Here is a good article for reference on secular journalist's opinions regarding religion and politics in America:
Time's Article - God or Country?
I think most Evangelicals will be surprised to hear that people expect us to put our allegiance to our country before our allegiance to our God, and I am personally surprised that it is at all surprising. Isn't it common sense? And, really, what thinker who acknowledged the existence of God would disagree? I can think of none.
Further funnies: liberal Christians (coincidentally: most mainstream Protestants - almost all liberals - said America had a higher allegiance than God) are always at Evangelicals for their high esteem of country. The fact is, at a grassroots level, we are very patriotic, but appropriately so. Allegiance is given where it is due, and enthusiastically and fully.
So, David Van Biema, you have no reason to worry. There will never be an American theocracy. There will be Christian challenges based on revealed truth in response to American follies. And perhaps that worries you just as much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
How does not having to worry about a theocracy follow from being able to distinguish between allegiance to God and State, and half choosing God?
Also, the large percentage of Christians who say country first is kinda disturbing.
I think he is worried about a theocracy (see article) because of a perceived confusion of God and state - therefore a distinction will prevent such confusion and thereby prevent a theocracy - whether or not this is true is not really my concern.
I have my own reasons for not fearing an American theocracy.
Agreed re: country first people. It really actually fairly blows my mind that any professing Christian would say that.
Oh right. Come on Eric, read the whole article first.
The author thought that American's may think people who put God first would want a theocracy. But Mohler said Christians accept the constitutional rights as being given by God.
But, I am not so sure that this gives Biema no reason to worry. Christians have historically adopted both the single headed and double headed eagle. Plus, if the constitution is fundamentally based on Divine revelation, then who better to rule America than those who believe in the more complete Divine revelation?
Hmm, this is interesting. I need to give this question a bit more thought. I'm sure it has to do with the centrality of the human heart and the fact that we are all sinful. I'm also seeing the outline of an argument that only those who believe in an Invisible Church could really accept a seperation of Church and State. Otherwise, if the structure of an institutional church corresponds to the moral development and knowledge of divine revelation in its members, then it seems that you'd want the person at the top of the institutional church to rule the nation as well. Hmm again.
Post a Comment