Kyle Gebhart

The Declaration of Independence presents ideals that Americans hold sacred, it is a foundation stone in the cathedral of American Civil Religion. It represents the definitive moment where we gained our freedoms and the rights and privileges we cherish and defend. There is a problem though. As a Christian, it is impossible for me to accept that the founding fathers were warranted by God in signing this document.

The Declaration opens:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Now, compare with the following:

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” Romans 13:1-2

As Paul writes these words, he exhorts Christians (suffering under the godless state of Rome) to obey and trust God. Paul’s commanded response to Roman rule is humble submission; however the founding fathers weren’t playing by Paul’s rules.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were not condoned by Scripture in rebelling against England. Instead, they invoked “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The key word in these opening sentences of our Declaration of Independence is the word entitle. Nature’s god has entitled them to independence.

This god of whom Thomas Jefferson writes does share some basic qualities with the God of the Bible: a type of omnipotence, a benevolence towards mankind, and an interest in human affairs. However, Jefferson’s god is a foreign god to me. He is the god of American Civil Religion, the god of the Declaration of Independence, but he is not the God revealed in the Bible. We’ll call him the “American god.” Washington referred to him by such titles as, “All-Wise Disposer of Events, Grand Architect of the Universe, or Beneficient Being.”[1]

As my series of posts unfolds, we will see that this American god is almost universally the deity whom the founding fathers invoked, and perhaps worshipped. We will also see that the American god is fundamentally at odds with the God of the Bible.

The Declaration of Independence baptizes our nation into the name of a foreign god,and the founding fathers consciously dismiss the God revealed in the Bible. In the act of American independence, they defy a clear exhortation of the apostle Paul. Paul’s God does not impel revolutions. Paul’s God does not encourage His people to willfully rebel against appointed governors; even if those governors do not fear God. The god of Nature, however, does impel such actions. The fathers are entitled by Nature’s god to throw off English authority. How can we conclude that the founding fathers were following the same God as Paul?

Here is a fun little test to see how good you are at identifying ‘fake’ and genuine grins.

Before I launch into my examination of American Civil Religion I want to establish a working understanding of some key premises. The first premise is that many Christians are unaware of the power of nationalism over their worldview.

Historically, it can be argued, that nationalism is quite young only emerging in its current form in the 1800’s. For much of history the ties that bound people together were more localized. Those ties related to families, clans, tribes or races, and in some cases a common language or religion. It is only with the ascendancy of democracy that large groups of peoples with different ethnic and religious backgrounds were united under the broad, inclusive flags of the modern nation-state.

Under democratic ideals nationalism is pluralistic. It states that each should willingly lay aside religious, cultural, or ethnic differences to unite around a shared value system or ideology. Democratic nationalism states, “We will lay aside our differences, to engineer a nation around these political or social goals.” Unity and agreement with these ideals becomes the source of our greatness. For Americans, these ideals are succinctly stated at the beginning of the Republic in the Declaration of Independance: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In honoring our revolutionary past, we chose the term ‘patriot’ for anyone who is inspired to throw off the bonds of slavery to other masters and forge ahead in the spirit of liberty. This language fills the pages of our newspapers, magazines and news programs. Being patriotic is central to our popular discourse. A political candidate who appears unpatriotic has signed their resignation. Good Americans are patriotic, bad people are unpatriotic. Burning an American flag is illegal in several states, supporting the troops is essential, having the heart-strings pulled when the national anthem is sung mandatory. If you are a good American, you are patriotic. If you are not patriotic then perhaps you are a communist, a terrorist, or a traitor.

Patriotism is most esteemed within conservative circles. Those circles include a large, vocal portion of the evangelical Christian community. The influence of Christian patriots can be clearly seen in the number of books and articles written over the last decade on the subject. The liberals have penned hundreds of alarmist diatribes fearful of a conservative takeover of America. The conservatives have characterized their opponents as unpatriotic, supportive of terrorism and un-American.

I think, however, that the patriotism of many evangelical Christians is far more dangerous to their spiritual life than they have seen. Jesus and his apostles never supported or denounced political candidates. I won’t go so far as to say endorsing certain candidates is wrong, but the prophetic voices of the New Testament have made it clear to us that our citizenship in heaven is primary. If our nationalism overrides our allegiance to The Kingdom of God, then we have compromised our spiritual well-being.

I believe that there are many in the American church who are already compromised in this way.

A few years ago Zack and I led a home group that met in our house in Westport. Sometimes we invited others to join us for a prayer walk through the gallery district downtown. We weren’t doing outreach, but doing what we do best, praying for spiritual renewal.

One particular night, there was a woman who joined us who vehemently expressed her desire to avoid environments that ‘defiled’ her. She questioned the wisdom of walking through the gallery district and ‘getting slimed.’

I’ve often heard this sentiment, but I have some serious questions about whether or not it is an accurate description of what is actually happening to people. Are they really being defiled by walking around a few galleries?

A few verses come to mind, Jesus says, “it’s not what goes into a man, but what comes out of him that defiles him.” I know that in context Jesus was talking about dietary restrictions - but he also makes a secondary point: we need to look at our speech as a primary place of defilement in order to call the Pharisees out of false religious notions of defilement. They had focused too much intensity on a single means of defilement that was in some ways secondary to the real problem.

Another verse that comes to mind is when James describes true religion as serving ophans and widows and keeping one undefiled from the world. The question here is, how do we get defiled by the world?

Personally, I think the idea that prayer-walking the gallery defiling someone is absurd; especially when we consider the amount of non-Christian (and some ’so-called’ Christian!) media that most Christians consume. If being around non-Christians defiles believers, than this world is left without any hope. If defilement comes merely from contact with unbelievers we should cancel all missions trips to Hindu lands, Muslim countries, and secular college campuses.

What is it that people mean when they say they feel slimed? I think there are several options.

First, I think some Christians have not been in much contact with unbelievers. They are deeply dismayed by the depravity and confusion that surrounds secular culture. It disturbs them to see the hopelessness of people living without God. That can feel ’slimy’.

Secondly, I think that against the backdrop of this hopelessness, many believers suffer a painful encounter with their own spiritual barrenness. They witness the darkness around them and their own inability to bring any change. They are overwhelmed and feel defeated by the difficulty of the task. That could feel ’slimy’.

Finally, I think that some Christians experience powerful temptations. They feel seduced by the dark ideals and immorality that are normal for secular culture. Facing brazen, unapologetic sinfulness can be a serious temptation to any believer. We should never put ourselves in a situation where we know we will be tempted. That can definately feel ’slimy.’

There are many environments that most Christians should almost never enter (bars, nightclubs, pagan festivals). I think many secular environments can become a snare to us. However, let’s not put the blame on non-believers. Instead, let’s embrace the truth: we have a weak conscience and feel tempted by the world. That will lead us to freedom. Admitting we feel slimed because we feel tempted will give us wisdom to confess our weakness, and run away from the temptation. Let us admit the truth, it is not being around a bunch of ‘dirty artists’ that defiles us. It is a struggle in our sinfulness, not a struggle against ‘their’ sinfulness.

For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’

I’ve been meditating on a verse that has got to be one of the most…well…insane…in all of the Bible. If we believe it, we cannot walk away from the Bible believing that God is against us.

In John 17:25 Jesus prays, “…that the love that you have for me may be in them.” That is, that the love that the Father has for Jesus would be in us. As I’ve been thinking about this verse, my conclusion is that Jesus is asking the Father to give us the same passionate, holy love towards the Son that the Father Himself experiences towards the Son. We are called to love Jesus as the Father loves Jesus. Which of course begs the question: How does the the Father love Jesus?

This has been the question I’ve been asking God the last few months. How do you love your Son? How can I love Him in the same way?

I’ve not come to anything like a conclusion on this yet, but I do have one thought on how the Father has loved Jesus. The Father is THE friend of the Bridegroom beyond all ‘friends’ of the Bridegroom. The Father has faithfully, humbly spent enormous energy, time, and focus upon preparing a Bride who is worthy of spending eternity with His Son.

This is one way that we can enter with the Father into His love for His Son, by coming with Him in preparing Jesus’ Bride. It is an idea that is definitely inspiring my heart and helping me move forward in prayer right now and I thought it may be an encouraging thought for others.

I’ve been reading two books that have me thinking about atheism, Sam Harris’, “The End of Faith,” and a book called “The Reason for God,” by Timothy Keller. Both have been on the NYT Bestsellers list over the last few years. Keller is probably worth your time, Harris is probably not - in my opinion Harris is dishonest (and NOT in the category of a ’sincere’ atheist.)

The people to whom Keller writes, and whom I’ve met, fall into the category of sincere. I truly appreciate them.

A sincere atheist is someone who cannot reconcile the lack of compassion, power, or holiness within various faiths (including Christianity) and is left with the conclusion: If these people define what God looks like, He must not exist. I’m sure none of us have ever had that thought.

The reason I apppreciate the questions of atheists is because they test the depth and sincerity of my faith and my compassion. Unfortunately, I’ve met many Christians who are intimidated or angered by atheists. I believe an atheist is more likely to find the truths of the Gospel than a ‘lazy agnostic,’ however, at least the atheist is asking questions that Jesus answers. The agnostic is usually only asking, “What’s on TV tonight?” The atheist in one sense chooses not to isolate themselves from the difficult circumstances of existance. The agnostic says, “I don’t care.”

I look for the day when Christians are equipped to answer the atheists’ valid questions. I’m not referring here to that nebulous category of discourse called ‘apologetics’. I’m referring to servants of God who pray and unselfishly listen to those that are struggling to survive on a darkened planet, with no light to guide them. I know that ‘most people’ will reject the truth in the end. I understand human depravity, after all, I am human. My point is we should be quick to listen and slow to speak, even when an atheist is doing the speaking.

We have more to gain from a love that is patient and kind and a wisdom that is full of mercy - and we have much to lose from a habit of making rote pronouncements about God assuming we understand the struggles of an atheist, without having listened to them. Presumption is a far cry from evangelism. If we make an assumption about an atheist, perhaps it should be this: let us assume they need to see love in action with a passion that is inspired by Jesus. As a matter of fact, I think there’s a Bible verse somewhere on that…

This post is inspired by Bret Mavrich who emailed me a link to an off-center website called “garfield without garfield”: lots of Garfield cartoons with the cat removed, and mentally deranged Jon Arbuckle fighting a losing battle at keeping it all together.

The working premise is that the louder you laugh, the drier your humor.

The less you get it (or like it) the more you probably like Jim Carrey movies, Dumber and Dumber, and Gallegher (sp?). Funny or not? You be the judge.

(Of course, I think it is brilliantly funny.)

The above statement is author and foodie Michael Pollan’s eater’s manifesto. I’m enraptured with it’s simplicity - and the difficulty of doing it in 2008.

Pollan has emerged as a clear voice in the midst of our chaotic/ironic attempt to eat. The emphasis is upon the word food here - not monosodium-glutamate-ridden, refined sugar-laden, appetite suppressants. Think of an apple. I’m thankful for the clarity and simplicity with which he addresses one of the strangest of modern dilemmas. What should I have for dinner?

It is a bitter irony. For thousands of years, most labor was for a single purpose: to get food on the table. The food provided the energy for farming, hunting and providing oneself with, guess what,  more food. In fact it was such a consuming process, that God required the Sabbath. The biblical mandate for the Sabbath was a ‘counter-cultural’ statement. God declared, “you can’t provide for yourself, you have to trust Me to provide for you.”

In 2008 in America, however, we have a strange phenomenon: our primary jobs so cosume our time that it prevents us from growing or eating actual food. We spend our 40 hour week producing information, products, or ideas. When we come home to eat, we ‘just add water’ - and our stomach is silenced.

I’m not advocating anything here, just musing. Though, I am planting a garden this year. If nothing else, it’s cheaper than driving to the supermarket. I mean, the ground just provides FREE food! What a concept. Oh, and I’m swearing off fast “can-you-really-call-it-food” for the immediate future.

A few years ago, this term came to mind to describe the nationalism, patriotism and social ethics that fuel the imaginations of most Americans. Though I never assumed I ‘coined’ the term I’d never heard it before.

A simple Google search revealed to me that American Civil Religion has some other observers; the most notable seems to be this guy. I’m putting his book on hold at the library as we speak.

In any case ACR is by far one my favorite topics on my mind at any given time (just ask Zack). I’ll be putting together a series of posts on how ACR and biblical Christianity are dangerously at odds with each other. Look for thoughts on subjects such as: America’s ‘covenant’ with God, Manifest Destiny, Israel worshipping golden calves, genocidal acts, faith in the White House, and even Mormonism - that unique and much maligned religion created right here in the good old U-S-of-A.

One quick note: my primary citizenship is in heaven - but I do love Americans. I just have questions about how long we can continue to claim to be a Christian country, and whether claiming to be a Christian country was ever a good idea.

I’ll leave us with a quote from Belleh I snagged from the wikipedia page on ACR:

And to that I will say, Amen Robert, Amen.

The peace sign, it is part of our corporate consciousness. Apparently it has only been around for 50 years.

Did you know that it = ND? - that is: nuclear disarmament. Check out the history of it here.