Rick Frueh has written a powerful post today.
On July 21, 1944 at about 1:00 A.M., a Nazi firing squad lifted their rifles, and lit by the headlights of cars, they executed their human target. Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg fell dead, having been executed for his major part in a failed attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler.
But it is his last recorded words that should be a learning experience for us as believing followers of Jesus Christ.
Just before he was shot he shouted “Es lebe unser heiliges Deutschland!”, which means in English “Long live our sacred Germany!”.
When we as believers inspect and assess such a statement we must be moved with grief for such allegiance. But that patriotism is definitely in line with the cultures and upbringing in many, if not most, countries. The rich and embellished histories of countries are carefully spoon fed to the children at the youngest of ages and then strengthened with ceremony, pledges, flags, and nationalistic music. It is this kind of misguided teaching that has led to many unfortunate historical episodes and wars, not the least of which was the rise of the National Socialist Party in Nazi Germany. But this is to be expected in the world and it will continue until Christ comes again.
But what has been most unfortunate and even deadly is the way American evangelicalism has bought into such teachings, and even given an unashamed allegiance to the country in which they were born.
This year July 4th will fall upon a Sunday, and on the day which is supposed to be for the celebration of the resurrection and the worship of the Risen Christ, many American churches will observe a “patriotic” service complete with nationalistic songs, the celebration of this nation, and even overtures of allegiance and love. All of which is nothing more than overt idolatry and sacrilege within the gathering that must always be exclusively His.
I do not hate America; I hate idolatry. And lest you get the impression that my hands are clean let me reveal this to you.
I once led the songs and I once was filled with emotion in patriotic services and I once pledged allegiance to the flag. So I do not judge anyone, but I must judge the actions that continue to take place within the church. It is this “Long live sacred America” view that has drained the church of her God given power and made us nothing more than patriots that happen to be religious. And this nation is no better or no worse than any other; they all are fallen.
Political freedom has become an idol as well, and democracy is worshiped. We would do well to remember than when Christ comes to reign again on earth He will not set up a democracy.
Listen to the talk show hosts as they warn us about losing the lifestyle we once knew and how our freedoms are being taken away from us. That may be true for the unregenerate, but for the redeemed this nation cannot take anything away from us at all. Our freedom is in Christ, our joy is in Christ, our salvation is in Christ, and our very lives are in Christ. And when the world brings darkness it only presents an opportunity to shine the glorious light of Jesus and His gospel. When our reactions mirror those of the lost then we have left Christ.
And so I ask you, on this Sunday, to open your heart to the Spirit and see how God actually feels about all this national revelry. Jesus must be Lord, and if that does not become conspicuous and remarkable within any culture and nation, then He is only Lord in words and not the heart. It is past time that the church come out from among them and be different. Not in moral self righteousness, but in humble power that lifts up the Christ in word and deed. Until then we can continue with our religious and national amalgam and feel good about ourselves.
Posted by Rick Frueh at Following Judah’s Lion
PJ,
I’m in agreement with Rick Freuh’s perception. My personal concern however, is that of shifting from a Biblical worldview to the formation of a fanatical worldview (2nd Corinthians 13:5). Therefore , I try to not let a perceived notion of the church having kinks in its armor, sway me into making broad/universal claims against “the church” since I’m not you know… omnipresent.
Thank you LORD.
Grace and peace be with you.
My perception is that the term “biblical worldview”, having been created by Schaeffer and Rushdooney, is a flag usually indicating the cultural mandate and theonomy theology, and/or neo-calvinism which is based on Kuyper’s “common grace” aberration. If we don’t espouse those theologies, can’t we just say we try to have a Scriptural perspective, or that we obey the teachings of Jesus? Or that we are born again and so not conformed to this world or it’s thinking? “Biblical worldview” is the slogan of the belligerent culture warriors and reconstructionists.
I don’t see Frueh making any broad/universal claims against the church. I see him warning her from history and calling her to consider her ways, if she is truly in the faith, and following Jesus.
Vicki,
So far my comment is the only one to use the term “Biblical worldview”, so I am under the assumption that you are addressing said comment. I do hope that what’s said will give you a moment of pause to reflect.
I’m not at all familiar with Schaeffer, Rushdooney or Kuyper so I’m not quite sure how to respond. If I am correct in my understanding, you are however insisting that to use the term “Biblical worldview” causes me to be under the belligerent culture warrior or re constructionist ideology? Perhaps I am misreading the intent of your comment? From where I sit there seems to be a broad stroke involved, which ironically was the point of my 1st comment.
Would you care to explain the characteristics of a “belligerent culture warrrior” or re constructionist? It would give me an idea of what to compare to Scripture. Also I am curious as to why you did not address my use of the term “fanatical worldview”? An interesting observation indeed.
In reference to your statement:
Rick Freuh says:
To my ears that sounds like a broad statement; regardless of the perspective that the warning is coming from. As stated in my first comment, I agree with Freuh’s perceptions that there are some CHRISTians who worship under the pretense of, it being equal with the God of the Bible(orsemantics aside, Scripture), the god of patriotic America.
For what it’s worth… “if she is truly in the faith, and following Jesus.” is the catch. Has it ever occurred to you (and Freuh) that the “church” your both referring to is not a part of Jesus’ church in part, for precisely the reasons that Freuh writes? (John 10:1-21)
Grace and peace be with you.
Amen and spot-on! Although I served on active duty in Army (peace time), I cringed every year in my former church when they celebrated the political right wing (which I inhabit) of this country, claiming it as “Christian”. How sweet it is to now belong to a Church that keeps Christ first in all things.
you have talked about July 4th church services, have you heard about this thing going on
http://www.call2fall.com/
from the family research council
http://www.call2fall.com/basics
—–
Who are we worshipping now? Christ or the American patriots
Greetings, brother Christopher. Please forgive me for offending you and causing you to feel accused. I will respond more fully when I have time. My point about using the term “biblical worldview” is that it IS a term developed by those guys you haven’t heard of, and therefore implies a lot of theology and attitudes behind it, so that if you do NOT hold to the assumptions and attitudes which have developed around this strain of theology, you may want to reconsider using the term. If you DO hold to those teachings and attitudes, you will not agree with me, nor Frueh, nor pj, and may possibly be offended by us for that.
pj has many many articles and links here that detail just what is the theology and tactics and practice of dominionists, “Christian patriots”, Christian right activists, reconstructionists (though they don’t call themselves that anymore), and culture warriors; and how those ideas are flooding into the churches in America perhaps not being recognized as such. May I suggest you read Sarah Leslie, Al Dager, and recently the series of blogs at Herescope and Dr. Steinkamp to explain what I mean by belligerent culture warriors, because they analyze the theology more skillfully than I can here in this blog.
By recontructionist, I mean those who believe in theonomy for civil government, that the church must conquer all of wordly society before Christ’s return, who believe in a cultural dominion mandate derived in part from a few verses in Genesis that makes its followers believe they must take dominion over all of society in the world and impose theonomy (Law), and prays imprecatory (cursing) prayers agianst those who do not agree with them (even with others followers of Jesus who do not agree with them! I’d say that’s pretty belligerent.) Reconstructionists are belligerent in that they do not submit to worldly authorities with whom they disagree as per Romans 13, rather seek to intimidate or overthrow them through protests, boycotts, and taking over politically.
By culture warriors I mean those who attempt to wrest control, influence, and power of the “spheres” of culture in order to impose biblical law and standards on people, regardless of whether those people are regenerated or not. These people are typically neo-Puritan and hold a view that the U.S. was created as a Christian nation. They typically feel that they must “take back” their country.
Kuyper’s common grace aberration theorizes that in addition to saving grace, there is a common grace given to all that when Christians rule with biblical law it blesses everyone, so Christians should try to make the world a better place with earthly means. I believe this view has a wrong understanding of the Kingdom.
Thanks for pointing out that statement in Frueh’s blog that DOES seem to indicate that he is painting the church with a broad brush of accusation; I see it now; though still my read of it is as a warning. From following his blog for some time now, I know he loves the saints and rebukes and reproves with the Scriptures, but is not condemning nor accusatory in a dishonoring way, which is what I interpreted your response to mean that you thought he was slandering all the church everywhere.
To your final statement: yes, that has exactly occured to me, that all who call themselves the church may not be, or may be following false teachers, and is why Frueh and I feel it necessary to warn, because people can be deceived but then come out of deception, can be on a wrong path but be set right, can love Jesus and yet for a time be off the rails. Leaders are leading some astray down these potentially idolatrous paths, and we are Scripturally admonished to test ourselves to see if we are in the faith.
I did not respond to your reference to “fanatical worldview” because I did not understand from your response if you meant that the patriotic view is the fanatical view, or that Frueh’s view (which I see as being a separatist view in the anabaptist tradition) is the fanatical view. I honostly don’t know what that paragraph in your first posts is saying.
I don’t know exactly what I wrote that seems to have ranckled you, my brother, but I did not intend to, and wish to be at peace with you. I hope these explanations clarify for you what I observe and have experienced in churches and among people claiming to be Christians, in my personal experience.
Vicki,
Praise be to our LORD and Saviour for your gracious response. I do hope that I may set your heart at ease when I say that you have not offended me.
Vicki, please forgive my cryptic methodology regarding my reference to “fanatical worldview”. It was my attempt to prod you to consider whether or not you held to your views out of pure devotion to Christ or perhaps there is a
root of fanaticism taking hold. That was not meant to imply that you or anyone else is fanatical, rather to push you to examine your stand. I myself have to take pause at time to examine for what reason(s) I have a strong opinion on matters; asking is it based on what God has said in Scripture or is it based on my interpretation of what God has said in Scripture.
In response to your last paragraph, specifically the final sentence.
In my initial comment a point that I was attempting to share for purposes of edification is that we all ought to be careful in making those types of broad/all inclusive claims because they are limited to our limited experiences.
Allow me to elaborate… I live in Oklahoma, in a town of roughly 100K people. I rarely leave town, let alone the side of town I live on; no I’m not a hermit.
These are the circumstances of the “bubble” I live in. Praise to God that He impressed upon my heart years ago to not assume that my observations from my bubble apply across the board. My observations may prove to be 99.99% correct, yet since I have’nt the ability to confirm them accurately (remember my little quip about being omnipotent?) I leave room for the possibility that I may be wrong in my observation. I don’t get too bent out of shape by my perceptions of what’s happening within the church because I’m confident that God is still in control.(Job 23-25)
With all of that said, I wish to reiterate that you have not upset me Vicki. When I first read Freuh’s post, I was emotionally charged to “Amen” the entire piece. A second read revealed however, that for all of the spiritual gusto, there appeared to be a whiff of fanaticism via the “all” statement. My concern is that you, and anyone else that happened across the article, didn’t chomp on the entire bit without considering the entire context of Freuh’s piece. Perhaps Freuh’s intentions are sincere, I think that much of what he said has merit. Then again, sincerity does not necessarily equate to righteousness.
Vicki, no foul, no harm.
Grace and peace be with you
P.S. to Christopher: I do not insist that you or anyone using the term “biblical worldview” causes you to be under the theology of belligerent culture warrior. My point is that those who are, have this term as a keyword in their vocabulary because the term was invented by the seminal thinkers of that stream. I say that being under that theology WILL CAUSE one to use the term alot. So in using it, you probably cause others to think you are in it.
There are many buzz words out there, and my opinion is to avoid using them if we learn that they are buzz words, or “code words” if you will , that are laden with extra meaning that we do not intend. So we can be understood as easily as possible.
For example, another buzz word is “transformation.” It is a key concept of certain new teachings. Likewise, “marketplace.” Also “spiritual formation,” “the annointing,” and “reclaiming America.” Sorry, but honestly if I hear someone talking in those words I do make assumptions about where they’re coming from, unless or until they make it clear otherwise.
Vicki,
I get where you are coming from. I am aware of the Emergent, Seeker Sensitive, Apostolic & Prosperity buzzwords to name a few. To see the things going on in the church today is very upsetting at times. I’ve been close to blowing a gasket or two on more than one occasion.
I suspect that this is something that many of us experience (not in a mystical, walking the labyrinth kinda way) 
That said I am reminded of Paul’s 2nd Letter to Timothy, something that helps me to put my flesh in check so to speak.
Grace and peace be with you Vicki
Thank you, Christopher. There is sweet fellowship and the merit of iron sharpening iron when we desire Truth and are willing to hold our opinions and assumptions with a loose grasp, being teachable and trying to listen. Truly, sincerity is not righteousness.
There is nothing wrong in loving your neighbor, your country and your people. There is a strong difference between nationalism and patriotism. The patriotism of the U.S., for example, is reaffirming of basic Christian beliefs. When you see a patriot, you are often looking at a Christian. Your problem, however, is that you refuse to believe in a Christian who does not share your bigoted views…..
Ricardo, i hate to break it to you but Patriotism and Christianity (yes, even in the USA) are not synonymous with each other, as much as many want to believe they are.
You can be a patriot (def: love for or devotion to one’s country) and definitely not be a Christian, and vice-versa.
Ricardo, can you leave a comment without personal attacks? You seem incapable of addressing topics without making personal derogatory remarks about me or others who have commented, whom you disagree with.
Its why i post very few of your comments now.
@ PJ:
I agree 100% .
@ Ricardo:
Christianity seems to have done just fine for well over 1700 years before America came onto the scene.I’m quite confident that according to the Word of God, should America cease to be relevant concerning the church, Christianity will continue on.
The only thing that needs to be reaffirmed is the Gospel (1st Corinthians 15:1-5, Galatians 1:1-10). That’s not to say that it’s wrong to be patriotic patriotic, or to participate the political process. I recommend however, reading 2nd Corinthians 4, for balance in a Biblical perspective.
Grace and peace be with you
“Biblical worldview” means viewing the world from a biblical perspective. In other words, that there is a God, one true God, God Most High, Yahweh/Jehovah, who made the earth, made man, and endowed in him certain natural rights, and redeemed man by paying the sin price for his rebellion. That He has revealed Himself in scripture, commonly called the Old and New Testaments, and has also in those scriptures provided mankind instruction in His will concerning how mankind ought to behave toward Him and toward one another. This term Biblical Worldview is broad and nonspecific, and means this and carries no implications. It is a view of the world, and not a political manifesto. To state this implication of “culture warrior” and “reconstructionist” is intellectually dishonest, and disreapectful to culture warriors, reconstructionists, and thsoe holding a Biblical Worldview. One might argue about how precise, accurate, or reliable the scriptures are. ( I believe the correct view is verbal and plenary, as they state themselves), one might argue about salavation free grace, grace and works, or sacramental grounds. (If my own conviction isnot evident from my wording, I apologize). One might even argue whether a war can ever be “just” as Augustine defined, or that “My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight”, and still maintain a Biblical Worldview. it is from the Biblical Worldview that we come to join one another in re-membering the Lord and entering into the Ministry of Reconciliation I regret now having matured. such as I have managed to, in a part of the Christian subculture where Schaeffer, et al. were not discussed. I would then feel more comfortable getting into the meat of the arguments which are being impuned by reference as “culture warrior”ism.
Peace
There is only one “Biblical worldview”. Lost and fallen. This country is fallen as are all the rest. It would do us well to remember that the colonials murdered Redcoats over taxes and that must never be the way for a believer in Jesus to behave.
The “founding fathers” were far from evangelical believers although some may have been regenerate. Much of the early economic growth of America, both in the North and more predominantly in the South, was through the use/misuse of slaves. The early church would have been horified to think that modern believers place their hands over their hearts and pledge allegiance to any country.
Many martyrs went to their death because of their humble refusal to pledge their allegiance to Rome. Patriatism is idolatry.