WikiLeaks for Conscience

Every news source in America has been reporting recently on the emergence of government documents on WikiLeaks, a whistle-blowing site compiling classified documents from the Afgan and Iraqi wars.  This weeks post on WikiLeaks represents the largest single “leak” of foreign affairs documents in the history of the modern world. 

The documents cover topics ranging from simple correspondence between foreign affairs officials to personal insults on the capability and habits of world leaders.  Most news sources have deemed the release an “embarrassment” to the foreign executives of the United States government.

Government officials claim that it is a disgrace to media and completely unhelpful.  Other leaders, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claim the leak is a purposeful propaganda release by the United States government itself.

One thing is for sure: most people aren’t happy.  But does our happiness (or lack thereof) about an event tell us anything about the helpfulness of said event?

It is clear that the leaks have caused headaches for world leaders and newspeople alike.  Just looking at the amount of time and energy our own government officials have put into trying to minimize the damage will tell anyone that the leak has caused unproductive activity in those offices. 

And those offices are lashing back.  They are upholding the perspective that the leak of such documents puts American soldiers, international civilians and even diplomatic staff in danger. 

But maybe in our despair over embarrassment and leak of sensitive information, a lesson can be learned.  We remember old adages like; “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” And the fact that at any given time, somewhere, someone is listening.

It might do us all well to remember that no matter our position in life, community, or government, our words are powerful.  They affect our relationships and experiences in major ways.  In fact, some of the embarrassed diplomatic officials work everyday in the realm of international communication where they are aware that what they say and how they act could have powerful repercussions.  Maybe it is time that we are reminded of that; maybe it is time that we become more conscious of our messages, no matter who we think may or may not be listening.

For me, (and I hope for many others) this WikiLeak will serve as a wake-up call; not as a call to crack down on cyber-legislation, nor as a call to strengthen our cyber-security.  Rather, let this event be a call for all of us to keep track of what we are saying about those around us.  As we sift through the muck and pick-up the pieces of this detonated international relations bomb that is WikiLeaks, let’s make sure that what we are saying is helpful.

Texas School Board Proposes Textbook Ban

Texas State school board proposes a ban on "pro-Islamic" and "anti-Christian" textbooks.  If you read the story, you will find that they feel too much of the book is spent on Muslim heritage, and not enough on Christian heritage.

In fact, the author of the proposal, Mr. Randy Rives, says that Muslim conquest is sugar-coated while the Crusades are painted brutally in some texts.

Seriously?  Are we really going to act like two year olds?  Pointing the finger saying "Well, Johnny was the one who threw the cat out the window!"  While Johnny says, "Bobby came up with the whole idea!"

Why don't we just admit that religions have been used for terrible violent things on both sides and not get into keeping score.

Also, these are books read by American students.  Part of the reason they DON'T NEED equal time spent discussing Christian history is that there are 3 churches right down the street from where they read the textbook.  We have accessibility to Christian culture, we don't necessarily have it to Muslim culture.

Next thing you know, we will have a ban on math books that spend too much time discussing Arab based Algebra and not enough time talking about  Western Anglo-Saxon Calculus.

A New Humanity: What Science and Religion Can Tell Us About Community

A recent study into the lives and attitudes of theists and atheists conducted by Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff found that the social attribute of “niceness” might be caused by the feeling of being watched.

For theists, this comes from the idea that God might be with us every step of the way, and therefore, what you do matters because He has seen it and may be judgmental or affirming.  For atheists, the “niceness” falls out the window, because they don’t have that “angel on my shoulder” feeling.

However, an analysis of the study that I found on Slate poses a different hypothesis.  By investigating the “niceness” of developed secular nations, Paul Bloom comes to the conclusion that “niceness” doesn’t come from the feeling of being watched by an omnipotent being, but rather from the reality of community around us.

Theists then are happier and more amicable simply because they feel they are part of a larger community.  Atheists frequently feel detached from meaningful social circles and could therefore be more upset and volatile.  It is not then, belief in God that makes you a “good person” but rather being in community.

Certainly, these ideas are caricatures.  We can all think of atheists who are fun-loving, great people and we can all name some miserable theists.  But, as it turns out there could be a trend here.  Miserable theists could for some reason not feel welcomed in their faith communities.  And happy-go-lucky atheists could be a part of a strong friend-group, which serves them as a communal resource.

My perspective of this study tells me one thing for certain.  If Christians want to be an integral part of society and begin affecting change in the lives of those around them, we must simply open our hearts.

I know that most churches have an open door policy.  Most churches will physically allow someone new off the street into their service.  They will let them sit in the pew and they will let them drink the coffee. 

But is that the standard of a welcoming policy? An unlocked door, a pew to sit in and some coffee?

Of course it is not, and I know of some church communities who set the bar much higher.  They ARE openly welcoming to a new member of the congregate.

But, I know of some churches that are not.  I know of parishioners who hate it when new people come and take their pew accidentally.  I know of parishioners who are comfortable with the community they have and are not interested in bringing new people into the fold.

I think it would be good for our society to feel more welcomed in church communities.  This means stop judging, this means calm your preaching, and this means above all else, start loving.

People who come to church for the first time don’t need to have a break-down-cry-run-to-the-altar-confess-all-sins- experience.  We shouldn’t aim for that.  We should aim for a Christ-like embrace that doesn’t point out their sins or expect their conversion.  We should give them COMMUNITY.

Paul writes in Ephesians, “Christ is our peace, in his flesh he has made both groups (Jew and Gentile, slave and master, pagan and Christian, theist and atheist) into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.  He has abolished the law (seen as setting apart the Jews from the rest of the world) with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in the place of two, thus making peace.” (2:14-15)

This might sound blasphemous, (many Christians have held this idea before) but I say take the welcoming action even a step further and redefine our theology.  The ultimate dividing line that exists in American Christianity today is the “heaven and hell” narrative.  “Where are you going to go when you die?” “Are you saved?” “Have you asked Christ to come into your life?” 

We need to abolish this narrative.  The redemption through Christ answers all of the questions for anyone.  The answer is that Christ is going to “gather up all things to him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Ephesians 1:10)  I am talking about the pinnacle of welcoming one into the fold: the reality of universal redemption.  What I mean is, believe him or not, Christ redeems you.  

Universal redemption is the only metaphysical and theological finality that makes sense in the scheme of community.  It is the only one that can bring fulfillment of the new humanity.  It is how Christ makes peace.

And not only peace, but a happier population.  A more amicable one, because people can rest easy knowing that they are a part of the “in-crowd”.  Atheists and theists alike can set aside their days of being heavy-laden with worry and loneliness.  Because of Christ’s redemption, we are part of the whole.  It is the job of Christians to communicate that reality to people.  We don’t need to spread the message of how Christ sets us apart; we need to spread the message of how Christ brings us together.  It will transform our society.

Obama from the Oval Office: August 31, 2010

Obama just finished his address from the Oval Office moments ago. There are a few things that stood out to me as I sat and listened to his speech.

First, Obama wanted to make very clear his follow-through of things he promised in the past. The whole address was framed in the context of; "I said I would do it, and here it is." From referring to Bush declaring war from the same desk, to the story of Americans coming home, Obama wanted to spell out in no faint terms that he has made good on his promise of the 2008 election.

Second, Obama tactfully and preemptively dealt with Conservative or Republican backlash with his emphasis on the soldiers' narratives and accomplishments. Most proponents of the conservative political perspective follow a "Bring the troops home" with the accusation of "you don't support them." Obama wanted to make clear that he simultaneously supports the troops and their efforts while also ending their hardship in Iraq. He wanted to hold two seemingly opposed perspectives in his hand at the same time. The "Support our Troops" messaging with the "Bring the Troops Home" messaging were effectively melded in his words. In this way, Obama steals the wind from the sails of opponents as they might have criticized his lack of appreciation for the uniformed duties. Now, they cannot.

Third, the phrase of the speech that most stood out to me; "War is the darkest creation of humanity." Really? Can Obama really get away with saying this after claiming that we need to be on the offensive in Afghanistan. My response to President Obama would be this: If war is the darkest creation of humanity, then why do we spend so much money on it? Why do we support it so?

All in all, the President did a good job of gracefully ending the violent military presence in Iraq. Now, repeat soon with Afghanistan.

Gun Control, Rights vs. Safety

It seems that in the history of our country, some debates have never gotten old. To be honest, some debates will probably never get old, but they do cycle in and out of style. One of the debates that is back in style right now is the 2nd Amendment; “the right to bear arms.”

One thing about this debate that makes it so tenacious is the strong arguments on both sides.

The “right to own a gun side” has the Bill of Rights at its back, word for word supporting the very thing they want to maintain. Any opponent would have a difficult time with this because, let’s face it, you would have to amend the amendments, and that is not so easy. Also, many proponents of this perspective believe the world would be safer if everyone had a gun. The logic is: if everyone had a gun, no one would risk shooting anyone else.

The “gun control” side has the social, personal and emotional backing of all the violent crimes that happen in America. These people say, “look, guns would be okay, but the track record is we suck at using them responsibly, so we have to take them away.” This side argues: if no one had a gun, no one would be able to shoot anyone else.

Obviously, each side would have responses to the arguments I just gave as their examples, but in my opinion, these are the foundational assumptions of each perspective.

The interesting thing about these arguments is that under close inspection we see that each side actually wants the same end; namely, to keep people safe, they just have different ideas about how it should be achieved. Despite the differences, there is room for opponents to come together on this issue.

The inherent goal of each side is SAFETY. They both believe their plan of action, followed unwaveringly to the end, would lead to safety for all citizens.

What I say to the “right to own a gun side” is this.

If you want to keep your right to own and shoot your gun, then you must become the most ferocious advocate of responsible gun ownership. You must encourage people who own guns to use them responsibly and educate them in how to do it. You must encourage legislation that requires safety courses and training in how to use a gun. You must be the most dedicated voice to create a new perspective of guns, that they are not weapons, but rather tools and must never be used against another human being. If you spend your energy doing this, rather than clinging tightly to your right to own a gun, then you will eliminate the debate and gun control legislation will be a thing of the past. If everyone were using guns responsibly, no one would be bothering to control them.

What I say to the gun control side is this.

You must also seek to teach people to responsibly utilize their freedoms before you take those freedoms away. Until you have restlessly walked our country teaching people about the usefulness and power of firearms and also encouraged them to be responsible about their gun ownership, then you cannot wrench them from the hands of their owners. If you spend your energy doing this, rather than working to pass legislation to take guns away, you will eliminate the debate and gun control legislation will be a thing of the past. When everyone is using guns responsibly, then no one will need to fight to control them.

I realize that people will argue that we are past this point and that this cause would be a lost one. But no cause is lost when people come together to achieve it. And before I would seek to discipline or hinder, I would seek to empower and educate. No person is past the point of being taught how to use a gun responsibly.

If both sides of the debate pool their resources to make this happen, I firmly believe that we would see a world where guns are owned and responsibly used.

No one would have to give up their rights; no one would have to give up their safety.

Oppression: Some Thoughts

A few days ago, I read on the BBC that a white South African man was lynched for killing a black man. The scene in the news video was madness; a large mob of black South Africans celebrating, and an equally angry mob of white South Africans crying for revenge. Before the death of the white man, the roles had been reversed: the whites were celebrating and the blacks were crying for revenge. Apparently, the black man who was killed was a prominent leader in South African equality rights. I don’t know the details, but it was clear that the white man who killed him had racial motivations. The black man who was killed was not your Nelson Mandela nonviolence-type of leader. He was more like Malcom X; “any means necessary.” Evidently, his past had been marred by racial violence towards white South Africans.

This story got me to thinking: Where does oppression end and reconciliation begin? From my consideration, it seems that moving from oppression to equality takes a HUGE amount of trust and forgiveness. That may seem obvious, but I believe that it starts with the oppressed.

At first glance, it may seem that oppression ends with the oppressor. The tyrannical power that is holding their boot to the neck of another people group must simply let up and change their ways! However, this is not so. Before the boot of tyranny will be lifted, the oppressor needs to be convinced that the oppressed is ready to forgive and will not seek revenge. This is a difficult task by any evaluation. The hurdles you face are few, but gigantic. First, it is not a simple task to get oppressed people to agree to forgiveness. Who wants to forgive when they have had a boot on their neck for so many years? Second, it is no simple task to get oppressors to believe that they will be forgiven. What boot-pressing superiority is going to believe in forgiveness towards them?

The larger problem on top of all this is what oppressor is going to give up the position of superiority without the threat of some kind of punishment? The truth is, not many. However, IF the oppressors ever do decide to lift the oppression and work for equality, the only way they WILL follow through is if they know there is no threat of revenge from the oppressed. When they feel safe in loosening their grip, then they will be in a good position to do so.

In the South African example, Nelson Mandela was able to convince many black people to forgive and many white people to feel safe in that forgiveness. And it lasted for a while. However, now on the BBC you see an interview with a black South African woman saying, “he (the white man who killed the black man who was then killed by a mob) deserved what he got.” Well, of course he deserved it. And now the white people are yelling that the mob deserves to be killed for their actions. And next the black people will be yelling that the white people deserve…. Anyway, it goes on and on.

The key to redemption is not giving what is deserved. The key to redemption is giving what isn’t deserved. The Christ story is all about this. Mercy on those who deserve it least. Forgiveness for those who shouldn’t be given it. Grace for those who are not gracious themselves. It sounds crazy and radical, because it is. If we want to see violence and oppression end, we must embrace forgiveness and toss aside our retaliation. If you feel wronged by someone and cry out for justice, it will come from you giving to others what they don’t deserve; forgiveness, mercy, and grace. It certainly is not easy, but we must do this if we want to see a world of redemption instead of a world of oppression.

"Response-Ability" in the Gulf

I am sure I am not the first to use this “response-ability” play-on-words, nor will I be the last. In light of the current situation in the Gulf of Mexico, it seems fitting.

President Obama spoke just days ago about the current oil spill in the Gulf and his disdain for the “spectacle” that occurred in Congress. He was referring to BP pointing the finger at the owner of the oilrig, and the oilrig owners pointing the finger at the drill manufacturer, etc. Obama called for a new amount of responsibility to be taken by the parties who are to blame for the on-going plume of oil into the water.

Now, BP and others are responding. British Petroleum is on their second attempt to block up the spill. First, they tried the large concrete container. Now, they are to lower a mile-long pipe to stop up the leak. Every news program in America doubts the success of this second attempt, and now news is flying around about the leak being much worse than was originally predicted.

How could this happen? How have there been so many days of oil spewing into that water? Well, to be honest, this “blame game” played by the companies, agencies and politicians affected our collective “ability to respond,” our “response–ability.” People spent too long passing the buck, now everyone is stuck with a situation that appears more and more bleak. The painful part is, we all know that it could have been contained more quickly, avoided, or even prevented, if someone had just changed his or her actions. But who?

To speak of responsibility once more, if the topic has not been touched on enough, who IS really responsible for this mess? I will tell you honestly, without the blame-game: I am. And you are also. We ALL are responsible for this. It makes us feel better to say that BP made the mistake, and maybe they did, but let us not forget the integral reality of this situation. We told them to run an oil pipe through the Gulf. We told them to drill in the oceans. We told them to do whatever they need to do to get us gasoline and to get it to us cheap.

By driving our cars, by packaging our food in plastics, by flying in airplanes, by any piece of our lifestyle, we required BP and every other oil company to do what they do. We sit and watch the evening news and shake our heads and say “Those bastards at BP. Who the hell said they could run a pipe through there?” You did. And I did.

Once we take responsibility for this oil spill ourselves, we can move on from here. We can evaluate the situation and maybe say to each other; “You know, this wasn’t worth it. We need to act differently so this doesn’t happen again.” As long as we point the finger at politicians, or agencies, or companies like BP, things like this will continue to happen. But, if we choose to take responsibility for this ourselves, we will change our actions and create a new reality; one where our “response-ability” consists of prevention, good decisions, and ultimately, self-awareness. If you ask me, that would be the best kind to have.

The Hunger and The Thirst for Righteousness

In the most famous “sermon” in Christian history, Jesus says;

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6).

Most would recognize this as a section from the Beatitudes, or the introduction of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, as we have labeled in our Bibles. I have always been intrigued by the Beatitudes and as a result have spent time contemplating them. It seems to me that this specific verse, about the mysterious “hunger or thirst for righteousness,” says much more than may have originally been thought.

Traditionally, at least in my experience, churches and pastors have taught that Jesus is telling of a promise God makes to us. The promise consists of not cause and effect, but rather of an assuredness in our attitude. The idea is that God is saying “Rest assured in your hunger or thirst for righteousness, because I am promising you that eventually it will come. At some point in time, I will restore creation and all humans by bringing you my righteousness. Your thirst will be quenched at that time; your hunger will then be satisfied.” The underlying tone of this message is to be patient. Be patient in hunger or thirsting, because God will fulfill it at some predetermined time that is unbeknownst to humanity.

This understanding I find lacking. Jesus is not giving a “pie in the sky” promise about some time in the future when our hunger and thirst shall be met by God’s fulfillment. He is talking cause and effect here; he is talking about the hunger creating the fulfillment.

Think about this: If one hungers for cake, or thirsts for soda, they may say things like, “I would do anything for cake right now” or “I want a soda so bad.” Already, this desire has manifested itself in their speech. They have acknowledged the reality of their desire. Soon, if the resources are available, their actions will fall in line with their words and they will ACT in a certain way to attain their goals. If they want cake bad enough, and the ingredients are in the house, they will take time from their day and they will make it. If a soda machine is available, they will take time and money and sacrifice them in the interest of fulfilling that desire for themselves. The truth of reality is that if the hunger or thirst is great enough, it will cause us to CREATE the fulfillment of them.

It might be argued that clearly there are people in the world hungry and thirsty for things that they don’t receive. Indeed, many people are dying of hunger or thirst today because the resources are NOT available to them. From this devastating truth, we can realize more of the meaning from Christ’s words: the resources for achieving righteousness are always available to us. If they were not, Christ would be lying in his statement.

If this is the case then, Jesus is not giving a promise, but rather a prediction. He is making a cause and effect statement that would be as simple as me saying, “If I am hungry enough for bread, and there is bread available, I will make sacrifices and change my actions to satisfy this hunger.” Jesus is saying that if we are hungry and thirsty for righteousness, we will change our actions in order to see it fulfilled.

This is akin to Jesus’ strange statement, “ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you. For everyone who asks, receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8) Jesus is not promising arbitrary fulfillment of desires. He is promising that if we want something bad enough, we will do what is necessary to get it. Better yet, if what we are hungry or thirsty for is righteousness, we have all the resources we need for fulfillment, within us and around us. Do we hunger and thirst enough?
Are we willing to change our actions in order to create the Kingdom of God?

The TEA Party Express

Being in Ecuador right now, I have not kept up on world events as much as I should have simply because of a lack of resources. I don’t have a television here, I don’t use the Internet that often, and all the periodicals are in Spanish (which I am not fluent in.)

However, I recently had the delightful experience of watching the BBC World News Report. I heard things about the British Airways strike, massacres in the D R Congo by the Lord’s Resistance Army, and of course United States healthcare.

It seems that like any other new reform, people are either thrilled or disgusted. On the BBC, they choose to show some of the disgusted population, attending a rally with keynote speaker Sarah Palin.

This rally was put on by a Republican organization called Tea Party Express. I am sure that the historical connection offered them some rhetorical leverage, but in reality the situation surrounding the Boston Tea Party and this healthcare reform are profoundly different. During the Boston Tea Party, angered citizens were boycotting the tea that had been imported from England. This was a nonviolent way to put economic pressure on the tea trade between England and its colony in the New World. The main concern of the Boston protesters though was one of taxation without representation. Without representatives from the colonies serving in the Parliament of England, they had no say on what they were paying taxes for.

In this present day “Tea Party”, with Sarah Palin leading the charge, the sentiment might be similar. If I am a Republican opposed to this healthcare, it is probably because I feel unrepresented in Congress and therefore that I am paying taxes to something that I not only disagree with, but have no say in. I am not sure this is the case though. It seems that the major idea discussed at this rally was not taxation without representation, but simply too much tax. Republicans might feel under-represented, but that is because they are, and no Republican politician is going to bring that up because they know that it is the nature of Congress right now.

So, if it is boiled down to the bottom of the issue, the problem is not enough representation, it is simply a disagreement of where the taxes should be going. One man at this rally donned a sign that read “Taxed Enough Already.” In addition to enjoying his clever acronym, I agree with him. We are taxed enough already. No citizens want to see taxes go up. If we don’t want to see a raise in taxes though, we must communicate more than that to our government. Representatives already know that voters don’t like raised taxes. What they seem to be ignorant of is what we WANT to pay taxes for.

I don’t know what the man with the “Taxed Enough Already” sign really values other than his own money. He doesn’t want taxes to go up. It is true that we could cut this healthcare reform and decrease government spending in the healthcare area. But we are only directing our focus there because it is the most recent legislation. The Republican Party as a bloc is against raised taxes for healthcare, but sees no issue with funding the military.

So, what if we cut spending in other areas? What if we cut funding for our overseas military excursions? What if we cut back on nuclear arms and military bases? Every time an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan pulls the trigger and kills a Muslim, it costs our taxpayers money. We are paying to kill people. We are paying for helicopters, missiles, bombs, grenades, airplanes, tanks and guns. The worst part is, once a bullet is fired, its value has been spent. Once a tank is destroyed, another one must be built. If the tools of warfare do their job, they are rarely reusable. We certainly are taxed enough, and it is invested poorly.

Basically I see a choice. We can say “Taxed Enough Already,” and decide not to accept the addition of taxes, or we can redirect the taxes we are already paying. Can we tell our representatives not only that we want to cut government spending, but also that we want to cut it in specific areas? Can we invest our money in hospital beds, medical equipment and hiring nurses and doctors rather than investing it in bullets, bombs, and soldiers?

Can our taxes be directed towards preserving life rather than ending it?

Thanks, Republicans for showing us the reality of the situation. Taxes are too high. Now together let’s decide where to cut. Healthcare or warfare? Would we still be opposed to healthcare reform if it didn’t cost so much? Because if the answer is ‘no,’ I have a deal. Let’s remove the immense costs of war, and the medical cost won’t seem so daunting.

The Gospel vs. The Constitution

The following is my response to Roger Misso's latest article in the Wayuga newspaper. Misso writes a column called "The New Prosperity."

In response to Mr. Misso’s piece “Among These,” I must argue that the United States is neither a “Christian nation” nor is it founded on “Christian principles.”

First, it must be asked, what is a “Christian nation?”

Is it a country that declares Christianity its national religion? A reading of our Constitution will indicate that Americans have no national religion.

Is it a population of Christians living in the same geographical region? If this is the case we must concede that America is not a Christian nation, but rather one of variegated religious traditions.

Is a Christian nation one that is founded upon the principles discussed in the Bible? With a close look at Christ’s teachings we must say that gospel scripture cannot be the foundation for a country.

There is no such thing as a Christian nation, because a nation consists of a military, laws, and judges. Christ’s vision for the world was one of love, forgiveness, and peace.

Our nation has a military and police force. One provides protection from external foes and the other is intended to provide protection from internal nuisances. Christ teaches that we cannot retaliate to evil. The gospel says “resist not evil” and “if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn your other also.” (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29) The United States military could not take these guidelines seriously and survive as it is. It would mean unilaterally dismantling the executive branch of the government, as its whole purpose is to resist “evil.”

Our nation has laws and punishments for those laws. Christ teaches only the law of love and gives only the verdict of forgiveness. Always, Christ urges us to forgive, even to “seventy times seven.” (Matthew 18:22) The United States justice system could not exist on these guidelines and survive as it is. It would mean the disintegration of our courts and laws.

I agree with Mr. Misso and Jefferson that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” However, once a system is formulated to preserve those rights, the teachings of Christ are abandoned. The system of enforcement for rights becomes the culprit of encroachment on them.

If the gospel is taken seriously, it is apparent that its ideas are to be followed by individuals, and not by governments or policies. The result won’t be a system; it won’t have a military or police force; it won’t be a codified set of laws; it absolutely will not be a nation. It will be “action and truth.” (1 John 3:18) Of what use is a military if every citizen really was to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44) and “be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:36) Of what use is a judge if forgiveness is always the answer to evils? Of what use is defining rights if each person was taking seriously “do to others as you would have them do to you?” (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31)

It may be going too far to say that anarchy is the only feasible option that Christ may have supported (though there are many who do; Leo Tolstoy and Jacques Ellul among them) but it is not a stretch to say that the United States is not a Christian nation, nor is any other nation in this world today.

Taking the teaching of Christ seriously will not transform voting decisions or political perspectives. It will transform an individual’s entire way of life; and call to question the assumptions on which elections and debates are based.

In God We Trust?

Recently, I received a chain email begging the American population for help. It was written in urgent tones and affirmed me that in this issue, I could indeed make a difference. In a world of so many social, political, and spiritual problems, I read on in hopeful anticipation of how I could “make a difference.” Ready and poised to take action in a direction that promised results and change, I curiously considered what this ill could be that I had the power to solve. AIDS? Cancer? Poverty? World Hunger? Suspenseful lists in blog posts?

The email was trying to convince people to “refuse to accept” new coins that the United States government has issued. The major problem with these coins was that they lacked the words “In God We Trust.”

Although I don’t recall if the email was rooted in a Christian organization, it represents a large movement in American Christianity. Most Americans are familiar with the “In God We Trust” debate and those issues that run parallel to it, ie; Ten Commandments in courthouses, prayer in classrooms, “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Christianity has effectively convinced its populations that defending these areas of tradition and others are an essential Christian duty. There are fear-mongering preachers who teach that the abolishment of “In God We Trust” from American forms of money would lead to the demise of the United States as we know it. Because we are a God-fearing nation, and we demonstrate that fact proudly to the world on every piece of legal tender, we are in His omnipotent favor and can enjoy the fruits of His providence. But beware! To turn from God by neglecting to print His name on your money is certain destruction!

But what really should the Christian stance on this topic be, if any? In this issue, has a Christian duty become a civil duty or vice-versa? What does scripture say?

It is generally admitted by Christians that money is the second-most discussed topic by Christ in the gospels. Jesus had a lot to say about your relationships, and not much less to say about your pocketbook. And what does he say?

Well, one day Jesus and his disciples are discussing the matters of the world and the kingdom of heaven, and a Pharisee asks him about taxes. Of course, the Pharisee knows that Jesus is a threat to the Roman Empire and if he can catch Jesus saying explicitly: “Don’t pay your taxes because they fund that evil empire of Rome!” then the Jewish teachers and the Roman government can be rid of the nuisance that is the Christ. So the Pharisee pipes up:

“Jesus, what about taxes? Should we pay them?” Jesus, (as he so frequently does) responds to a question with a question;

“Do you have a coin?” Certainly the Pharisee does, and hands it to the Rabbi as the Jewish and Roman crowd anxiously awaits the response. Jesus takes a look at the coin and says to the Pharisee,

“See how it says ‘In God We Trust’ right here in little letters? That means that it is your Christian (or Jewish) duty to pay your taxes. Based on the printing on the coin, you can clearly see that the Roman Empire is godly, as it recognizes God on every piece of legal tender…”

Wait a second…. I thought I remember that story reading differently! Oh yeah, that is not how it went at all! In Mark 12:17, after Jesus does indeed ask the Pharisee what is on the coin and it is established that the head of Caesar is branded in the piece, Jesus says,

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Well, of course, back in Jesus’ time, this answer would work just fine. And now it would work just fine too, except that the government of our empire has slyly printed God’s name onto the coins next to Caesar’s (or Washington’s) head. Now the Christian populace is confused: “render to God, wait… No, Caesar! Wait, no… God!” To alleviate this confusion, those who have their hands in the pot of political interests and their words in the sanctuary of American churches have taught us that by rendering to the government our taxes, we are also effectively rendering to God what is God’s. If the government recognizes the authority of God, then by some hierarchal law of association, what belongs to the government is also Gods. Also, conveniently, our money is now of greater spiritual power! What joy it is to tithe and donate money that has the name of God printed in the side! Certainly God will use this coin more favorably than any other in circulation, because He sees that it bears His name! And certainly, He will look with disdain and disgust on coins that don’t have His name; in fact, He will devalue them!

Jesus is rolling over in his resurrection. The head of Caesar (or Washington) is still clearly there! Do not confuse “In God We Trust” with whom this money REALLY belongs to. It is a clever ploy by men who understand Christianity well enough to manipulate it. Of course, no one is so explicit in their talk of this issue, but read between the lines and cut through the pulpit rhetoric; these trends are there.

I urge you, pay your taxes. But don’t do it as some Christian duty. Do it because you recognize that money that you own is a chunk of metal with the empire’s name on it, and in the end the value that it has is created and defined by them, not God. To God it is worthless.

I urge you, rejoice in the removal of “In God We Trust” for it will be the repealing of a lie. And if “In God We Trust” continues to remain on the coins, ask your political leaders, fellow citizens and yourself to think of whom we trust when they build weapons of mass destruction. Is it God? Or are we trusting in our technological superiority? Whom do we trust as we send soldiers off to Afghanistan to “defend our freedom?” Is it God or are we trusting in our military might? Whom do we trust when we allocate money for economic bailouts? Is it God or are we trusting in the financial leverage we have created for ourselves? Whom do we trust when we open savings accounts, retirement plans and life insurance policies? Whom do we trust when we buy lock boxes for our money? Whom do we trust when we use money as if it were the ultimate power itself? Is it God?