertisement

The post Abercrombie And Fitch And Homelessness and You appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

On April 6 Christian Piatt posted a blog called “The Problem Isn’t God; It’s Certainty.”  His first sentence really made my head hurt:

Uncertainty about the existence of God is not the same thing as certainty about the non-existence of God.”

He went on to talk about radical theology, firmly rooted theology, and addictions to certainty. He also talked about the danger of intellectualizing God out of our thinking and whether or not the unknowable can be known or even exists. I think what he’s saying is that it’s impossible to describe an infinite God with finite words and concepts. Since certainty in itself is a finite concept, uncertainty is required when contemplating the existence or non-existence of God. I’m not sure whether I agree or disagree with what he’s saying – you might say I’m uncertain. But that’s just modern philosophical talk, right? Not exactly.

Also by Linda: The Humility and Grace of Foot Washing – Pope Francis and Me

Paul encountered this kind of philosophical atmosphere in ancient Athens.

the Athenians…seemed to spend all their time discussing the latest ideas.” Acts 17:21

They were deep thinkers, but they were uncertain about God. The city was filled with idols and shrines, but just to be sure they had all their bases covered, there was one shrine to “an unknown god.” Paul used this “unknown god” as a platform to explain God. Some scoffed at his beliefs, but some were so fascinated they wanted to continue the discussion. I’m sure their reasoning would have given me a migraine.

And then I read the April 29 devotional in “My Utmost for His Highest” by Oswald Chambers. Chambers is not exactly what you’d call a modern philosopher either, but the title of his devotional is “Gracious Uncertainty.” His point is that, although we can be certain of God, if we’re fully surrendered to Him we might be uncertain of what He will do next. Another thought that makes me think more deeply than I usually do.

But there’s hope for simple-minded people like me. In 1 Corinthians 1:27 Paul said “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise,” and Jesus himself said in ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Matthew 18:3, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” We visited a church Sunday where Christian was preaching, and as we entered the sanctuary, I saw a little boy with a patch over one eye. He was carrying a stick with suckers attached to it, and as he approached each new person, he offered a sucker and said, “Jesus loves you and so do I.” I think I can be certain of that.

—–
Linda Brendle retired from the business world several years ago, and she blogs about caregiving, faith, and family at Life After Caregiving. She is a correspondent for The Rains County Leader in Emory, Texas, and her blogs appear regularly on the Daily Burnsider.  You can find Linda on Twitter and Facebook.

Advertisement

The post Confusion and Certainty about God appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

Nevertheless, American leaders defend the right to bear arms.  At a recent NRA conference Rick Santorum claimed that God supports American gun rights. However, Jesus says “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.”  Jesus rejects the very reason that many people have guns.

In rural Kentucky a two year old girl was accidentally shot and killed by her five year old brother with his birthday rifle on 30 April.  Jesus says “I have come that they may have life, and have it in the full.” Have we become so blind to the value of life today for the fear of a distant, if ever, tyranny?   Or will we continue to accept the FBI reported murders of 47,856 people in the US with guns between 2006 and 2010.

Related: Following Jesus, The Best Gun Control Ever! by Kurt Willems

After the murders in Newtown, the Chief of Police testified that the AR-15 rifle used to kill the children has “no commonsense meaning” for a regular citizen seeking protection.  Freedom to carry a gun is destroying the freedom to live.  It is not surprising then that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops calls for the elimination of guns in America, except for law enforcement and the military.

The Apostle Paul explains “do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good”.  In European countries with strict gun control there are far less murders. In the US there were over 9,000 murders with a gun in 2009 and in the United Kingdom where I attended university, there were 42 murders with a gun in 2011-12.  Even if the UK were the size of the US they might have had around 200 murders with guns compared to our 9,000 murders with guns.  In most nations there is no right to bear arms.

Jesus is right.  By loving the enemy, laying down the gun we protect life in a community. Gun control moves us closer to the community of love and nonviolence of Christ.  It’s time to stand with Jesus and against the most common means of murder, guns.

—-
Art Haywood is an attorney in Philadelphia, Pa that represents nonprofit and faith based organizations and a member of Salem Baptist Church of Jenkintown. You can find him online at arthaywood.com

Advertisement

The post Jesus Is Against the 2nd Amendment appeared first on Red Letter Christians.