Two thousand years ago, a man said, ‘I have come to give life and to give it in full.’ In America, I have the freedom to call that man Lord, and I do.” — Senator Elizabeth Dole.
Amen, Liz!
I found an interesting article by Julia Duin, who writes about religion for the Washington Times. It’s a round-up of “faith talk” leading up to and during the Republican National Convention. Duin points out what Christians already knew. There was no such talk during the “show” (beyond a reference to “the Almighty”).
The Christian faith must be repackaged for public consumption. This explains vague and generic references to God in political speeches and no mention of “Jesus Christ.” Why is that? The reason is simple, actually. Christ divides. He’s controversial. All you Jesus-is-a-liberal types, hear the words of our Lord:
I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. — Luke 12: 49-53
Did you hear that? Jesus says he wished this world were already destroyed. Frightening, isn’t it? And divisive! How could a God of love say such things? That will be addressed in a subsequent post.
President Bush barely managed to slip a reference to an omnipotent and omniscient being into his speech at all, I’m sure, so I’m not surprised he didn’t say the words “Jesus Christ.” So many are under the mistaken impression that mixing “church and state” matters is unconstitutional, but it’s not. Instead of re-inventing the microchip, I’ll re-post an entry I wrote in July explaining why this is so: “Incompatible Kerry’s Immaculate Deception”:
To justify eliminating religious views from the public arena, liberals are quick to shout, “Separation of church and state!” I’m certain Kerry knows that no such doctrine exists nor was it ever intended to exist in the Constitution. According to the First Amendment:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This is known as the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the formation of a national church. The mandate that “Congress shall make no law” is very significant. This single phrase gives individuals immense freedom. Rather than restricting us from freely exercising our faith, the Clause forbids the government from restricting our exercise of religious faith.
So where does the concept of “separation of church and state” come from?
More to come…
{ 1 trackback }
{ 23 comments }
I have long thought that gov’t schools, established by the gov’t, were unconstitutional BECAUSE they “established” a teaching environment, and learning requires some form of values. Since Boston wanted those values to be Protestant Christian, in order to assist/ strongly encourage Catholics to assimilate/ convert, the gov’t schools were accepted.
Today, “separation” is a mantra by the anti-God folk to oppose then next old policy they want to overturn, since most old policies were based on Christian values.
>>Did you hear that? Jesus says he wished this world were already destroyed. Frightening, isn’t it?
I assume that you’re reading this from the opening sentence, La Shawn?
That’s quite an assumption from a sentence which is notoriously difficult to translate and which has no parallel in any other gospel. In Greek it reads literally “Fire I came to cast upon the earth and what will I if already it was kindled”.
Whatever it means precisely, it is pretty clear that what Jesus is talking about is the division that will come because of his teaching – some will accept it, others reject it. No one, even the most liberal, would argue that Jesus does indeed divide people. But it is a very long step from that to “Jesus says he wished this world were already destroyed”. Much too far, it seems to me.
Notice too that Jesus does not stand aloof from all this division: as his coming brings fire to the earth, it also brings him to a terrible baptism. I mustn’t read into it more than is there, but my reading of it is that the context of this passage precludes the meaning you put on it which (if if I’m getting your implication correctly) suggests a super-macho “Rambo” Christ who’ll finally hand out what’s deserved. (I strongly suspect that I’m exaggerating you, but this is a cheerfully robust conversation, yes?)
Whatever it means precisely, it is pretty clear that was Jesus is talking about is the division that will come because of his teaching – some will accept it, others reject it. No one, even the most liberal, would argue that Jesus does indeed divide people. But it is a very long step from that to “Jesus says he wished this world were already destroyed”. Much too far, it seems to me.
Richard, my contrarian friend! I was waiting for you to show, and, alas, you have not disappointed! I am aware that the dividing is the acceptance and rejection of the Gospel. That’s precisely what I meant in the post, and I think it’s rather obvious from the text. And the world is already destroyed, in a sense, because of the fall of God’s creation.
“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.” (Romans 8: 20-23)
As you know, the Lord God hates evil and promised not to wipe us out again (with a flood, at least) not because we deserve life, but because there are still lost souls to save. However, you do bring up a good point. If the Greek renders the verse that way, I need to research this matter further and check out a few good commentaries that have addressed the passage. Until then, I’ll let my remarks stand. I think I hit the mark pretty closely.
I’m sure you welcome views contrary to yours!
What kind of blog is this? Positions on both sides, logically asserted, with references to original sources? Respect for the opposing position as long it is presented with intellectual honesty? Just what kind of a blog are you running here, Ms. Barber, one designed for mature adults?
Better watch out, La Shawn, this thing might catch on. If you can keep the trolls from wrecking it (and while Mr. Hall might be contrary, he’s no troll)…
On the Luke 12 passage.
The Lord is speaking of the power of the Gospel. The Word of God is described as a fire in the Old Testament (in Jeremiah I believe). The same meaning can be applied here. Either the preaching of the Gospel or the defense of the gospel by God’s people is what I believe is being spoken of in Luke 12:49.
Regardless of our differences in the interpretation of this passage, you impress me again LB. You’re right, politicians, in your country as well as in mine, won’t say the name “Jesus” because it becomes a political liability. Man! Even Max Lucado avoided the name of Jesus at the RNC (not that I think highly of Lucado by any stretch of the imagination).
Oh that God were to cause our leaders to truly Fear Him. Oh that God were to give us a King Josiah!!!
Oh that God were to revive and awaken our countries!
“Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?” (Psalm 85:6)
God bless and take care,
I’m on the verge of agreeing with Rand, but I’m not quite there. Maybe it is just a slight difference in emphasis. But the “fire” of Luke 12 seems more likely to be an allusion to the fire of judgement (for example Ps 78: 21) than the fire of the word. (The references in Jeremiah are, I think, to the word of prophecy rather than the scripture but could easily be both).
This is a section of Luke’s gospel that no one can read and come away feeling comfortable! The vivid images of judgement, piled on one after the other, should stop any of us feeling complacent. Putting the passage La Shawn quotes in context (12:1 – 13:9) makes it clear that the message of judgement is irremovably part of what Jesus had to say. So I’m not being “contrary” I hope – just struggling to both better understand the scriptures myself and help others understand them too.
I’m glad Kevin doesn’t think of me as a troll – I find hiding under bridges very uncomfortable!
One thing to remember when quoting Greek “literally” is that word order doesn’t have the same impact on the meaning of a phrase that it does in English. In point of fact, words placed nearer to the start of the sentence receive greater emphasis (much in the same manner as adjectives like “very” in English). So, regardless of how you translate “fire”, it’s apparent that said fire is what Jesus intends to emphasize in that sentence.
I had always read that exclamation by Christ as a profound longing for His work to be completed, both out of a divine thirst for holiness and the fulfillment of the Father’s will, and out of a very human desire to be finished with a looming task that one knows will be arduous and awful (foreshadowings of Gethsemene?). The ultimate fulfillment of Christ’s Atonement will be nothing short of the death and resurrection of Creation itself, so in a sense La Shawn’s reading wasn’t too far off at all, really.
That’s my take on it, anyway.
Yes, Richard, I concur that the “fire” is almost certainly a reference to God’s holy judgement of all Creation. Re-reading what I wrote, I see that I didn’t make that totally clear. My bad; blame it on a long weekend with not nearly enough sleep.
Thanks for the comments, everyone! I love reading and understanding the Bible, and I have great respect for people who struggle along with me.
I had always read that exclamation by Christ as a profound longing for His work to be completed, both out of a divine thirst for holiness and the fulfillment of the Father’s will, and out of a very human desire to be finished with a looming task that one knows will be arduous and awful (foreshadowings of Gethsemene?).
That’s very well put, AWG. My quality of writing is sort of edgy, but what you just said is what I was trying to say.
We gave up our TV 2 1/2 years ago with the birth of our daughter. Now, we’re finding that not just about every trip to the movie store finds us returning empty handed. (We did recently find one that was acceptable, the movie ?The Miracle? about the U.S. Hockey team.)
So, we bought 3 seasons worth of Little House on The Prairie (we watch DVDs on our computer). We hadn’t watched them for 20+ years, so we had forgotten much of what they were like. We were surprised to find that they preached Jesus in almost every episode, and prayed before every meal. You do not frequently find that on TV anymore today. Touched by an Angel was controversial for just mentioning God. We watch them happily but are saddened by the fact that they would not be a new show today.
However, we know our job is not to redeem the culture but to redeem souls. My husband likens our society to the Titanic. We know the ship is sinking, we just have to get as many people into lifeboats as possible, and slow down the sinking process if possible so more people can be saved.
I also like Elizabeth Dole. I’m pleased that she had the courage to say what she did. Plus, she’s got a great name!
I agree that was very well put AWG. What you say makes sense and moves us forward in this conversation. Jesus is both anticipating God’s judgement and his own suffering: the two are bound together. One of the things that disturbs me when I hear some Christians talk about judgement is the barely -concealed glee that there will come a time when the sinners will get it. Jesus knows that not only is he involved in the suffering of judgement but also weeps (as the prophets did) for those who are lost.
La Shawn,
As soon as I read this post, I just knew the kind of responses you were going to get. The predictability of some people is quite amusing. Great job as usual.
barely -concealed glee
Actually, Richard, we’re all sinners. The saved are forgiven. That’s the difference. And while I don’t feel “glee” because of the impending damnation of unbelievers, Scripture speaks loudly and clearly about the desire of the saints, at least those who were martyred:
“Fifth Seal: The Cry of the Martyrs
When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.” (Revelation 6: 9-11)
It is satisfying to know that in the end, God will settle all accounts. Those whom you think are “getting away with it” in this life really are not and will find out such in the next one. A certain amount of peace does come with knowing that God will take care of all things in the end.
Wycliffe Commentary on Luke 12:49-55
I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
I am come to send fire on the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! (original translation) Our Lord realized that his mission was divisive and disturbing. He saw clearly that the cross would be a point of controversy and argument, and wished that his lifting up (John 12:32) had already been accomplished. 50. I have a baptism to be baptized with. Christ was referring to his death (cf. Mark 10:38). He felt that his power would be restricted until the work of the cross could be finished. 51. Nay; but rather division. Judaism was a family religion in which the people worshiped by households rather than as individuals. Jesus foresaw that his claims would cut across family life, and would necessitate individual decisions.
(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)
The “seperation of Church and State” comes from one called Thomas Jefferson whom in respect to the first amendment wrote,
Jefferson in the letter to Danbury Congregation.
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
It is my belief that the 1st amendment is not one dimensional, and that it was enacted for protecting both those who worship and those which if a single religion were to take greater hold of government would be descriminated and prosecuted.
LB, Strom Thurmond was their presidential candidate, Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party and formed States Rights Democratic Party. His supporters joined him within the republican party, the southern vote was lost to the Democrats.
http://www.africana.com/research/blackfacts/bl_fact_268.asp
That still doesn’t answer my question, but never mind.
Daniel,
Is that the answer to La (notice the a) Shawn’s question in another thread?
If so, you didn’t really answer it. You’ve provided a def of Dixiecrats, but little else.
Hey La Shawn, you may want to take a look at your blog. Something’s very odd here. On the front page, this article is titled “Faith Talk” and opens with a quote from Elizabeth Dole. At the bottom is a “Read the rest” link, the words “More to come…”, and the comments/permalink links. When I click on comments, I get this comment thread. Fine. But if I click on “Read the rest”, I get a different post entirely, titled “Incompatible Kerry’s Immaculate Deception” and which opens with the sentence “John Kerry should know better.”
I think Daniel’s 3:50 PM comment, and the ones answering him, were intended to go into that other thread.
Oh, I missed the part where you said you were re-posting that Kerry article. The “Read the rest” link had me fooled into thinking I was seeing a “>> Read more” link. You may want to rephrase it, as I’m sure I wasn’t the only person confused.
I’m posting this before reading everyone else’s posts just to keep my head clear.
Flipping channels last Friday, I came across BookTV on C-Span, and they had on some professor who wrote some anti-Cheney book – the details really aren’t important. What was interesting to me was that the room was full of real, bona-fide liberals who truly believe in what the Democratic party now stands for: abortion rights, world peace under the auspices of the UN, atheism, environmental rights over all other considerations, etc. Anyway, because they were not being challenged by conservatives, they were calmly eloquent. And though I disagreed with everything they said, I respect their right to have different beliefs. Two things that were said regarded separation of the Christian church from state (isn’t that what it truly is?). First, an audience member said that he was disturbed by the fact that policy was now being made by Christians who believe that abortion is somehow a sin against God. This was a great reality check for me; I wasn’t aware that there was an argument that abortion was okay with God. Second, an audience member said it bothered him that Christians were in power because they look forward to war because it means the Second Coming is at hand, and he believed they would speed it up so Jesus would come again. That blew me away big time, that Christians could be so scary. I guess Christian emphasis on the suffering of Christ as atonement for our sins might scare them a little bit, too. So I wanted to pass that along here just to give you a little insight into what is so frightening for liberals about us nutty ol’ Christians.
Comments on this entry are closed.