The book of Joshua describes the Israelites as they invade the Promised Land and take control of it. One of the significant aspects of the book of Joshua is the portrayal of God as the one who makes the invasion and conquest possible (Josh 1:2-9; 6:2). In other words, it is because God is on the side of the Israelites and because the Israelites put their trust in God that they are successful in taking over the land from the other people already living there.
Particularly after 9/11, there has been a renewed nationalism in the United States, a mindset espoused by many that the United States will prevail over evil because we are a Christian nation, united under God. When President Bush declared war on Iraq he gained a great deal of support by playing into this mindset, and in some sense perpetuating it. All of the "Middle East" was defined as the "axis of evil," Suddam Hussein was portrayed as the devil incarnate, and ordinary citizens became even more wary of anyone with dark hair and dark skin. Anyone of Middle Eastern descent, real or imagined, became the target of scrutiny. Headlines splattered newspapers and magazines indicating that the USA would win this war not because of our military power, but because as a nation we trust in God to be on our side. In other words, God's name is invoked as a synonym for security.
Our topic this week in class has been the historical context of the Bible. We have discussed the geography and the history, and we have seen that, according to the Bible, the Promised Land was given by God and secured by God. It is only after many generations of unfaithfulness that the people were exiled from their land.
When we think of these two ideas in tandem, it is possible to see how many people could believe that because the US is a "Christian nation" we will win the war in Iraq. The questions to ponder are these: Is God on our side? Are we a Christian nation? Can the Bible be used to support our presence in Iraq? Why or why not?
1.24.2007
1.16.2007
The Bible Says . . .
The three small words "the Bible says . . ." have sparked much debate within and between Christian churches. For example, "the Bible says" that God created male and female at the same time (Gen. 1:27), but in addition, "the Bible says" that God created Adam first and then created Eve out of Adam's rib (Gen. 2:18-23). "The Bible says" that Noah took two of every kind of animal onto the ark (Gen. 6:19) and "the Bible says" that Noah took 7 pairs of every clean animal and 1 pair of every unclean animal onto the ark (Gen. 7:2). So what does the Bible really say about creation, or about the flood, or about anything else for that matter?
When people disagree about what the Bible says, or when they disagree about how to figure out what the Bible says about any given topic, division happens (most of the time anyway). Martin Luther unknowingly started the Reformation when he disagreed with how his Catholic Church was reading the Bible. The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LCMS) split from the predecessors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) because of differing opinions on what the Bible says about who should preach the word and the place of women in the church. Many churches in the ELCA have recently broken away from the ELCA because of differences about what the Bible says about homosexuality and relations with other church bodies. How can we know for sure what the Bible really means when it speaks? How can the Bible be authoritative for life and faith when it seems that everyone has a different opinion about what it says? What do you think?
When people disagree about what the Bible says, or when they disagree about how to figure out what the Bible says about any given topic, division happens (most of the time anyway). Martin Luther unknowingly started the Reformation when he disagreed with how his Catholic Church was reading the Bible. The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LCMS) split from the predecessors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) because of differing opinions on what the Bible says about who should preach the word and the place of women in the church. Many churches in the ELCA have recently broken away from the ELCA because of differences about what the Bible says about homosexuality and relations with other church bodies. How can we know for sure what the Bible really means when it speaks? How can the Bible be authoritative for life and faith when it seems that everyone has a different opinion about what it says? What do you think?
1.05.2007
The Ten Commandments in a courthouse: It's unconstitutional if we are serious about the first amendment which declares that the federal government shall not establish any religion. But how big a deal is it? Conservatives harp on such things in election years and try to win votes, but I ask you this: How many people do you know who can actually recite the ten commandments?
Prayer in the schools: It's also unconstitutional. If a prayer is led by a teacher or student in a classroom in which all are expected to participate, it is unconstitutional. It is the establismhemnt of a religion. Any prayer is going to be a particular prayer. The Hail Mary is a Catholic prayer. A prayer to Brahma is a Hindu prayer. Every prayer is going to reflect the pray-er's religios perspective. If one could construct a prayer so generic that it offended or favored no one, it would be so bland it wouldn't be worth praying anyway. And of course, any official prayer in school violates the right of an antheist not to believe. If we value religious freedom, we must let it remain free, and never pressure anyone to particiapte in the public schools. On the other hand, a student is guaranteed the right to pray privately in school. That is constitutional. Students can organize and have a prayer group or bible study group at school as long as participation is voluntary. Baccalaureate services are constitutional if they are voluntary. Prayer is allowed in school. Coerced prayer is not.
Saying the pledge: It is interesting to note that it was a Baptist minister who wrote the Pledge of Alligiance, and in the original version it did not say "under God." The pledge was written after the civil war to insist that we were still "one nation, indivisible." Those were the imporant words in the pledge. In the 1950's, during the cold war, the words "under God," were added. It was a way to distinguish the U.S. from the Soviets and atheistic communism. The grandchildren of the author of the pledge protested the addition of those words. They wrote to congress and said their grandfather deeply respected the separation of church and state and would not have wanted those words added. They were added anyway.
Using a nickle that says, "In God We Trust:" It's ironic and a bit of a joke. Most America's trust much more in their money than in God anyway.
The president being sworn into office with a hand on the bible is an old tradition that continues to stick around. It's justified under the "Lemon Law" (something I'm not going to get into now). What is interesting is that a newly elected congressional representative from St. Paul, Minnesota has asked to used a Qu'ran from Thomas Jefferson's personal library for his ceremonial swearing in. (Members of the House of Representatives aren't actually sworn in using Bibles. They simply raise their right hands and take the oath together.)
It seems to me that the line between church and state is not so much blurred as it is simply misunderstood. The First Amendment of the constitution was written to protect religion from the state. throughout most of our history, however, it has been interpreted backwards and has been used to protect the state from religion. If you'll remember from your history classes some who came and settled these shores did so to escape from places where the governemtn dictated how religion should be practiced. In this new land, religion could be practiced freely. The authors of our constitution were keenly aware of that history and wanted this to be a land where the government would not interfere with relgious practice. Religion was meant to be a matter of individual freedom. It was expected to be in ingredient in American society, politics, and culture. It was simply meant to be excercised without government interference. The constitution did not intend to keep religious viewpoints out of political arguments. In fact, by protecting religion, the authors thought that constitution would insure the religious voice a place in debates about public policy.
The Bible does exercise some infulence in our society, but it seems to me it is largely symbolic. Most Americans are Biblically illiterate--even those who are in church everyweek. The voices in the media that do use the Bible use it irresponsibly. Things are quoted out of context and the message of the whole Bible is not usually considered. It seems to me most who talk about the Bible have a position on an issue and then go to the Bible and search for a verse to support their position. It should work the other way around. One should first study the Bible, the whole Bible, and then bring what one has learned into thinking about contemporary issues. Most of the way the Bible is used is society today is bad from my perspective. It is irresponsible and unfaithful.
Prayer in the schools: It's also unconstitutional. If a prayer is led by a teacher or student in a classroom in which all are expected to participate, it is unconstitutional. It is the establismhemnt of a religion. Any prayer is going to be a particular prayer. The Hail Mary is a Catholic prayer. A prayer to Brahma is a Hindu prayer. Every prayer is going to reflect the pray-er's religios perspective. If one could construct a prayer so generic that it offended or favored no one, it would be so bland it wouldn't be worth praying anyway. And of course, any official prayer in school violates the right of an antheist not to believe. If we value religious freedom, we must let it remain free, and never pressure anyone to particiapte in the public schools. On the other hand, a student is guaranteed the right to pray privately in school. That is constitutional. Students can organize and have a prayer group or bible study group at school as long as participation is voluntary. Baccalaureate services are constitutional if they are voluntary. Prayer is allowed in school. Coerced prayer is not.
Saying the pledge: It is interesting to note that it was a Baptist minister who wrote the Pledge of Alligiance, and in the original version it did not say "under God." The pledge was written after the civil war to insist that we were still "one nation, indivisible." Those were the imporant words in the pledge. In the 1950's, during the cold war, the words "under God," were added. It was a way to distinguish the U.S. from the Soviets and atheistic communism. The grandchildren of the author of the pledge protested the addition of those words. They wrote to congress and said their grandfather deeply respected the separation of church and state and would not have wanted those words added. They were added anyway.
Using a nickle that says, "In God We Trust:" It's ironic and a bit of a joke. Most America's trust much more in their money than in God anyway.
The president being sworn into office with a hand on the bible is an old tradition that continues to stick around. It's justified under the "Lemon Law" (something I'm not going to get into now). What is interesting is that a newly elected congressional representative from St. Paul, Minnesota has asked to used a Qu'ran from Thomas Jefferson's personal library for his ceremonial swearing in. (Members of the House of Representatives aren't actually sworn in using Bibles. They simply raise their right hands and take the oath together.)
It seems to me that the line between church and state is not so much blurred as it is simply misunderstood. The First Amendment of the constitution was written to protect religion from the state. throughout most of our history, however, it has been interpreted backwards and has been used to protect the state from religion. If you'll remember from your history classes some who came and settled these shores did so to escape from places where the governemtn dictated how religion should be practiced. In this new land, religion could be practiced freely. The authors of our constitution were keenly aware of that history and wanted this to be a land where the government would not interfere with relgious practice. Religion was meant to be a matter of individual freedom. It was expected to be in ingredient in American society, politics, and culture. It was simply meant to be excercised without government interference. The constitution did not intend to keep religious viewpoints out of political arguments. In fact, by protecting religion, the authors thought that constitution would insure the religious voice a place in debates about public policy.
The Bible does exercise some infulence in our society, but it seems to me it is largely symbolic. Most Americans are Biblically illiterate--even those who are in church everyweek. The voices in the media that do use the Bible use it irresponsibly. Things are quoted out of context and the message of the whole Bible is not usually considered. It seems to me most who talk about the Bible have a position on an issue and then go to the Bible and search for a verse to support their position. It should work the other way around. One should first study the Bible, the whole Bible, and then bring what one has learned into thinking about contemporary issues. Most of the way the Bible is used is society today is bad from my perspective. It is irresponsible and unfaithful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)