Unsettled Christianity

The problem is that not everything about Manifest Destiny or American Exceptionalism is clearly unbiblical.  Take for example the command of God to be “fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” What that meant in 1840 and what it means now is very different.  In 1840, that scripture provided biblical backing to people longing to try their hand at “redeeming the earth.” Today, if that scripture is quoted at all, it is read apologetically and comes with an appeal for “Creation Care.” (I would argue that environmentalism is a major tenet of modern American civil religion.)

via Discussing Paleo-Evangelicals: A Friendly Challenge « Juicy Ecumenism.

So, let me get this straight… the current thought that to leave our children straddled with imaginary debt incurred in large part because of wars cheered by Christians who believed they were ushering in the End Times is not civil religion, but protecting the environment is civil religion.

Be fruitful and multiply is not and has never been equal to manifest destiny. This is another example of “biblical values.” Manifest Destiny included the genocide of other peoples. The death of hundres of thousands. Taking lands not ours. There is nothing Christian about this.

Further, civil religion is part and parcel of American Christianity, on the both the left and the right. The blogger suggests that it is difficult to tell civil religion and Christianity apart. If that is the case, then I would challenge the blogger as to his Christianity.

Ugh.

My good friend, Keith Pavlischek, has a post at the @TheIRD’s site wherein he betrays his lack of knowledge regarding Christian pacifism.

He remarks, “that the use and application of lethal force is always wrong, wicked, evil and condemned by the life and teachings of Jesus who they claim to follow.” Odd. I thought we, both the pacifists and those who enjoy a strong military presence, are following the same Jesus; however, Keith does raise a point that must be addressed. Christian pacifism is not a suddenly seamless doctrine. I for one believe that at certain times, lethal force may need to be applied. Otherwise, we would need to argue against the death of Jesus, and that is impossible. However, lethal force is still evil and requires a repentance. Examine, if you will, some of the Hebraic laws regarding the needed purification after a war. If war was good whatsoever, then purification rights would not be needed; yet, even in a holy war, the people and land needed purification. So, war is evil; war is sometimes necessary. We find this example in Christ.

My brother in Christ argues, “Similarly, when pacifists call for a reduction in the size of the Department of Defense, everyone knows that this is because, as a matter of principle, they don’t believe there should be a Defense Department in the first place.” For the most part, this is a flat out lie. When I and many more pacifists call for a reduction, it is due to the imperialistic nature of the department. We have military bases in over 150 nations, financing militaries of other nations, and wasting billions of dollars on defense projects the military does not want. If I do not support the Department of Defense, it is because I would rather see it called the Department of War. Why? Because our Founders did not foresee the use of a standing military, especially one the size we have now and the placement of those troops. Yes, the times have changed, and I support keeping up someone with those changes; however, we must consider if the changes we made affected those times or the times our changes. I suspect it is the former. A Department of War marginalizes the the imperialistic nature of Defense. Yes, we are ready; no, it is not our main focus.

Now, he goes on to suggest that people have wrong ideas about pacifism. True enough, but he is one of them. What gets me, however, is his insistence that those who take seriously the “turn the other cheek” bit are less Christian than those who take literally “In the beginning…” Why is that? Keith does  not know his history, and he would like us to repeat it.

Related articles

• Wheaton Scholar Argues the Early Church Was Pacifist (matthewtuininga.wordpress.com)

You know, so that they can make sure that these bishops stay in line.

The recent vote in North Carolina which prohibits any sort of civil union (common law or other wise) was not supported by the two United Methodist bishops in that State. In fact, it was opposed by the two bishops in that State. Why? Because they felt like the amendment would do harm to children and women. Indeed, it can.

What is the IRD’s position?

Now that that the amendment has passed, we can see whether these warnings were anywhere near valid.

I love that, don’t you? What they are essentially saying that is that when it comes to perceived injustice, it is better to just wait and let it go ahead to see if it does cause harm. I mean, we can always experiment on a few families, right?

They are condemning the bishops there and tagging them with liberal denominations and the declining mainline churches. Who knew that these two bishops were the cause of such much disarray?

I pity the extremists of the IRD.

United Methodist Bishops Opposed Marriage Amendment in North Carolina « Juicy Ecumenism.