One Lord, One Faith, One Nation?

By Bern Velasco

If you’ve spent any time in a conservative church in America around the 4th of July you’ve probably noticed the sacred connection between our faith and our body politic. Perhaps you've felt the uproar over the United States’ progressive removal of faith symbols from public life or our president's declaration that the U.S. is not a Christian Nation and Congressman Forbes' response.

But before we rush to defend our Christian nation against the pressing forces of secularism we should first define Christian nation. Do we simply mean "A lot of Christians live here"? Do we mean "The US symbolically uses the Bible and other Christian forms on a regular basis"? Or do we mean, "The United States of America has a particular relationship with God similar to Israel in the Old Testament"? I must reject the third, the US has no covenant with God. The second is inevitably reduced to lip-service since the majority of our leaders and nation do not appear to follow Christ. The first is an ever weakening proposition as our younger generations become more secular. Furthermore, is self-identification as a Christian nation even sufficient to warrant that designation?

While we could explore each of these definitions further, it would be more helpful to consider our founding documents themselves and determine if the ideas that constitute our nation are truly Christian. If you examine the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution you will find the official US position is that governments (not the notion of government) are established by men, derive their authority from men, and are man's instrument for order and justice. Contrast this to Romans 13.1-7 where governments (again, governments, not the notion of government) are established by God, derive their authority from God and are God's instrument for order and justice.

While stimulating, the more pressing question pertains to the true Christian Nation. Notice the language of 1 Peter 2.9: "But you [Gentile believers scattered throughout Asia Minor] are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION. According to BDAG, Race [γενος genos] refers to large and small groups with common ancestry and traits. Nation [εθνος ethnos] refers to a body of people united by kinship, culture, and traditions. People [λαος laos] refers to a body of people with a common, specific territory and traditions. Should we not conclude the true Christian nation is the Body of Christ?

Discussion Question: What would we lose if the U.S. were no longer considered a Christian nation? What might be gained?

Bern Velasco is Ryan's buddy from Seminary and the College and Young Adults Pastor of Hessel Church in Sebastopol, CA. On his blog (Everything's Hebel) you can listen to a message delivered on this subject.

'Pro-Choice Christian' an Oxymoron?

Our current president is a pro-choice Democrat. One day, after President Obama was elected, I was in a prayer meeting. As we were sharing requests, one friend suggested that we "pray for the salvation of our president." I mentioned that our president claims Christianity as his religion. "Why don't you think President Obama is a Christian?" I asked. "He is pro-choice. He is obviously not a believer."

Following the logic here, these things seem to be suggested in that comment: 1) Pro-life-ism is the only legitimate Christian position.  2) Therefore every true Christian must be pro-life. 3) So then, a pro-choice person is not Christian, because being both pro-choice and Christian would be an oxymoron.

Here are my questions: Is it incompatible to be both pro-choice and Christian? Or is it possible to be both? Is a pro-life stance on abortion one of the "essentials" upon which we must have unity?

Preemptive Notice: I do not want to hear about whether you think President Obama is a Christian or not. That is not for us to debate or decide. Second, I do not want to hear your argument for or against either the pro-life or the pro-choice position. Finally, yes, I am pro-life. You don't need to try to persuade me.

The Christian Alternative

College and seminary professors are often in the habit of posting interesting or funny items related to their areas of study on their office doors. Of course, the funny posts are often only funny to those with PhD's; the rest of us just scratch our heads and try to pretend like we get it. I remember one professor in particular had a fascinating chart posted on his door. It had two columns, one labeled "If you like..." the other labeled "Then try..." The "If you like..." column contained the names of at least 200 mainstream music bands. The "Then try..." column contained the names of Christian bands that, I guess, sound comparable. The chart, of course, was meant to offer a Christian alternative to the mainstream music.

The Christian Alternative is present not only in the music world, but in several arenas. A few notable alternatives are bookstores, coffee houses, movies, TV channels, action heroes (Go Bible Man!), schools, and phone directories. Undoubtedly, others could be added here. The idea of the Christian alternative seems to be that believers are better off if they have less input from the world and more input from Christian sources.

But...Is that true? Does using the Christian alternative produce godlier, more Christ-like believers?

As I think about this issue, I can see two opposing realities colliding. On the one hand, the Christian alternative seems to feed an impulse toward separatist fundamentalism. On the other hand, as a parent, I really do not want my son to grow up and be more American than Christian. As a friend of mine puts it, "When my kid leaves my house, I want him to love Christ more than he loves the world" (Daren Busenitz).

My instinct is to lean away from using the Christian alternative in most areas. I am all for Christians using their gifts in art, music, business, or any other arena. I am not for Christians creating an alternative by intentionally imitating successful 'secular' ventures.

How about you?

Welcome!

Welcome to my new blog.

An oft quoted dictum in theology states, "In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in everything charity." This blog is about enjoying the liberty of the non-essentials, matters of taste I call them.

For many Christians, it is difficult to get a sense of what is essential and what is not. I certainly include myself in this. As an urban church-planter, I am constantly thinking about contextualizing the gospel. My hope is that together we can both understand the essential core that is the gospel, and discuss legitimate differences in the non-essentials.

Each week I will post some reflections on a non-essential Christian issue. These issues will range from the seemingly trivial to the extremely serious. I will ask readers to engage the issue from their point of view. My hope is that several different viewpoints will be expressed. Through this sort of discussion perhaps we can all come to clearer understanding of the beautiful variety within the church and fulfill the final phrase of the famous dictum, in everything charity.

In order for this to be helpful two things need to happen: 1) I need to come up with quality topics for discussion. 2) People with differing ideas need to respond and interact. I will try to fulfill my end. I am asking those of you out there who have opinions, please respond!

I will be posting every Monday afternoon. I am looking for responses not only from those with seminary degrees, but from anyone with a thought, idea, or opinion. I am looking forward to hearing your ideas!