Hi, friends! We're up to 619 on this list now--it keeps growing. In order not
to burden those who want the column only, I'm going to start putting my
comments & hey-howdy at the bottom, where they can be easily skipped, rather
than the top.
However if you want to "play along at home," as you read through this column,
be thinking of how you would title it. I just signed on to see what Beliefnet
chose, and I'm kind of taken aback. More at the bottom.
***
Give me liberty or give me death. Or give me something else. Staying alive,
but under the rule of another nation? Yeah, that sounds all right, too.
Scandalous thoughts, especially this time of year. I'm a conservative
Christian, born an American, born into the idea of faith intertwined with
freedom. But I've been thinking over something I read recently. During the
Jewish rebellion against Rome in the first century, religious leaders were
the last to join the cause. They worked for peace and opposed revolution
because, as one historian put it, "Roman rule presented no serious threat to
Jewish religion." In other words, overthrowing an oppressive government
wasn't a requisite of the faith.
This was a startling idea to me. But as I looked in my Bible concordance, I
saw that the terms "freedom" and "liberty" are much rarer than I had thought
and usually refer to freedom from sin or the Law. Political freedom is not
presumed to be an unmixed good. Self-governance could lead to carelessness
with the faith, while life under oppression could bear spiritual fruit.
Perhaps the Jewish priests' resistance to war against Rome was mere
pragmatism; as it turned out, the rebellion was suicidal and Jerusalem was
destroyed.
But Jesus, speaking at the same time, took it further. He taught his
followers radical detachment from earthly power: "My kingdom is not of this
world." He taught them not just to endure but to love their enemies.
America under the control of England, Israel under the control of Rome--how
do they stack up? On one side, we see Patriots mowing down rows of Redcoat
soldiers; on the other, we hear Jesus saying we should obey a Roman soldier
and even offer to carry his pack a second mile (Matthew 5:41). On one side,
Patriots are tossing tea into the harbor in defiance of British taxes; on the
other, Jesus miraculously produces a coin to pay his Roman taxes (Matthew
17:27).
Yes, the Revolutionary War and the teachings of Jesus: They go together like
a cake and a bowling ball.
I'm not saying that there isn't much to admire in the story of our nation's
birth. The liberation of our nation required great courage, and the
establishment of our unprecedented government required genius. I'm very
grateful that I was born in this land in freedom. No, I don't want to go back
to England, where everything, even toast, is cooked by boiling, and babies
are afflicted with those wispy names, like Nigel, that were too feeble to
cross the Atlantic.
However, it looks like the biblical teaching is that liberty is not necessary
to the spiritual life--not even all that important in the larger scheme of
things. The establishment of the American democracy isn't an illustration of
biblical principles. It's rather an illustration of "the course of human
events"--the kind of thing that happens in human history. At regular
intervals, people have wars, and somebody wins and somebody loses. The one
who wins gets a bonus prize: He gets to interpret what just happened. From
his point of view, of course, what happened was just plain wonderful. Justice
was served. Everyone on our side was heroic, and everyone on the other side
was dastardly.
We are taught these views early and absorb them without question. It seems
right for Yankees to rebel against England but wrong for Confederates to
rebel against Yankees. It seems right to fight to set slaves free, but wrong
for Native Americans to resist our taking their land. From the perspective of
the winner, however things turned out is exactly the way they should have. A
naive reader of history would find it a delightful story, because there is a
happy ending every time.
Perhaps the way things turn out is always the way God wants it. More likely,
things turn out the way God permits it, though his plan may not be
comprehensible to us until the end, like that of a master chess player. But
beyond that, we can't draw conclusions.
A person living in liberty, and one living under oppression, has full access
to the same God. Each has the same potential for spiritual growth. A person
who has power or wealth is not necessarily a better disciple than one who
does not. In fact, given the tendency of power to corrupt and wealth to
smother, the one who has less may be more spiritually free, even in chains.
It was clear to the early Christians that the great danger is attachment to
these things, not the things in themselves. The love of money--not money
itself--is the root of all evil. A rich person hoarding wealth and a poor
person enviously craving it run the same spiritual danger. Instead,
detachment is the key: "I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content.
I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound," said St. Paul. A steady
heart can be maintained despite turbulent outside circumstances--despite
blatant unfairness.
A few years later, Paul was beheaded for his faith. For centuries, Christians
were accused of atheism (because they denied Roman gods) and cannibalism
(because of wild rumors about the Eucharist). They were tortured to death as
public entertainment. Yet even then, they did not vow political freedom from
their oppressors. They did not try to kill their persecutors or demand to be
given liberty or death. They were willing to die, but not to kill, for their
faith.
"Where your treasure is, your heart will be also," said Jesus. That treasure
is Jesus himself, and, grounded in him, believers could go beyond being
concerned for their own rights. Instead of shooting their enemies, they could
love them or at least die trying.
So let's not confuse our dramatic American story with the example of Jesus
and the early Christians. They, too, knew political oppression, and they
chose a different path. We enjoy liberty, but we should recognize that it is
not a requirement for, or a guarantee of, spiritual health. Scripture doesn't
exhort us to seek first political freedom but to seek the Kingdom of God,
since we can follow our Lord no matter what our earthly lot. The epistle to
the Hebrews says, "Here we have no continuing city."
I'm grateful to have the United States for my "temporary city," grateful that
I was born in this magnificent land and enjoy freedom others died to secure.
That's undeserved bounty but not a text of spiritual instruction. It's good
to celebrate on the Fourth with friends and fireworks, beer and a hot dog.
One of those off the grill--not boiled.
*****
Now, this is obviously a sensitive sort of column, especially on a day like
today, and I felt bad about coming across as a Captain Bringdown. So I tried
to couch it carefully, make the point repeatedly and distinguish it from
other possible points that I *wasn't* making, etc.
But I heard from editors last night that they wanted to title it boldly, to
make sure people read it. (It is, in fact, the lead on the site tonight.) So
the title they wanted to use was "America is Not God's Favorite Country."
Urk. I wrote back that I really didn't like that, it was too flat-footed,
could we have a title that suggested rethinking rather than a flat claim--a
claim about something I couldn't possibly know, anyway. I suggested some
alternatives, like "Untangling Faith and Freedom" or even "God's Favorite
Country? Not So Fast."
So I was disappointed to click on tonight and see this on the main site,
under an illustration of the flag:
<<America is Not God's Favorite Country
So says one conservative Christian. In fact, Frederica Mathewes-Green argues
that a free country isn't necessary–or even desirable–for God's blessing. >>
Oh, man. That's like a shoe that's too tight. It doesn't fit, in a lot of
ways. When you go to the article itself it says:
<<Give Me Patriotism or Give Me Faith
The story of our nation's birth is inspiring but not really relevant to our
faith journeys.>>
Again, this is just off the mark. Well, the lesson is, never assume that a
writer chose the headline; the writer may be cringing at the headline.
Unfortunately, the headline has great power to condition how readers take in
the piece. Already there's one message in the mini-board about "if you don't
like it here" and "quit your bitching" :-) which I suspect are responding
more to the tone of the title and subheads than the content of the piece
itself.
The recent controversy over CS Lewis was due at least in part to a similar
headline mishap. I picked up the NYTimes that morning and was shocked to read
"Marketing Narnia without a Christian Lion." I formed the immediate idea that
someone planned to strip the Christian symbolism from the Narnia books, and
it governed every paragraph I read. It wasn't till I got to the end that I
realized the story contained nothing related to that scary idea, and then I
had to read the story a couple more times to erase that mistaken notion and
discern what it *did* say.
The tossup is, generally I am willing to let the editor's judgement rule in
the case of headlines, even in this case. The editor is in the position of a
host introducing two people at a party. They know me and they know the
reader, and they're in the best position to summarize my article so that
readers will be interested. If it were up to me, all my headlines would be
much more soft and nuanced, they'd have a lot of "perhaps" and all that stuff
straight-shooting editors hate and that readers take as a signal for Boredom
Ahead. A headline that charges up the battery will be more likely to get
readers to actually read, whereas my impulse to be subtle might just produce
yawns. Personally, I'd like all my columns to be titled "Here Are Some
Interesting Thoughts From a Nice Person Whom You Would Really Like If You
Knew Her." Then maybe some flowers. So far no editor has gone for this.
By the way, my reading about the Jewish war is because I'm writing a chapter
on that tragic episode for a forthcoming initial volume in a series of books
of Christian history, kind of like the Time Life World War II series. It
looks to be a fascinating project. More on that as it appears.
Do have a happy fourth--even my fellow Orthodox, who (since it's a Wednesday)
will skip the beer and hot dog!
*******************************
Frederica Mathewes-Green
www.frederica.com
