If not a Christian nation, then what?

Last week I wrote about the myth of the US as a Christian nation based on the religious beliefs of the founding fathers. Since I debunked that idea I've been considering what the founders actually gave us, and I have good news, bad news and, depending on your position, really bad news.

The good news is that what they gave us is a tradition of intolerance for intolerance. Say what you want about the Enlightenment, it opened up a lot of doors for discussion. you could believe practically anything you want and talk about it openly. And they did. Without TV and movies, entertainment often consisted of attending lectures on unpopular subjects. Easy access to printing technology (the internet of the 17th to early 20th centuries) made it possible for the most fringe elements of society to get their opinion out. Everyone had an opportunity to freely state what was on their mind.

The bad news is that, while they fully embraced freedom of speech, they didn't much care for the idea of freedom of responsibility for what you say. If you said something unpopular and got a lot of flack for it...even the occasional punch in the nose to the extreme response of a challenge to a duel, well that's what you get. The freedom to be angry at someone for what they said was as acceptable as the freedom to say it.

Today, we don't much like the idea of having to take any kind of flack for what we say. Conservatives were appalled when Democrat congressmen booed George Bush during a state of the union address (which included Nancy Pelosi), and liberals got all huffy (including Nancy Pelosi) when a lone congressman catcalled Barack Obama. But rude reactions to a president are well in keeping with the tradition of our founders. We like to call for a "return to civility" but there never was any when it came to opinion in this country. The only thing that is different now is we are calling for punishment for anyone who disagrees with us.

When I stated last week that the founders of this country were, by and large, not Christian, I did not mean to imply that we religious people in this country are not following their example. One of the primary products of the Age of Enlightenment was the complete abandonment of the doctrine of grace that came out of the Reformation.

"Enlightened" people of the 17th and 18th centuries were all about personal accomplishment and achieving good works. They were not into forgiveness. Washington, Jefferson and Adams took grudges to the grave and it gnawed on them to their deathbed. Alexander Hamilton died in a duel because he could not forgive Aaron Burr.

That's the really bad news is that most Christians in the US, be they liberal or conservative, still follow that example. We talk about grace as a good thing, but don't cross us, especially politically. And for heavens sake, make sure you toe the line in conversation in church. There is no intolerance for intolerance and there is no grace for the "sinner" in our midst.

And that's something we all need to work on

The "christian nation" hoax

I'm about to make a lot of people unhappy.

I was reading a post of a pastor in Miami this morning who made the common assertion that this is a "Christian Nation" historically. He used, as proof, certain quotes from John Adams who he asserts was a serious Christian. That's what got me curious.

I believe the definition of Christian is those who publicly asserts that Jesus Christ is a personal saviour: that he is God incarnate, that he was born in human form, was fully God and fully human, died for sin and rose from the grave in three days. Let me also state that I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and believe it is crucial, though you won't go to hell if you don't believe that. That is an orthodox belief for most Christians in the United States. John Adams is pretty much my favorite president so I know a few things about him. I know for a fact John Adams doesn't meet that definition of Christian. The first six Presidents of the United States did not meet that criteria. They all denied the deity of Christ (without which there was no sacrifice for sin) and the Trinity. George Washington, Adams' son John Quincy, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe were all deists. Five of the six attended Episcopal churches that welcomed that particular position and Adams, himself, was a Unitarian. The first US President to make a public declaration of Christ as saviour was Andrew Jackson, followed by his successor, Martin Van Buren.

In all of the 43 men who have held the office, only 22 have made such a declaration. Ten presidents made outright statements that they were deists. The rest, including Lincoln, FDR, Gerald Ford and George HW Bush never made a definitive statement. Oh, yes, President Obama has outright said on several occasions that he has "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."

To say outright that Christian principals are the basis of our country is incorrect. That Christian principles have greatly influenced the development of our country is correct, but at the same time, philosophies that deny the deity of Christ have also had a profound effect throughout the entire history of this country.

I'm saying this because I have something else to share pretty soon, but I just wanted to take the "Christian Nation" argument off the table. The US is not a Christian nation.

When is enthusiasm important

Lat night I went to a college football game - San Jose State vs. Utah - and watched my Spartans lose to a superior team. They kept it close and entertaining, which is more than anyone expected. Since we were sitting high up in the stadium I also had a chance to watch the human comedy of the crowd and I was able to make some observations.

About a third of the crowd were Utah fans who had traveled all the way from Ogden for the game. They were intensely into the game, watching carefully, cheering appropriately, but entirely respectful. These were people who were into their team, knew what the game was about and made sacrifices and effort to support the team. Like the Utah supporters, there were many SJS fans that were into to the game, cheered as directed by the cheerleaders, and spoke knowledgeably about the game. Both groups went for long periods when they were absolutely quiet as the watched the game unfold.

Then there were the other fans.

These were the fans that walked in to the stadium partially inebriated and got more so as the game went on. They were very loud and stayed that way for most of the game. Yelling, screaming, jumping up and down, mostly for no good reason. A group of young women just to my right actually tumble several rows down the stadium seats from their antics. Many of these fans were so into their enthusiasm that they missed several important plays. In short, they were having a great time. I had fun watching them and their enthusiasm made the losing effort a bit more bearable.

There is nothing wrong with getting giddy at a sporting event. After all it is just entertainment.

Then I went to church this morning.

We have a bunch of football fans in our church, so there is lots of talk about football, but there was also the annual statement that comes at the beginning of the season. It goes like this:

"All over the country there are people yelling and screaming and getting excited about a group of rich men playing a game. We should be able to get just as excited about worshipping God."

That sounds really good, but only on the surface.

My experience last night, and my experience at every entertainment event (sports, music, political rallies) the people that are the most enthusiastic have very little understanding what is going on at the event. Those that do understand take in what is being offered, they consider it, they respond vociferously when appropriate and as directed. On those rare occasions with the entire audience/crowd are operating in sync it is a special time.

I think that is what we really should look for in church. When I am worshipping God, I enjoy it immensely, but it is also very important to me. I want to know what is going on and respond accordingly. I want to be like those Utah and San Jose fans that are into what is happening on the field and not just making noise and a spectacle of myself because I want to let off steam. I don't mind if any others want to be silly. That's fine. I just think there are moments where it is too important not to pay attention.

Privacy is not for the faithful

It's been a while since I posted something, which is bad social media etiquette. My only excuse is I write about a half dozen blogs as it is and something has to fall through the cracks sometimes. But this post has actually been percolating for about 3 months in my head and has finally risen to the surface.

I make my living consulting to companies and organizations about communications strategies and techniques so naturally I spend a lot of time talking to people about social media, what it is, why it is important and how to do it right. And my specific market are all those who still aren't sure if social media is a fad. It's a tough road but I never did take the easy path.

In every encounter I get a criticism from the potential client that social media destroys privacy and personal identity. This is usually accompanied with a concern about security. I have answers for all kinds of people, but lately I've been getting requests to help people in the ministry, both lay and clergy. It's created an interesting discussion.

The concept of privacy and the ability to personally define your individuality is a very "American" concept, but it doesn't have any basis of legitimacy in the Judeo-Christian ethic. I have been able to find no evidence in the Bible supporting the concept of individuality and privacy. In fact, I find the very opposite.

Take, for example, Luke 9:24 where Jesus says, "Whoever would save his life, will lose it..." The whole reason for a Christian to participate in social media is to exercise the great commission. you can reach more people in a shorter time through blogs, social networks like Facebook and even just instant messaging (yes that's social media, too) then you can going one to one in your neighborhood. In fact, social media can make you a more effective and acceptable Christian even in your own neighborhood.

But you cannot be an effective Christian and still be a private person.

Besides, privacy is illusory. The effort we put into pursuing ways to keep to our selves is pretty much wasted with the availability of your information on the internet now.

We need to stop worrying about what we cannot have and start embracing reality.