What are we anyway?

A few people have asked me in the past few weeks, since I started talking about the "Christian nature" of the US: If we aren't Christian, then what are we?  So I've been thinking about it.  And I've discovered we are a nation of two separate identities.  Schizophrenic your might say.

On the one hand, we are a nation built on offense.  The pilgrims came here because their home nation was an offense to their religious sensibilities.  They build their community on perceived offenses within their community, which cause other communities to be founded.  Over the centuries we have made offense a profitable endeavor.  We have entire broadcast networks dedicated to being offended (EIB, MSNBC, Fox News).  Our political process is run by the two percent majority on either end of the spectrum that is constantly offended by anyone who doesn't agree with them (yes, I mean Nancy Pelosi and Joe Wilson).  We are offended by coaches of our favorite teams, by minorities, by educational standards, by other religions, by the other drivers on the roads and even by members of our families.  And we hold on to those offenses until the turn into hateful grudges.  Offense is at the very root of our politics and religion.

On the other hand, we are a nation built on the concept of reconciliation and the premise of the second (and third, fourth, fifth, etc.) chance.  The pilgrims had worn out their welcome in their homeland and an adopted land.  They came here for a fresh start and a chance to build something they could believe in.  The Revolutionary War for Independence was based, originally, on various offenses committed on the American colonies by Britain, but the war began only after several attempts at reconciliation were rebuffed.  The war itself was, in fact, an act of reconciliation.

"How the heck can war be reconcilation?" I can hear you say.

Reconcilation is merely the redefinition of a relationship.  It follows forgiveness (and I'll get into that later) but it does not replace forgiveness.  It establishes a baseline for a continued relationship after an offense.  While the colonies worked hard prior to the war to resolve their differences with the homeland, they entered into a wartime footing when it became apparent that England was not going to change how it treated the colonies.  The Declaration of Independence did not fire the first shot, the British did that themselves when they refused to accept the terms of reconciliation... at first.  Much later they were forced to.  Today, the US and the United Kingdom enjoy one of the closest national relationships in the world.  We are closer to England than we are Mexico and Canada.  And, as a nation, we take pride in that relationship.  It is a hallmark of who we are.

I the US, it is possible to screw up in business, marriage, parenthood, crime, politics (remember Richard Nixon was out of politics altogether before his second run at President... and he's still a hero in China) and still be able to come back for a do-over.  In my travels in Europe, that is the primary good quality of America that is recognized universally.

Offense and reconciliation are the yin and yang of America.  Whichever we seem to be is whatever we tend to feed.

We are a nation based on offense. Pilgrims came here because their nation was an offense to their religious sensibilities. We have whole broadcast systems dedicated to being offended. We have industries built to Medicate us from the depression caused by unresolved offense.

Digging deeper into our religious roots

I've received a lot of personal response to my last post on whether the US is a Christian Nation (it's not), most of it positive, and even the negative has been civil, which I appreciate.  Most of those that disagree go back further in the nation's history to the Puritan immigrants who landed in New England.  My understanding of the nature of the Puritan settlements doesn't change my opinion.  I can agree that the Puritans were a religious people, but not necessarily Christian in nature.
We've all heard that the Puritans fled England because "religious persecution" but that persecution was instigated by the Puritans' persecution of anyone who wasn't of their mindset.  Yes, the Puritans were fundamentalists who had decided that everyone but them was destined for Hell.  Even today that ends to piss people off.  
Of course, it is also not true that the Puritans fled England.  It was more like they were invited to leave.  there was a great deal of rejoicing in English government when they left because they no long had to spend resources protecting them from the angry mobs that wanted to do them in.  The Puritans just wore out any goodwill that might have existed for them in their home country.  So they left... for Holland.
Yep, the Puritans actually took up residence in the land of wooden shoes and windmills for a decade where they continued to push their legalistic beliefs on the Dutch.  Their new countrymen didn't really complain much (the Dutch are a quiet bunch) because they were an extremely tolerant society.  And that really ticked off the Puritans.  After 11 years, they decided that the influence of tolerance was infecting their children.  They needed to go elsewhere, and quick.  But they couldn't go back the England... especially because England didn't want them.  
So with the help of both Dutch and English government officials, the Mayflower became made available for the Dutch Puritans and those that had remained in England to take them to the New World.
What is really strange about this is that one of the leaders of this group, Roger Williams, preached against what he called  the "enforced unformity of religion" in the Church of England, and when they established themselves in the American colonies, they did exactly the same thing.  
When I look at our society today, I can see that tradition in spades.  Everyone is absolutely sure that there way is the right way.  We have entire broadcast networks dedicated to one view of the world over another.  If you want to say that America is a religious nation, then I can completely agree with you.  It's hard to find someone who isn't religious about something, even if it's being religious against religion.  That is what is both very right and very wrong about America.
But if you want this nation to be considered Christian, then you are going to have to abandon a strong focus on whether something is a sin or if something is sinful.  For this nation to become Christian we are going to have to agree that Jesus Christ died to eliminate sin past, present and future.  It's not about who is wrong or right.  It's about who God loves.  And He loves us all, no matter what.  He paid too high a price to have that fact adulterated.

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.

Finding faith in trying times

A lot of people are struggling today for all kinds of reasons. I'm one of them. It's tough out here. What keeps me going with a relatively positive attitude is my faith ... and what I put my faith in.

This issue of faith has come up in dealing with all kinds of people that are just freaking out because what they put their faith in has horribly let them down. Financially, people who put their faith in the equity of their property, investment portfolios and venture capital are high and dry. People who put their faith in the government to bail them out or protect their rights are sorely disappointed. People who put their faith in relationships are quietly resentful because those friends, family and partners are just as deep in the hole as they are.

Relatively intelligent people are becoming difficult to deal with because the object of their faith. They are unreasonable in their requests and expectations of others. They are angry almost all the time. They can't consider options or alternative directions. What's more, they don't want to change their lifestyles because it's the only source of consistency in their lives. That intransigence only increases the anxiety as the try to hold on to whatever is left.

So how does one cope? Let's really piss you off with an adage: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

My wife and I have been discussing the issue of faith as we deal with our own personal disasters. In short, business sucks. Money is not just tight it's non existent. We have no reserves and used all retirement funds up in the past three years just to stay current. We have no health insurance, the cars need repair, we're borrowing a few bucks from friends and family and ... oh yeah... the water heater started leaking today.

And yet, in all the stress, the hurt and the anger, we know we are going to be OK. We don't know how it's going to happen, we don't know when it is going to happen, but something good is coming. How do we know? Because we've been through this before, maybe not as badly, but nonetheless we remember bad times and remember how what we put our faith in always comes through.

What is it that can give that kind of faith in? Well, you need to figure that out for yourself but I can give you some hints.

First, don't look for it in yourself and your own abilities. You will always, eventually, let yourself down. Your strength needs supplementation from some other source. Second, that source is not going to be in any other person or institution because all of those things are run by people with the same weaknesses you have.

What you have to look for is something outside of this earthly paradigm, and not something that requires you to qualify for support by your own efforts. That source has to be unequivocal.

Now you might be wondering what this has to do with lemonade. We all know the analogy. Lemons are sour. Sometimes a little bitter. That sounds like a lot of our life experience right now. You have to add sugar to counteract the bitterness. That's the faith you bring to the situation. You can make sugar from various sources and that's the decisions you make. But water is readily available and it is that medium, provided in large quantities compared the lemons and sugar, that makes the outcome acceptable. We don't control that source of water, but whatever happens, it's best to make sure the water is unadulterated, the real stuff.

I have to keep telling myself this. Whenever I try to find a focus for my faith that is anything but that unadulterated, unequivocal, readily available source of hope, I get really anxious and make bad decisions. So I'm trying to stick with a very simple recipe for life lemonade. I highly recommend it.