Francis of Assisi

A Prayer:

Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy.

O, Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love; For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; it is in dying that we are born again to eternal life.

Some Admonitions:

The deeds you do may be the only sermon some persons will hear today.

We have been called to heal wounds, to unite what has fallen apart, and to bring home those who have lost their way. 

A Scripture for Whatever

A little over a week ago, Banned by HWA posted a piece by me which challenged CGI Pastor Bill Watson's assertion that it may be appropriate for Christians to offer imprecatory (cursing) prayers to God. A few days later, the same blog posted a response to Bill's thesis written by CGI's Vance Stinson which also came to the conclusion that such prayers are inappropriate for Christians. Not surprisingly, one individual posted a lengthy comment in support of Bill's position on imprecatory prayers, and he/she referenced a number of scriptures to buttress their argument. After this exchange, however, Dennis Diehl (the resident atheist over at Banned) observed: "Let's face it. There's a scripture and explanation for just about anything one wants to do or not do."

Is Dennis correct? Is it possible to interpret Scripture to justify almost any belief we might harbor? Of course, most Fundamentalists would say that Mr. Diehl's position is preposterous. For them, every word of Scripture is inspired by God, and any problems which we have in interpreting those documents are of our own making. Nevertheless, many of us look at the wide diversity of opinion about the meaning(s) of various scriptures within the ranks of the Fundamentalists and wonder if Dennis might not have a point! To be fair, it does seem that various people have ascribed profoundly different meanings to the same set of scriptures (the above-mentioned posts and comments being a case in point).

Even so, I believe that these differences can be traced back to false assumptions about Scripture, and the faulty principles which have guided their interpretation(s) of Scripture. Many Fundamentalists begin with the premise that God is the real author of all Scripture, and that it is error free as a consequence of this fact. Hence, any scripture which appears to contradict another scripture is only an illusion. In other words, there has to be some way to explain and/or reconcile the apparent contradiction. For many of these folks, the Bible is like a giant jigsaw puzzle, and there MUST be only one way to put all of the pieces together and create a coherent picture.

Some years ago, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association posted a piece by Janet Chismar on How to Interpret the Bible. However, while some of the points which Chismar makes about the proper way to interpret Scripture make sense, many of the principles are based on the assumptions already noted above. To summarize, Chismar identifies six principles that Christians should employ to interpret Scripture: 1) "Remember that context rules," 2) "Always seek the full counsel of the Word of God," 3) "Remember that Scripture will never contradict Scripture," 4) "Don't base your convictions on an obscure passage of Scripture," 5) "Interpret Scripture literally," and 6) "Look for the single meaning of the passage." Now, I can get behind principles 1, 2 and 4; but I see real problems with 3, 5 and 6!

Remember those assumptions of Fundamentalists that I mentioned earlier? The fact is that Scripture was always a joint project. In other words, sure, God was doing the inspiration; but there were also a bunch of different humans (over an extended period of time) who actually did the writing, editing and deciding about what was and wasn't appropriate to include in the Bible. Hence, the Bible is a collection of different perspectives on many different issues, and that reality is reflected in its pages. The fact is that there are a number of different writing styles and genres of literature present in the collection of writings which we call The Holy Bible.

As a consequence of these facts, the various parts of the book do NOT always agree with each other. Add to all of this the fact that NONE of the human authors of the various writings which constitute our Bible had the advantage of modern scientific and historical understandings, and we begin to understand that many of those apparent errors and contradictions have an excellent chance of being real errors and contradictions! Hence, we can see that any assertion that "Scripture never contradicts Scripture" is an exercise in circular reasoning (in other words, faulty logic).

So, what do we do with this reality? Let's take a closer look at some of those principles of interpretation that make sense. If we understand that context encompasses much more than just the surrounding scriptures, we will look at things like the social, political, economic and religious circumstances which helped to shape the human author of Scripture. With this information in hand, we can often discern some of the things that probably motivated and/or influenced the author to write the things that he/she wrote. Thus, if the author has clearly contradicted some other passage(s) of Scripture, then we must take a closer look at what a preponderance of the evidence indicates within the context of the "full counsel of the Word of God."

Moreover, as we have already acknowledged the presence of very different genres within the book (e.g., prose, poetry, prophetic, apocalyptic, metaphorical, etc.), we must also acknowledge that the universal employment of a literal interpretation of any given passage will inevitably sometimes lead to a flawed understanding of the intended meaning. Also, with such a diverse and complex collection of writings, it is hoped that most of us can see that it is entirely plausible and possible for there to be multiple layers of meaning for some passages.

Finally, I would say that there is another very important principle of interpretation which most Fundamentalists never mention in their discourses on the topic: For Christians, ALL Scripture MUST be interpreted through the lens of the life, teachings, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ! In other words, for Christians, Christ's perspective MUST trump all other perspectives (Moses included). This includes everything in the Torah (e.g., laws, rituals, sacrifices/offerings, Holy Days, etc.), the Prophets, and the other Writings of the Old Testament. Now, I'm sure Mr. Diehl would tell us that "a scripture cannot mean what it was never intended to mean," but a Christian who ignores this principle is almost certain to fail in their efforts to properly interpret some passage. However, we should also note that this principle CANNOT be seen to excuse the clear misappropriation of some Old Testament Scripture by one of the human authors of the New Testament.

Now, will the application of these principles automatically result in a perfect and unanimous understanding of Scripture by all Christians? The short answer is NO. Like the human authors of Scripture, we are all imperfect. Hence, it is very important that we all acknowledge the distinct possibility/probability that we will still misinterpret some passage(s) of Scripture. In fact, even the Apostle Paul said that we (Christians) currently "see through a glass darkly." As a consequence, it is also wise to consult the conclusions which other folks have reached regarding a particular scripture. In other words, I may have missed something that someone else caught. Thus, if we allow for our own imperfections and follow the principles outlined above, we are more likely to be among those who correctly handle the word of truth. 

The Myth of A Righteous America

Many ACOG leaders believe they have a solemn duty to warn Americans away from their sins as a nation. Of course, a large part of their motivation for doing so is based on the fact that they believe that the people of the United States are the descendants of one of the "lost" ten tribes of Israel. However, even if we remove this strange and discredited doctrine from the mix, the truth is that most ACOGs would probably continue to preach their warnings to America and urge "God's People" to repent. Why? Because they believe that the founding and subsequent governance of the United States was inspired by Almighty God!

Hence, for many of these folks, the former righteousness of the United States is a given. For them, not only did God found America to keep his promises to Abraham, he also directly inspired the Founding Fathers to establish this republic and its commerce and governance on Divine principles! Indeed, they look upon the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as Divinely appointed documents. For them, these documents are almost on a par with Scripture, and the Founding Fathers who fashioned them are regarded with the same reverence and esteem that most Christians reserve for Christ's apostles!

Now, while a majority of Americans probably do believe that God had a hand in inspiring those men and the documents which they produced (and with some justification), they also clearly see that those men were flawed, and that many of their notions about commerce and governance did NOT originate in the mind of God. After all, we must remember that the United States was fashioned from a system which embraced imperialism, colonialism and mercantilism. Likewise, we must never forget that English settlers appropriated the lands and resources of the original inhabitants of North America and enslaved their African brethren to work it. As high-minded as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were, they both owned large numbers of slaves. Moreover, although Jefferson and Franklin were both brilliant men, their extramarital activities were legendary even in their own time! Finally, most of these Christian men subscribed to religious beliefs that would be very foreign and often repulsive to today's Fundamentalist/Literalist/Evangelical believers.

Hence, while it may be accurate to look back on a time when divorce was rare and church attendance was almost universal, it would be highly inaccurate to suppose that the folks of those times were somehow more moral/righteous than are the folks of today. We must not forget that things like domestic abuse/violence, alcoholism, land speculation and greed, ignorance, lack of sanitation, wanton exploitation and waste of resources etc. were widespread/common features of days gone by. Moreover, there has NEVER been a time in human history when folks didn't lie, cheat, betray and kill each other! Hence, while some of the vices of times past may have been different from those of modern times, the notion that there ever existed some golden age of virtue/righteousness becomes highly suspect and problematic.

In other words, America has always had MANY sins which could/did evoke calls for repentance. And, like ALL of the other nations of the world, America has developed a governing, economic and military system that incorporates more of the features of Babylon and Rome than anything that resembles a Godly or righteous system. Thus, the notion that America has fallen from some previously perfect/more perfect state is shown to be absurd on its face. It is pure fantasy to suppose that America has degenerated from some golden age - that it has somehow turned its back on God in the last two or three generations. The fact is that, from its foundations, America has been juggling MANY sins. Indeed, it's hard to imagine anything more heinous than murdering an indigenous people and stealing their lands - unless one counts our original sin: SLAVERY!

Sure, America is an economic and military powerhouse. However, as the old saying goes: "Might does NOT make right!" Wealth and resources do not equal righteousness, and they are NOT a definitive sign of God's favor! The truth is that sometimes the wicked prosper, and the righteous are oppressed. What about you? Are you a patriotic citizen of God's Kingdom, or are you a patriot of the United States of America? And, if you're thinking to answer "both," you may want to rethink your priorities.

Is there any good in this world?

After making the points that I've been making about a Christian's responsibility to avoid becoming a part of this world's human systems, some will inevitably throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Yes, there is a great deal that is wrong with this world, and that should be avoided by Christians. Nevertheless, it is also clear that this present world has a number of features that are very good!

Indeed, after every act of creation enumerated in the first chapter of Genesis, we are told: "And God saw that it was good." Likewise, when everything was finished, we are told: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Moreover, as "everything" which God had created is encompassed by this language (light, darkness, sky, hydrologic cycle, oceans, land, plants, animals, humans), we are forced to conclude that ALL of those things were/are very good.

And, if we focus our attention exclusively on what is revealed in the first three chapters of the book of Genesis about the human portion of that creation, we are forced to conclude that humans are NOT inherently evil. In fact, if we stick to the text and avoid reading our own notions into what is revealed there in black and white, we see that evil entered into the human experience through the lies of the Serpent, the choices that the humans made for themselves, and engaging in sinful behaviors (doing those things that were contrary to God's instructions). In other words, God did NOT make humans evil.

In this connection, we should also note that there are a great many scriptures which speak in very positive terms about the God-given capabilities of humankind (e.g. the ability to imagine, create, fashion). In short, God has distributed a whole host of talents to the humans which he created. And there is also the phenomenon of Divine inspiration of humankind. Of course, we all recognize that there has been a great deal of spiritual inspiration down through the millennia of human existence, but there has also been the inspiration of human emotions like love, kindness, compassion, and empathy. Moreover, many of us have discerned God's inspiration in various areas of human endeavor like art, music, literature, architecture, science, etc.

Hence, it would be very inaccurate/misleading to characterize everything in the present world as evil. An oak tree is a good and beautiful thing. There is much to admire in some of the music of Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, The Beatles and John Denver. Likewise, more than a few of us have found great joy and benefit in the discoveries and inventions of science. Thus, we must conclude that any blanket condemnation of all that currently exists as a part of this world as evil is obviously wrong! Moreover, we know that Paul instructed the Christians at Philippi to focus on the good (Philippians 4:8). To be sure, there is a lot to avoid/shun in this world; but there's a whole lot of good around us as well (and I'm thinking it's probably a sin not to acknowledge that stuff too). What do you think?

Letting God Decide

In the second and third chapters of the book of Genesis, we find two trees mentioned: a "tree of life" and a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil."  Interestingly, we are told that God had planted a garden and stocked it with a wide variety of fruit bearing trees and gave his human creations permission to eat the fruit of every tree, with the notable exception of one. Indeed, we are told that God warned the first human: "You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden— except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die." Unfortunately, most of us our familiar with the story about how the Serpent persuaded Eve to eat the forbidden fruit by suggesting that "your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil.” She, in turn, eventually persuaded her husband to join her in eating the fruit, and the rest is history. From God's perspective, the humans had been given the opportunity to choose to follow his instructions and freely partake of the fruit of the tree which represented life, but the humans unceremoniously declined his offer and chose another path.

Interestingly, this same theme is repeated over and over again throughout Scripture. In fact, in that same book (Genesis) we read that God promised great blessings to Abraham if he would only choose to follow God's instructions! Likewise, we are told that God presented the same offer to the Israelites. In the thirtieth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, we read: "Now listen! Today I am giving you a choice between life and death, between prosperity and disaster. For I command you this day to love the Lord your God and to keep his commands, decrees, and regulations by walking in his ways. If you do this, you will live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you and the land you are about to enter and occupy. But if your heart turns away and you refuse to listen, and if you are drawn away to serve and worship other gods, then I warn you now that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live a long, good life in the land you are crossing the Jordan to occupy. Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live!" (Verses 15-19)

Moreover, as I mentioned in several of the posts which preceded this one, early Christians believed that people had a choice between two ways: The way through Jesus Christ which represented LIFE, and the way of sin against God which ended in DEATH. Indeed, in the gospel of John, the founder of their religion had proclaimed that he was "the way, the truth, and the life." Likewise, in the final book of the New Testament, Christians are contrasted with everyone else who has chosen this world's systems as influenced and deceived by that same old Serpent referenced back in the very first book of the Bible. Hence, we can see that this theme of choosing God's way and life or deciding to go one's own way and end up dead is something of a universal theme in the Bible.

At first glance, the choice seems stark and easy. We simply cannot fathom just how foolish Adam and Eve turned out to be - How could they have decided to reject God's way and the opportunity which that choice represented? However, if we take a little time to stand back and look at the situation, we must all inevitably come to the conclusion that each and every one of us has faced the exact same dilemma that Adam and Eve faced in the garden. In a real sense, each and every human who has ever lived must someday choose between life and death. We can drive in a direction of our own choice and making, OR in the words of an old Country tune, we can let "Jesus take the wheel."

At some point, we begin to understand that we must surrender our choices to God - to let him "take the wheel" and direct our path. Over time, we see how many of our own choices have turned to ashes in our hands and led us (and/or those we care about) to disaster and/or sorrow. In one of my comments on another blog, I recently quoted a pertinent observation on this subject by the famous fantasy novelist, J.R.R. Tolkien. He wrote: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." Only God is omniscient. Only God has the necessary foresight to see the possible consequences of some action. In the book of Proverbs, we read: "There is a path before each person that seems right, but it ends in death." (Proverbs 14:12)

Jesus instructed his disciples not to obsess and worry about what was around the next curve or behind the next door. He pointed out how little real foresight or control that they had at their disposal, which made all of their worrying wasted effort. And, finally, one of his disciples, a man named James (perhaps his own brother) once wrote: "Look here, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we are going to a certain town and will stay there a year. We will do business there and make a profit.' How do you know what your life will be like tomorrow? Your life is like the morning fog—it’s here a little while, then it’s gone. What you ought to say is, 'If the Lord wants us to, we will live and do this or that.' Otherwise, you are boasting about your own pretentious plans, and all such boasting is evil." (James 4:13-16)

The book of Hebrews talks about a Sabbath rest for Christians - a rest from our own ways. Maybe it's time for all of us to let "Jesus take the wheel." Maybe it's time to choose God's way (LOVE) and let go of our own choices and decisions. What do you think?

 

Babylon as a prophetic template

Why? Why did John go to what we now refer to as the first four chapters of the Book of Daniel and the Kingdom of Babylon for so much of the imagery which he used in his Apocalypse? (Which is not meant to suggest that he didn't use other parts of the book.)

Most of the folks who have studied the book of Revelation have recognized these elements which the author pulled from the Old Testament prophet, but I sometimes wonder if many of them have actually given much thought as to why John was so comfortable with this imagery. First, let's begin with the obvious: For John, the Rome of his own day was the very image of the Babylon outlined in these first four chapters of the book of Daniel. When he looked at the power, reach and influence of Rome on all aspects of life in the world known to him, the Babylon of Daniel offered the perfect template for his own time (and whatever would inevitably someday follow the Roman Empire).

After all, the chapters of Daniel which deal with Nebuchadnezzar, his impact on Judah, Daniel and his friends, and what all of those things revealed about the Babylonian Empire as a whole have proved to be a timeless and universal model of human governance on a grand scale. Indeed, all of the elements of all subsequent kingdoms and empires are right there!

Like the Roman emperors, Nebuchadnezzar was synonymous with his own empire and his word was law. The book begins with his great army besieging Jerusalem and ultimately conquering the Kingdom of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar is supreme in power and authority. He ordered the removal of King Jehoiakim and promptly appropriated all of the Temple's furnishings for his own use. Finally, Nebuchadnezzar took the flower of Judah's nobility and provided for their training/indoctrination and absorption into his own state.

In the second and third chapters of the book, we learn that Nebuchadnezzar relied on a vast arsenal of HUMAN expertise and advisers. Moreover, Daniel's interpretation of the king's dream (Daniel 2:25-45) makes very clear that the statue which he had observed in his dream was meant to represent him, his kingdom, and some of the kingdoms that would follow his throughout history. And, when Nebuchadnezzar builds a statue of his own and commands his subjects to worship it in a manner also specified by him, we see that the king's reach extends even into the religious beliefs and practices of his subjects.

Finally, Daniel also starkly portrayed the king's bombast and arrogance in the fourth chapter of the book. The king's word is absolute, and the entire world was to take note of his pronouncements! Even so, in this same chapter, we also see Divine intervention to remind Nebuchadnezzar that he ruled at the pleasure of Almighty God, and that the human mind can be a very fragile thing - subject to stop functioning properly without warning.

So, YES, when we take a little closer look at these chapters in Daniel, we begin to truly comprehend why this imagery was so appealing to John. Moreover, this understanding helps us to better understand and appreciate Babylon as the prophetic template it became as a consequence of what Daniel revealed about human governance.

Strangers and Pilgrims on the Earth

A Christian's responsibility to maintain his/her separateness/aloofness from this world's systems (especially those of a political nature) has been a constant theme on this blog. Moreover, in light of the two posts which immediately preceded this one, I thought it would be important to underscore the importance of this principle for anyone who claims to be a Christian. Nevertheless, although most Christians would acknowledge that this principle has strong Biblical support, the exact nature of that separateness/aloofness has been much debated.

Indeed, the extent of a Christian's separation from the world has engendered a number of questions down through the centuries. Questions like: Should Christians gather together and cloister themselves away from the worldly communities which surround them? (Some sects have certainly interpreted the principle in that way.) Should Christians avoid any friendships or socializing with the "wicked" of this world? (Unfortunately, some Christians have shunned the immoral "dregs" of society - the very folks to whom Jesus sent them as his messengers) Should Christians avoid all cultural contact with the world? (Once again, we have more than a few Christians who have interpreted the principle to rule out any enjoyment of "worldly" music, television, movies, plays, books, art, etc.) Should Christians avoid participating in the governments and politics of this world? (Indeed, some have suggested that Christians shouldn't vote, hold office or serve on juries.) The list of questions could go on and on, but we get the point - such questions have generated a great variety of opinion within the Christian community about the extent to which this principle should be applied to its members.

Even so, I believe that an open-minded look at the scriptures which establish the principle will also supply us with answers to our questions about the extent to which a Christian in 2022 should apply it to his/her particular place and circumstances. Moreover, I am not ashamed to admit that my own exploration of this subject has engendered some soul-searching of my own and has modified my own outlook on the appropriate answers to many of the questions which I mentioned earlier as having been associated with the topic. Finally, as I find to be the case with most issues, I believe God's truth in the matter can be found in careful deliberation and moderation. In other words, the truth is rarely found in the extremes. 

In Matthew's gospel account, we are informed that Christ said: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:19-21) Hence, from the perspective of the founder of our religion, it appears that he believed that our focus and energy should be directed at God's Kingdom - not on the accumulation of the shiny things of this temporal life which we currently enjoy. Within the context of this same thinking, we are also told by Matthew that Christ offered this further instruction: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24) Hence, for Christ, the importance of focus (the question of where all of our attention and energy is directed) was all important. In other words, are we primarily focused on this world or God's Kingdom?

In John's gospel, however, we are informed that Christ never envisioned that his followers would be completely removed from the precincts of this world. When approaching his death and praying for his followers, we are told that Christ said: "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." (John 17:14-18) Notice that Christ is sending his disciples "into the world," but he is appealing to the Father to protect them from being overwhelmed by its evil influences. Hence, we can see that cloistering in Christian communities was NEVER envisioned by Jesus Christ as being any part of the separateness from the world that he had in mind.

Nevertheless, from the other writings of the New Testament, we can see that that concept of separateness was clearly picked up by the men he had chosen to carry his message to the world. Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome to not be "conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2) Once again, there is a recognition that the Christian is in this world, but Paul warns them not to adopt its mindset. Indeed, when we are reading Paul's remarks here, we hear the echo of Christ's admonition to his followers that "In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33) In other words, Christ overcame the world, and we can too!

In the first general epistle of John, we see the same principle at play. He wrote: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (I John 2:15-17) Once again, although we are clearly in the world, John warns us not to fall in love with the world, and he admonishes Christians that the things that the world has to offer us are only temporary - that they will pass away.

This sense of Christians not allowing themselves to get too close to the world is also found in the epistle of James to the twelve tribes. He wrote: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4) Once again, the necessity for maintaining a disconnectedness to the world is enjoined upon Christians.

When writing to Timothy, the Apostle Paul likened the Christian's predicament to a soldier serving in an army. He wrote: "Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier." (II Timothy 2:3-4) Once again, we hear the echo of Christ's admonition that it is impossible to serve two masters simultaneously. The New International Version renders the passage as "No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs." The clear implication being that we don't want to get entangled by/in this world. Again, we hear the echo of the repeated admonition to not get too involved in this world.   

Likewise, in the book of Hebrews, we are provided with a list of the faithful of God down through the ages, and then we are informed: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." (Hebrews 11:13-16) Hence, for the Christian, all of the authors of the New Testament make clear that his/her primary focus and allegiance must be on/to God's Kingdom. They all anticipated that a true Christian would live in this world like an alien - obeying the laws and residing peacefully among the inhabitants of the land but maintaining their own connectedness to a different place and system.

Which brings me back to a question that I have wrestled with more than any other: What is my proper relationship to the place I currently reside - the United States of America? After all, as a citizen of the U.S., I have been given a small voice in what is decided here - a vote. And, after reviewing all of the scriptures we have just discussed, it seems reasonable to me for a Christian to conclude that it would be appropriate for him/her to exercise that franchise to make some positive contribution to the place where they currently reside. However, having said all of that, it also appears very clear to me that the traditional notions of patriotism, nationalism, capitalism and socialism are NOT productive things for a Christian to be preoccupied with!

As someone who should recognize that ALL human systems are flawed and fall short of the solution (which is represented by God's Kingdom), it is unproductive for me to seek to perpetuate any system which God's Kingdom will replace. In reviewing all of those scriptures, I also find myself reaching the inescapable conclusion that it would be completely inappropriate for me to give my loyalty, service and devotion to ANY nation of this earth. As a Christian, I must always remember that my primary and undivided allegiance belongs to God and his Kingdom. In other words, Christians must always be strangers and pilgrims on the Earth!