Disqus - Latest Comments for mattdross

Re: On The Fourth of July

mattdross — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:54:39 -0000

I whole heartedly agree with some of your conclusions:

- The United States is not a new Israel
- Rome was called the "whore of Babylon" because it blasphemously identified itself (I would also want to add that this is a form of praising evil)

If you could explain to me how the Pledge of Allegiance idolatrously identifies the nation (rather than God) as the source of freedom , I would also agree that it is an idolatrous declaration. However, the pledge clearly states that the republic is "under God" and that it is "with" liberty. The word "with" seems to imply that the nation was conferred with liberty from God rather than it being the autonomous giver of liberty.

If you believe our modern governmental structures don't live up to the standards of the Pledge or the Declaration of Independence, I will certainly agree with you. However, I believe that each of these can serve as good reminders to our current administrations that the liberty we enjoy is conferred to us from God.

Regarding the symbiotic relationship between family and nation, I am only stating that the the duties and privelidges of a nation are seminally founded in the family. If you don't want to say that the nation is in covenantal relationship with God, I'm fine with that, but I do think it is extremely important that we think of the nation as a conglomerate of family units. Furthermore, I think it is helpful to note that our modern understanding of family is much more restrictive that the biblical understanding of family.

Re: (final thoughts) On America

mattdross — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:25:16 -0000

It seems as if you may have misunderstood my argument. When I say we should behave appropriately in our given circumstances, I am not saying "Everyone else is doing it, it must be o.k." I whole-heartedly agree that there are times when Christians should rebel against institutionalized evil. The problem with Rome was that it encouraged a form of emperor worship. If I were asked to offer worship to President Washington or President Obama, I certainly hope I would have the courage to rebel no matter what the cost.

What I fail to see from your posts is a statement that clearly shows how "allegiance" equals "worship." I don't believe I have a lot of national pride. I would hesitate to call the United States a good nation or even one of the best. I would agree with you that it is bloodstained, dirty, consumeristic, and inhospitable. But I am a citizen nonetheless. With citizenship comes certain civic duties. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to remind myself of my civic duties through a pledge. This is the only meaning the pledge is intended to convey. When I talk about allegiance to country, I have in mind things like voting, paying taxes, obeying the law, and giving honor. Paul positively affirmed many of these practices in Romans 13:7. Peter made even stronger statements in 1 Peter 2:13: "Be subject for the Lord's sake . . . to the emperor as supreme"

When governments prohibit the worship of God or encourage the worship of the state, Christians have the responsibility to rebel no matter what the cost. I don't believe that saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" is even remotely comparable to the offering of incense to Caesar. The pledge contains no implicit assumption or explicit statement that confers divine status to the nation or its leaders. As a matter of fact, the modern version of the pledge even explicitly states that the republic is "under God". This seems to align very nicely with Rom 13 and 1 Pet 2 which claim that the authority of human institutions is derived from God.

Regarding my statements that compared you to a "whiny middle school girl", I think this provides a good illustration of my argument (i.e. our behavior should take our circumstances into account). Obviously the moderator of this forum does not find "politically incorrect" and "patriarchical" language very humorous or helpful in arguments. Although I do find this language humorous and occassionally helpful, I will refrain from further using it in this circumstance. If the language gave any offense, I apologize. It was my first post in this forum and I was unaware that politically incorrect language was unwelcome. Although I will refrain from further using it in this context, I will use it again in other circumstances. I believe patriarchal and politically incorrect language can be very helpful in making a point in some circumstances. I feel certain that Paul and Jesus both used language that was politically incorrect in certain circumstances (cf. Matt 12:34 and Gal 5:12)

Re: On The Fourth of July

mattdross — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:41:02 -0000

My relationship with my nation is organically related to my relationship with my family. The family is the building block of a nation. Symbiosis (cf. Johannes Althusius) and Sphere Sovereignty (cf. Abraham Kuyper) seem to make much better sense of the biblical evidence than does "The Whore of Babylon" approach (cf. Thomas Muenster) that treats all political commitments as if they were commitments to Satan.

In the Bible, national identities were associated with families. Israel was the descendant of Abraham. Arabic tribes were the descendants of Ishamel. Israel was further divided into 12 tribes based on kinship and clan. The New Testament treats governments similarly. In 1 Peter 2:13-25, Peter entreats his readers to be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution." He then immediately follows this section with a discussion of family relationships (1 Peter 3:1-7). Notice he begins the section on family relationships with the word "LIKEWISE." Peter seemed to understand there to be an organic relationship between empire and family.

Similarly, our modern concepts of political responsibility begin in the family. Political concepts like labor, charity, duty, loyalty, and education all originate in the familial relationships. Political life is organically related to family life. In short, because the family is in covenant relationship with God and political life is an extension of the family, political life is also in covenant relationship with God.

This is precisely why Rome is referred to as "The Whore of Babylon." Governments exist to punish evil and praise righteousness (1 Pet 2:14). To the degree that governments praise evil and punish righteousness they cease to behave like true governments and incur the wrath of God.

Re: On The Fourth of July

mattdross — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:29:11 -0000

No. But I would suggest that God desires for me to be loyal to my commitments and devoted to my family. Of course, he is my primary loyalty, but service to him requires me to be loyal to many other things. Whatever I do, I want to do it as to the Lord rather than for me. I believe God has called me to be steward of many things, and to serve him in many relationships. All these relationships require the loyalty and devotion of a servant.

Re: On The Fourth of July

mattdross — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:10:58 -0000

Just to clarify. Are you saying that Christians should only be loyal to God? and only give devotion to God?

Re: On The Fourth of July

mattdross — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:49:19 -0000

I really don't know why I'm commenting on this. I guess I'm just bored. The whole argument seems a little silly to me. For starters, it's ridiculous to equate "allegiance" with a form of worship. "Allegiance" simply means something like "loyalty or devotion." In addition to giving allegiance to God, it can be given to governments, people, causes, etc., and in many cases this allegiance is good.

Obviously no Christian should give his primary or ultimate allegiance to anyone other than God, but Scripture commands us to give allegiance to many things other than God. We should give honor to those who deserve honor (Rom 13:7). A marital vow is a form of swearing allegiance to a spouse. Jesus seemed to pretty serious about dishonoring this allegiance (Matt 5:26-37). Paul even reminds us that we owe enough allegiance to governing authorities to subject ourselves to their leadership (Rom 13:1). If we did away completely with the concept of allegiance in the political sphere, then familial loyalty would be impossible, orderly society would be counter-intuitive, and a consumer market would not be able to efficiently produce. All group dynamics are based on some concept of loyalty and devotion.

That being said, I don't particularly like the "Pledge of Allegiance." It seems a little silly to give loyalty and devotion to a flag. I like to think that the first "and" in the pledge is a form of hendiadys (the flag is represetative of the republic instead of a separate idea worthy of allegiance). I this sense I might say the pledge of allegiance meaning that I promise to be a good citizen: pay my taxes, behave lawfully, do jury duty, etc. I'm not worshiping the state, but behaving the way Paul encouraged Roman citizens to behave in Romans 13.

In regard to your first point, I tend to agree. I also think its a little awkward for churches to hold Independence Day services. However, I think you're throwing out the kitty with litter box when you vow not to say the pledge at all. Just behave appropriately in the circumstances God placed you. You may think the pledge is silly (as I do), but you're behaving like a whiny middle school girl if you refuse to say it in all circumstances.