American Liberty

The following is a "letter to the editor" of sorts that I hope to send in to a local newspaper after some more editing. This particular newspaper prints the same Bible verse between the paper's title and the front page headline every day. The paper says they prefer letters of 200 words or less, but I doubt I can shorten this much more. I am already saying less than I want to.

_________________

If there is any ideal American value, it is liberty. We declared this from the British in 1776, listing it among the “certain unalienable Rights” of all humans. Patrick Henry sounded, “…give me liberty, or give me death.” Our Constitution’s bill of rights preserves our liberties from tyranny. Americans count it their duty to be ever vigilant for the cause of liberty.

So should it surprise us that the front page of every copy of [this newspaper] bears a Bible verse sanctioning our national sentiments: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17)?

I do not know why this verse stands beneath [the paper's] title, but I am confident that because ‘Liberty’ is capitalized, an American would most likely read the verse to mean: “The presence of the Lord’s Spirit is the cause of our national Liberty.”

But the verse absolutely cannot mean this.

First, the verse stolen from its original context is already doomed for wrongful interpretation. In his letter “to the church of God in Corinth,” the apostle Paul is engaged in a complex contrast between the fading glory of the old covenant, which Moses veiled from the frightened Israelites when his face shone like an angel’s, and the lasting glory of the new covenant in the church, where that veil is taken away. This is where Paul says, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

From what? Well, perhaps freedom from fear of the Lord’s glory; or from ignorance; or from condemnation and death, which Paul considered characteristic of the old covenant. Elsewhere Paul speaks of humans being enslaved to sin; so perhaps he means freedom from sin.

But whatever Paul meant, he cannot be talking about the ‘Liberty’ Americans won from the British in revolutionary war, or the kind of ‘freedoms’ outlined for us in the Bill of Rights. In 2 Corinthians 3:17 Paul is talking about a liberty belonging explicitly to the church, for that is where the Spirit of the Lord is.

The concept of citizens’ individual liberties won through bloody revolution and protected by the state is foreign to the New Testament. Much less should a single verse therefrom be employed as an endorsement by “the Spirit of the Lord” for such a state of affairs.

I do not prefer ‘tyrrany’ to ‘democracy;’ nor do I despise our national freedoms. But the Lord who was brought to trial by his nation’s rulers for his peace-loving proclamation of God’s reign, and having made no defense was crucified (like an insurrectionist) by the Romans occupying his homeland – that Lord was innocent of violent agendas interested in national ‘Liberty.’ To implicate his Spirit in anything of the sort now is nothing less than utter blasphemy.
_________________

This letter started out near 700 words, and now runs beneath 500. This is hardly enough space to explain, much less defend, my argument. That's why I've decided I never want to be a journalist.

While a part of me would like to believe that the freedoms we enjoy in America are blessings from God, and a result of the Christian church's salt and light in the world, in many ways such a position is hard to defend. It is true that governments are ordered by God for the reprobation of wrong and the promotion of the good (Romans 13). But the concepts upon which our nation was established - upon which we declared independence - had their source in John Locke and other political phiolosophers, not in the Christian religion. If they believed "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" (elsewhere 'happiness' is 'property' - go figure looking at 'the American dream'), they also believed these rights were secured by governments instituted by the consent of the governed. You will not find this language in the New Testament.

It must be pointed out that our American rights were and still are secured by means of the sword.

Contrast this to Jesus' gospel teaching:

"Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you" (Matthew 5:39-42).

[What? but it's mine! I have the right to decide who can borrow my property!]

And, ". . . if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. . . . And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:30b, 34-36).

[What?! Borrow means it's on loan, not for keeps! It's mine! My life, my liberty, my property! My American dream!]

By now it should be clear that 2 Corinthians 3:17 cannot be interpreted as "the presence of the Lord's Spirit is the cause of our national Liberty." Nor does Christianity sponsor or condone the actions of any state, or any sword. God calls the church to be an explicitly different, holy kind of assembly (organization, polity), in which the least are the greatest and the greatest are the least; in which leaders serve instead of 'lording it over their subjects'; in which peace and unity are maintained at all costs, excepting any use of force or coercion.

What do you think?
How is the church different from the world and the state?
Do you agree or disagree with my critique of this newspaper's prominent Bible verse?
In what ways do Christians sometimes blindly support, sanction or condone the state's agenda instead of preaching and living the truth of Jesus' gospel of love and peace?