More Thoughts on Sevier

Several weeks ago I described the conflict in Sevier County over the posting of the Ten Commandments and the practice of prayer at County Council meetings. The conflict is not resolved, and we are awaiting Act II. Here are some more (rather random) personal opinions:

1) In The Origins of Speech, Rosenstock lists inarticulateness as a disease of speech. Christians in America are angry and frustrated, but are unable to verbalize what they feel or to clarify what they mean, even among themselves. Rosenstock states that revolution occurs when inarticulate shouts or groans find a voice or a word that summarizes the cause of the frustration, a voice or word that causes the discontent to say, "yes, that is what we mean." We may be on the verge of such articulation.

2)Peck and Strohmer, in Uncommon Sense, state that Christians are inarticulate because they do not use biblical language or concepts in their conflicts with unbelievers. For example, Christians insist on using political and "constitutional" language in the abortion debate, and in the process, back themselves into an unnecessary corner. Neither "right to life" nor "sanctity of life" are biblical concepts. No man has a right to his life; it is a gift of God. It is His to give and take away according to his will. And while a man's eternal existence as a perfected human being may be called "sacred," there is no "sacredness" to physical life in and of itself. The phrase has eastern overtones. The Bible, in fact, doesn't speak of "rights" or inherent sacredness, but of duties and responsibilities, which are intensely personal. The commandments are not demands that I lay on my neighbor, but revelations of my heart's attitude toward him. The use of "right to life" focuses on the fetus as an object outside myself that can be analyzed--hence the endless (and ridiculous) debate over when life begins. The question is not “when does life begin?” It is, rather: “what is my responsibility to the unborn?” This question is vitally personal and will not allow me the luxury of abstraction.

This is an illustration of how using political or constitutional, rather than biblical concepts opens debate on issues that miss the point. Somehow I feel we are in the same boat in the courthouse debate, and I am still working on that one.

3) It is my own conviction that when a culture has no absolutes to which it bows, the state becomes absolute. While humanists can list the oppressions and horrors propagated by religion (especially Christianity) through the ages, I can’t imagine that the statist solution offers anything better. In fact, it is far worse.

The removal of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse wall says, “We will not have this Man to rule over us.” But then, what else is new? That decision was made years ago. The pasture gate has been standing open for a while and the cows are gone. We live in a multi-cultural, multi or a-religious culture held together by a state with its own vocabulary and mythology. Taking a stand at the courthouse is a rear-guard maneuver that only looks silly in light of the age and depth of change in America. Is protesting at the courthouse really the "sticking point," the point of resistance, the point where one's own conviction crashes into the will of the state? I don't think so.

4) The fact is that outstanding believers in both covenantal eras faithfully served pagan or secular states. Classic examples are Joseph, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Mordecai, and especially Daniel and the three friends. The reason they could do so is simple: they believed that God was Lord of all history, that God governed through kings and emperors whom He raised up and put down. (Jesus recognized the authority of Pontius Pilate because He believed that His Father was the author of all earthly power.) That is why outstanding Old Testament believers showed respect to Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, the Persian emperors, and why Paul insisted that Christians submit to the authority of Rome. But they also believed that the king was subordinate to Jesus Christ, and there was the rub, or I should say, the sticking point. When the authority insisted that a believer confess his hegemony over whatever God the believer served, the believer refused. The issue was who possessed final authority.

Notice that the sticking point was not whether the state was godly, pagan, or secular; or whether the state recognized God's authority. The sticking point was forced acquiescence to the final authority of the state over all gods and powers. It was at that point that the three friends went into the furnace and Daniel went into the lions' den.

This was the issue that faced Christians during the Roman persecutions. Rome was a multi-cultural, multi-religious state that practiced commendable tolerance within its borders. I do not find Christian protests against Caesar's declaration of himself as Dominus et Pontifex Maximus, terms which the Christians reserved for Christ alone. It was only when the state demanded a bit of incense, a mere tip of the hat to the final and ultimate godhood of Caesar, that Christians balked. That meant the individual was being forced to deny the ultimacy of his God. Pushed to the wall, the Christian could not assign the terms to both divinities. Jesus was Caesar's Lord, and the Christian could serve Caesar for that very reason. Being ask to reverse their rolls was blasphemy, both to the Christian and to the Roman, who saw not religious fanaticism, but treason, in the Christian resistance.

The sticking point, biblically, occurs when the Christian is forced to choose between Christ and Caesar, and when the choice for Christ is considered an assault on the state. Are we there yet? The difficulty with answering that question is that we are moving backwards in comparison to the first believers. The early Christian grew up in a pagan environment and gradually so influenced it that even the emperor bowed to Christ. We today are moving from 1500 years of Christian culture to a flagrant rejection of it. It is difficult to assume that modern American Caesars will not test the commitment of their followers. In the meantime the inarticulate frustration will continue to latch on to less than important issues and long for a clarifying voice. It may be that the articulate voice and the “sticking point” will coincide.