Wednesday, November 11, 2009

I pledge allegiance

Much has been said, and we will say much more, about Major Malik Nadal Hasan's allegiance to Islam and how it conflicted with his allegiance to his uniform and to his nation (that's us).  It has opened a discussion that about which I have heard little.  What do we do when our relationship with God runs counter to what our government asks of us?

Houston, we have a problem.

More and more we find this clash amongst those who hold a strict Koranic view of Islam within non-Islamic societies.  Hence, Brits have kowtowed to Muslim immigrants and permitted Sharia within certain burroughs.  Hence, Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis needn't pick up passengers with seeing-eye dogs.  Hence, Muslim cashiers needn't check out patrons purchasing pork or Pabst Blue Ribbon.  Now we have soldiers who want to join the military but who want to take a sabbatical when they're fighting Muslims.

This God and country dilemma not only conflicts the hard-core Muslim, but it troubles (or should trouble) the Christian, too.

During the days of the Revolution, many Christian patriots loved England, but hated what the king was doing.  During the Civil War, many families were split north and south, with the north unable to abide slavery and the south unable to abide the erosion of state sovereignty.  During the World Wars, immigrants of most every Christian creed turned around to battle against their former homeland for the cause of freedom.

In the past, for those Christians who held to God as their highest allegiance, because of the Judeo-Christian bedrock upon which our nation was founded, they faced no conflict between God and country.  Serving one's country did not mean that one had to compromise in their service to God because the nation and its military stemmed from that firm foundation.  For those that examined the word of God, they did not find his principles nor his precepts violated as they took up arms against those America opposed even if they were Christians.  National conflict is a very different thing than personal conflict within the pages of the Bible.

But erosion has taken its toll.  Post-modern America has rejected its biblical underpinnings opting for a more secular function of government, culture, and international interactions.  As such, many Christians and many who serve in the military have begun to find themselves at odds with national policies.  Many find it repellent that we would allow our women to face the heat of combat.  Many grieve that the military is fast approaching the normalization of that which but a few decades ago was seen as deviance and contrary to good order and discipline.  Many wonder why we would kiss the ring of misogynist kings but would shun the only nation in the Middle East with a remotely free government.  Many cannot abide the legal killing of a child not yet born.

So like Major Hasan, many Christians find themselves at odds with God or country.

But there's a diametrical difference.  Christians do not turn their arms treacherously against their own.  They may have had to refuse their assigned duties.  They may have had to claim conscientious objector status.  Many face punitive action for not carrying out commands and orders, but to turn their weapons against their own is a repugnant and unbiblical idea.

As often as Islam is lauded as a religion of peace, there is much within a plain contextual reading of the Koran that would lead one not only to a position of conflict with one's nation but also to take up arms against that nation (slides 33, 34, 43, and 44 in Maj Hasan's PowerPoint presentation here exemplify this militant response).  You'll not find such militancy commanded of the Christian believer within a contextual reading of the Bible.

As our nation races faster and faster toward banishing any vestige of God from the public sector, the Christian will find himself more and more in conflict with the nation they have loved.  When those times come, the Christian would do well to follow the examples of Daniel's friends (Daniel 3, esp. vv. 16-18) and Peter and John (Acts 4:1-20, 5:29) by obeying God and submitting themselves to whatever consequence comes at the hand of the appointed governor (Romans 13:1-7). 

It has been in the persecution of the saints and the blood of the martyrs that the Church has flourished and God has been honored, not in the butchering of innocents or in the murder of comrades in arms.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm watching a History Channel special about Operation Valkyrie as I write this.

We can't truly submit to authority until we disagree with the authority. If we never disagree with those over us, we simply play follow-the-leader. No submission is required.

Keith - would you have fought for the Redcoats or rebels in 1776?

the other Keith

Keith Pond said...

A couple thoughts.

I believe you can submit without a disagreement just as the Son submitted Himself to the Father or just as the wife submits herself to the husband (if she abides the NT).

Regarding the Revolutionary War the challenge comes when we assess how nations should conduct themselves with nations and how individuals should conduct themselves within a nation. The government had repeatedly violated its contract with its people (detached nation), and that growing entity sought redress...and never got it. From what I have read, most Revolutionaries had no desire to be revolutionaries but quite felt their hand forced.

Would I have fought? More than likely. Romans 13, again, as I personally face government day to day. That does not apply to how a civic entity deals with another civic entity (to my thinking).