As iron sharpens iron,
one person sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)
“Today, President Barack Obama continued the tradition of observing Religious Freedom Day with a presidential proclamation. But this year, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty critiqued his use of “freedom of worship” rhetoric—a debate that first arose in 2010.”
“Hobby Lobby discovered a way to shift the plan year for its employee health insurance, thus postponing the effective date of the mandate for several months.”
Russel Moore: “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”
“Parliament is impatient,” Fittall warned. “Unless the Church of England can show very quickly that it’s capable of sorting itself out, we shall be into a major constitutional crisis in Church-State relations, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with confidence.”
This post continues my chapter-by-chapter review of Republocrat, by Carl Trueman (Part 1, Part 2). The chapter in focus here is the second, entitled The Slipperiness of Secularization. It’s thesis is that the US may seem to be less secularized than Britain, but probably isn’t. The reason is that here in the US, the church itself has become secularized in many ways. Hence, even though church attendance and religious language are far more common here than in the UK, these do not reflect genuine Christian faith and practice. To put it another way, Britain only seems more secular because it is more authentic about its unbelief rather than dressing it up like we do here.
After brief introductory paragraphs, Trueman develops the chapter under these headings:
“The evening delivered both earnest prayers and Tea Party policy, and produced something else: a sometimes-dissonant mix of religion and politics.”
If you are a believer in the Lord Jesus as your Savior, I ask you the following question: “Are you a Christian American or are you an American Christian?” You may answer with some bit of perplexity, “What’s the difference?” Well, pondering the answer to that question involves more than just playing a game with words. In the phrase “Christian American” the operative word is “American” and the modifier is “Christian.” In the phrase “American Christian” the operative word is “Christian” and the modifier is “American.” Is there a difference here worth noting?
For years now some patriotic Christians have proudly borne the title “Christian American” without realizing the subtle way in which they may unintentionally be denying their calling as “citizens of heaven” (see Phil. 3:20 and I Pet. 2:11). A true believer has been translated from this earthly “kingdom” into a “heavenly” kingdom (Col. 1:13). That does not mean that we should drop out of this world. We are to submit to the government, pay it our taxes and obey its laws. Jesus told to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matt 22:21). Admittedly, it is not always easy to decide where the line is between our duty to the government and our duty to our Lord. But one thing we cannot deny—our allegiance first and foremost is to the Sovereign King of Heaven. That is why we are Christians who happen to be Americans (or Canadians or Israelis) not Americans who happen to be Christians.
It is encouraging to know that this is not a new problem but one that was faced by Jews and Christians in Biblical days as well. During the first century A.D., the relationship of a believer in the one true God to the ruling power, i.e. Rome, was an issue that divided the Jewish people who first heard the message of Jesus. Understanding this ancient problem may help us to more intelligently decide what should be our duty to our own “Caesar,” whatever be the country where we live.
Discussion