Category: Theology

Classic Arm Chair Theology at its best (or should that read worst?)

Bob's Blog Finds: The Apostolic Hermeneutic

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

In my blog finds I highlight some of the best articles I’ve found online recently. You can see all my blog finds (courtesy of Google Reader) in the sidebar.

It’s been a long while since I posted a Bobspotted Blogroll post. With Google Reader, it’s easier to share my posts one by one. Rather then abandon the blogspot idea altogether, I plan on posting Blog Finds posts where I share articles or links one at a time. This will allow more interaction from you, my readers, and I hope it will serve my blog readers well.

Proponents of Biblical Theology, particularly those who hold to redemptive historical hermeneutics, often speak of the apostolic hermeneutic. We see how the Apostle’s interpreted the OT Bible and draw lessons for how we should interpret it as well.

Now this approach is often misunderstood or even maligned by other Bible scholars, particularly dispensationalists. R. Scott Clark addresses this issue in an excellent post (actually a re-post) at his Heidelblog. I’ll provide some excerpts and encourage you to read the excellent post for yourself. He provides book recommendations for where to pursue this hermeneutical approach further, too.

It’s isn’t that complicated. Pay close attention here:  The Apostolic hermeneutic is to see Christ at the center of all of Scripture. We’re not reading him  into Scripture. We’re refusing to read him out of it. There, I said it. That’s what it is. Perhaps the reason our dispensational friends cannot see it is because they are blinded by their rationalism. They know  a priori what the organizing principle of Scripture  must be and it isn’t God the Son, it’s national Israel….

Yes, Reformed folk (and others) have been reading the bible like this for a very long time. The earliest post-apostolic Christians, in contrast to the Jewish critics of the Christian faith, read the Bible to teach a unity of salvation organized around Jesus Christ. The entire medieval church read the Bible this way as did the Reformation and post-Reformation churches….

What method do we use? It’s grammatical and historical! It reads the Old in the light of the new. It doesn’t set up arbitrary  a priori‘s about what can and can’t be. We don’t begin with an unstated premise, “All reasonable people know p.” We don’t think that any uninspired hermeneutic (system of interpretation) is superior to Paul’s or James’ or Peter’s.

One need not be inspired to read the Bible the way the apostles did. I’m not even sure it’s proper to say that their hermeneutic was inspired. We confess that Scripture is inspired, but was their way of reading Scripture inspired? I doubt it. As John Frame used to ask in class, were the apostolic grocery lists inspired? No. Can we observe  how they read Scripture and imitate it? Yes….

Read the rest of the post for yourself. And let me know what you think of it.

Submitting to God’s Will in Marriage — 1 Pet. 3:1-7 (part 2)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

This is part 2 of an outline from a lesson I gave for my small group, recently. Read part one first.

Submitting to God’s Will in Marriage (1 Pet. 3:1-7) —
Part 2: The Husband

I realize this is a thorny topic for many. I’d like to recommend a couple resources before I continue here. For much of this lesson, I’m dependent on a chapter from Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem). Wayne Grudem’s chapter “Wives Like Sarah, and Husbands Who Honor Them” focuses on these seven verses in 1 Peter. Also,a pastor at C.J. Mahaney’s Covenant Life Church, in Gaithersburg, MD has written an extremely helpful book from this complementarian perspective on marriage: Love That Lasts: When Marriage Meets Grace. Gary and Betsy Ricucci (Betsy is C.J.’s sister) have really outdone themselves with that book, you’ll find it very practical. I’d also recommend perusing the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s website, where you will find a rich resource with many online articles covering all aspects of this issue, from the practical to the apologetical. Finally, feel free to check out the few posts I have made on these topics (listed here and here).

2. Considerate Leadership — The Husband (1 Pet. 3:7)

A. Definition.

1) Leadership

Because this verse is tacked on to the instructions for how a woman should submit, we can understand it as applying to how a husband leads his wife. he must do so considerately. It should also be noted that 3:1-7 clearly shows that the husband leads, and leadership is not equally shared. Both submission and leadership are not optional. “Husbands cannot rightly opt out of family leadership and become passive non-participants in decisions and activities. Neither can they rightly make the opposite mistake and exercise harsh, selfish, domineering authority in their families….” (Grudem)

2) Considerate Leadership

“In an understanding way” literally is “according to knowledge”. So husbands are to live together with their wives according to knowledge. Exactly what that knowledge is, is not specified. Likely it would include knowledge of God’s Word relating to marriage, and intimate knowledge of his wife (emotionally, physically, spiritually, etc.). Living according to this knowledge means understanding your wife and treating her carefully and lovingly, yet realizing the Biblical call to lead her and the family.

This call to live understandingly with the wife parallels the Biblical emphasis in the commands to husbands as it relates to marriage. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ sacrificially loved the church (Eph. 5:25). They are to love them as their own bodies, love them “as yourself” (Eph. 5:28, 33). Husbands are to love their wives and “not be harsh with them” (Col. 3:19).

B. Rationale for Considerate Leadership.

1) The wife is the “weaker vessel”.

This means, most basically, that she is vulnerable to being taken advantage of. In the context, she has a lesser role (not lesser importance, mind you) with regards to leadership. She is also physically weaker, and she has emotional vulnerabilities (hinted at in vs. 6). Emotional sensitivity is a great strength, but it opens one up to a likelihood of being “hurt deeply by conflict within a marriage or by inconsiderate behavior” (Grudem). Since the wife is vulnerable both in light of her position as under the husband, as well as her physical makeup, such a strong call for husbands to be considerate, and to show honor is needed.

2) The wife is a joint heir with her husband in the faith.

In Christ we are all one, there is no “male or female” even as there is no “Jew or Gentile”. Hence we should live together considerately, and men should treat their wives honorably.

3) This matter is vitally important and affects our prayers.

Prayers are hindered if the husband harshly treats his wife. Prayers are helped if he gives her honor. God cares about our marriages, and maintaining a healthy and godly marriage is very important — it pleases God.

C. Qualities of Considerate Leadership.

1) Consideration and Kindness for the wife. — living with her “in an understanding way”.

2) Honor for the submissive wife.

Husbands should not just be considerate, they must actually go out of their way to bestow honor on the godly and submissive wife. The word for “woman” is used only here in the Bible and refers to the idea of “feminine one” — a woman in tune with her godly femininity. This woman is the one worthy of honor.

3) Prayerful direction of the family.

Vs. 7 makes it seem that husbands should be praying and that prayer if vital for families. We should pray for our families and lead them from our knees.

Submitting to God's Will in Marriage — 1 Pet. 3:1-7 (part 1)

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

I’m reproducing the outline from a lesson I gave for my small group, recently. I think 1 Peter 3:1-7 is a beautiful passage on marriage that often gets overlooked. Much can be gained from studying just these seven small verses.

Submitting to God’s Will in Marriage (1 Pet. 3:1-7) —
Part 1: The Wife

Introduction

The preceding section (the last half of chapter 2) focuses on the Christian’s call to submit to God in society. He is to submit to ordinances and rulers, kings and governors, and by so doing is to honer God. Chapter 3 verses 1 and 7 both tie in to that context with the words “Likewise”. In marriage both the wife and the husband are called on to honor God through submission to His roles for marriage. in this, they follow the example of Jesus Christ, Who submitted Himself to God and left us an example that we should follow in His steps (2:21). Whether with regards to civil government (2:13-17), employment (2:18-20), marriage (3:1-7), or the church (5:5), we are to be subject to God-ordained authorities “for the Lord’s sake” (2:13).

1. Beautiful Submission — The Wife (1 Pet. 3:1-6)

A. Definition of Submission.

The idea of submission is clearly defined by this text.

Vs. 1-2 — Being subject = husbands see “your respectful and pure conduct”.

Vs. 3-5 — The adornment of a godly woman is the internal “gentle and quiet spirit” which has unfading “beauty”. This internal adornment also involves “submitting to their husbands”.

Gentle means “meek”, “not insistent on one’s own rights”; “not pushy, not selfishly assertive,” or “not demanding one’s own way” (Grudem). “The word refers to the humble and gentle attitude that expresses itself in a patient submissiveness; it could be used in the context of a meek and quiet spirit as a response to slander (Balch, from Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the New Testament, by Cleon Rogers). The adjective form of “gentle” used here, occurs only 3 other times, two of them describing Christ’s gentleness (Matt. 11:20, 21:5, and also Matt. 5:5). The noun form is more frequently used (cf. Gal. 5:23).

Vs. 6 — “Submitting to their husbands” includes willing obedience and respect.

To summarize, submission is “respectful’, “pure”, has unfading “beauty”, involves a “gentle and quiet spirit”, is meek, does not demand one’s own way, and at the very least includes willing obedience and respect. Wayne Grudem defines submission as “an inner quality of gentleness that affirms the leadership of the husband”.

B. Benefits of Submission.

Vs. 1-2 — The conversion of a lost husband (even to a lost man, submission seems right and beautiful, and even compelling).

Vs. 4 — A strong personal beauty which does not fade.

Vs. 4-6 — Special favor from God. A submissive spirit is “of great worth” to God. Being known as “daughters of Sarah” means proving to be genuine Christians, and even more than that, proving worthy of the kind of special honor Sarah receives.

vs. 7 — Honor from a godly husband (and indirectly from all godly men).

C. Hindrances to Submission.

Vs. 1 — The difficulty of a lost (or even a backslidden / overbearing) husband. (Even such a difficult situation does not permit one to shirk the Biblical call to submission.)

Vs. 3 — The temptation to live for worldly status, sexy recognition, etc.

Vs. 6b — Fear of the consequences if she submits (fear of the unknown, worry over her well-being or sense of personhood, fear of other’s thoughts of her, fear of a disobedient or unbelieving husband).

D. Strength for Submission.

Vs. 3-4 — Focus on what God thinks (submission is to Him, “very precious”).

Vs. 5 — Hope in God. He is good, His way is right, His promises are true.

Vs. 6 — Be mindful of the Gospel, and your status as Sarah’s daughters (God’s people).

2:13, 21) — Remember Christ’s example, and that all of this is for the Lord’s sake (it pleases Him).

Isaiah 16:10 and the Two-Wine Theory

~ fundyreformed ~ 26 Comments

I’ve already argued extensively that the Bible condones the moderate use of alcohol. In my recent review of Kenneth Gentry’s God Gave Wine, there was a bit of a debate in the comments. I had loaned out my copy of Gentry’s book, and recently got it back, and so I wanted to advance a few more arguments. So I thought I’d share them here.

I’m going to treat the two main lines of reasoning separately. This post will focus on the two-wine theory.

A common way to harmonize the seemingly contradictory Biblical statements concerning wine, is to employ the two wine theory. This is the idea that there are two kinds of wine, alcoholic and non-alcoholic. Wherever the Bible commends wine, it refers to the latter, and wherever it forbids or warns against it, the former sense is in view. Now it should be quite apparent from the start that this approach employs circular reasoning and begs the question.

Lexical Consensus

Against this view is the nearly unanimous testimony of the lexicons, dictionaries, encyclopedias and historians that the terms for wine (yayin in Hebrew, and oinos in Greek) refer to a clearly alcoholic substance. Gentry qutoes a couple lexicons and the TWOT as unequivocally stating that yayin is alcoholic. Strong’s Concordance Dictionary notes: “yayin; from an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication intoxication; — banqueting, wine, wine (-bibber).” Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament (edited by Merril Unger and William White Jr., and part of Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary states: “Yayin… is the usual Hebrew word for fermented grape…. [It] clearly represents an intoxicating beverage.” The article for “wine” in the revised ISBE (edited by Geoffrey Bromiley) states “Both yayin and tirosh are fermented grape juice with alcoholic content; hence both are able to cause intoxication (cf. Hos. 4:11) and are to be distinguished from ‘must’ or unfermented grape juice.”

Gentry alludes to a quote by Merrill Unger. From Unger’s Dictionary, I’d like to share a couple quotes.

In most of the passages in the Bible where yayin is used (83 out of 138), it certainly means fermented grape juice; and in the remainder it may fairly be presumed to do so…. The intoxicating quality of yayin, is confirmed by rabbinical testimony…. although usually intoxicating, it was not only permitted to be imbibed, but was also used for sacred purposes and was spoken of as a blessing (Gen. 49:11-12; Deut. 14:24-26; Ex. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5). Some, indeed, have argued from these passages that yayin could not always have been alcoholic. But this is begging the question and that in defiance of the facts. Although invariably fermented, it was not always inebriating, and in most instances, doubtless, was but slightly alcoholic, like the vin ordinaire of France. (The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, by Merrill Unger, edited by R.K. Harrison, Moody Press, 1988 )[note: vin ordinaire is ordinary table wine as opposed to fortified wine with an even higher alcoholic content.]

Gentry quotes several prohibitionist writers admitting the lexical consensus as a problem for their position. Robert Teachout is representative: “Unfortunately Bible scholars have been equally misled by public opinion”. Gentry points out the obvious: “But when you search out all the scholars and find them unanimously differing with your opinion, who is really mistaken?” (Gentry, 35)

Origins of the Two-Wine Theory

Gentry provides a quote on the origins of the two-wine theory, from a Christian encyclopedic entry in 1887.

In fact, the theory of two kinds of wine — the one fermented and intoxicating and unlawful, and the other unfermented, unintoxicating, and lawful — is a modern hypothesis, devised during the present century, and has no foundation in the Bible, or in Hebrew or classical antiquity. (“Wine” by Dunlop Moore, A Religious Encyclopedia of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal and Practical Theology, edited by Philip Schaff [Chicago: Funk and Wagnalls, 1887] — quoted by Gentry, pg. 44).

The facts indicate this idea is new, and dates back to the prohibition era. This alone should say something to the biased nature of this idea.

Isaiah 16:10 an Attempt at Biblical Support

In an attempt to find Biblical support, some prohibitionists point to Isaiah 16:10 as an example of yayin being used to refer to clearly non-alcoholic wine. In this passage, and a couple similar ones, yayin is described as being treaded out in the presses.

Therefore I weep with the weeping of Jazer for the vine of Sibmah; I drench you with my tears, O Heshbon and Elealeh; for over your summer fruit and your harvest the shout has ceased. And joy and gladness are taken away from the fruitful field, and in the vineyards no songs are sung, no cheers are raised; no treader treads out wine in the presses; I have put an end to the shouting. (Is. 16:9-10)

Since the product of treading out wine is must, or grape pulp, ultimately squeezed to grape juice, yayin must refer to non-intoxicating juice as well as to the later fully fermented kind. At least that is how the argument runs. On the basis of basically this passage alone, prohibitionist writer and scholar Stephen Reynolds claims: “This is enough to establish the fact that yayin in the Bible need not be alcoholic.” (Gentry, 42).

Before in the comments of my review post, I mentioned an argument by Gentry regarding the poetic nature of Is. 16. Here I’d like to provide some extended quotes from Gentry’s book God Gave Wine:

The poetic license so common in Hebrew poetry will allow the freshly expressed yayin here to be alcoholic, just as it may speak of wine itself as being a “brawler” (rather than the one who actually drinks the wine, Prov. 20:1). A common literary device is prolepsis. Prolepsis is the anachronistic representing of something as existing before its proper or historical time. Prolepsis looks to the end result anticipated in the proleptic observation. The Scripture is filled with examples of prolepsis, several of which directly parallel Isaiah 16:10. For instance, in Judges 9:13 “wine” (Heb. tirosh, a liquid drink processed from grapes) is spoken of as on the “vine,” just as figs exist on the tree (Judg. 9:10-12). But, of course, grapes appear as a solid fruit on the vine — though tirosh is the ultimate liquid drink produced from the grapes. In Isaiah 65:8 we find “new wine” (Heb. tirosh) “in the cluster.” Jeremiah 40:10 speaks of “gathering in wine” (Heb. tirosh) as if the liquid drink itself were in the field on the vine. The Old Testament has a word for grapes, as literal fruit on the vine: enab (Gen. 40:10-11; Lev. 25:5; Num. 6:3-4). Rather than use enab, however, the Old Testament writers chose the poetic, figurative use of the word tirosh in these passages…. And just as biblical writers can say that tirosh (a liquid product) is found in “cluster” (the solid fruit, Is. 65:8), so can they declare that yayin (fermented wine) is “treaded out” from grapes (Is. 16:10). Obviously, tirosh is in the cluster in that it is the product to be derived from the grape.

Gentry also notes how Stephen Reynolds allows for such poetic use in other passages in his book, but does not allow for it in Isaiah 16. Clearly in a poetic context as this section of Isaiah (Isaiah is filled with poetry), we could expect such a poetic allusion. Coupled with the clearly alcoholic nature of yayin elsewhere in Scripture and attested to by the lexicons, we should understand Isaiah 16:10 to be using this poetic allusion.

Wine and Joy

But besides the possibility of prolepsis, there are other indications that argue for this understanding. The passage clearly focuses on wine and vineyards, and it also stresses joy. In Scripture there is a link between the finished product of yayin — wine, and joy. Consider the following passages regarding wine’s joy-giving qualities. Again in the context of the harvest, the ultimate product of wine, and its joy would be in view.

You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart. (Ps. 104:14-15)

Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything. (Eccl. 10:19)

Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. (Eccl. 9:7)

But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’ (Judges 9:13)

Then Absalom commanded his servants, “Mark when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon,’ then kill him. Do not fear; have I not commanded you? Be courageous and be valiant.” (2 Samuel 13:28 )

And Abigail came to Nabal, and behold, he was holding a feast in his house, like the feast of a king. And Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunk. So she told him nothing at all until the morning light. In the morning, when the wine had gone out of Nabal, his wife told him these things, and his heart died within him, and he became as a stone. (1 Sam. 25:36)

On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus, (Esther 1:10)

The LORD of hosts will protect them, and they shall devour, and tread down the sling stones, and they shall drink and roar as if drunk with wine, and be full like a bowl, drenched like the corners of the altar. (Zechariah 9:15)

Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. (Zechariah 10:7)

This is just a few texts on wine bringing joy. You can see a fuller post covering this topic here. No other beverage is singled out as one which produces joy. And the very nature of alcoholic wine clearly is such that we can understand what is being talked of here. Wine, well before it makes one drunk, is very pleasurable and lifts your spirits, giving one joy. Feasting and wine are interconnected. In Biblical Hebrew the very word for “feasting” literally means “drinking”. ISBE’s article on wine states “a “˜feast’ is literally a “˜drinking’ (Heb. misthe, Gen. 21:8; Jdg. 14:10; 1 S. 25:36; 2 S. 3:20)”.

In case anyone doubts that the alcoholic warming of the spirits is in view with the idea of wine gladdening the heart, look again at the last five passages. They clearly link this joy with alcoholic properties. Yet this spirit-gladdening effect, is something God has given as a gift to be enjoyed.

So once again, back to the passage at hand, the gladdening nature of wine (which we’ve shown Scripturally as referring to alcoholic properties of the fermented wine) is emphasized in the passage. That joy is going to be removed. And one last connection is Zechariah 9’s mention of a shouting associated with drunkenness, and the shouting mentioned in Isaiah 16. The shouting will stop. Drunkenness was a fact of what happened with that drink. Scripture warns against drunkenness, but it often speaks knowingly or comparatively of how a drunken person acts.

So with all of this evidence, there is a strong likelihood that Isaiah 16:10 is not teaching us that there is an exception to the normal rule that yayin refers to alcoholic wine. Rather it is referring to the wine that Scripture everywhere else indicates is alcoholic.

Three Final Points

There are three final points which sound the death knell for the two-wine theory.

First, there are a few passages which speak clearly of alcoholic wine in one verse, and a few verses later wine is referred to in a positive light. Nothing indicates we should assume that the wine was different in the case of the alcoholic variety and the variety which is praised. In 1 Sam. 1:14, Eli tells Hannah to “put your wine away from [her]”. But in vs. 24, Hannah brings wine with her on her trip back to Shiloh. Nothing indicates that the wine Hannah brought would be different than the wine Eli thought she was drinking earlier. In 1 Sam. 25:18, Abigail serves wine for David and his men, then later in verses 36-37 Nabal is drunk with wine. Nothing in the context would lead us to think the drink David and his men received was different from that which made Nabal drunk. The difference of course is Nabal immoderately drank the wine, whereas David and his men didn’t. Joel 1:5, 10 is another similar passage.

Second, Scripture clearly praises alcoholic wine. Isaiah 25:6 is definitely referring to alcoholic wine when it indicates that such wine will characterize the blessings of Christ’s future kingdom: “And in this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all people a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of well-refined wines on the lees. (NKJV) “. “Wines on the lees” is translated in most modern versions as “well-aged wine”.

Third, Nehemiah when describing what supplies were given to him as Judean governor, mentions all kinds of wines. Nothing indicates that he did not partake of them. And the context is one of approval, as he is writing inspired Scripture. Here is the passage: “Now what was prepared at my expense for each day was one ox and six choice sheep and birds, and every ten days all kinds of wine in abundance. Yet for all this I did not demand the food allowance of the governor, because the service was too heavy on this people.” (Neh. 5:18 ) So if there is two kinds of wine, this passage indicates Nehemiah partook of both.

This really does seal the deal with regards to the two-wine theory. It doesn’t stand the test of history, it doesn’t line up with the lexical consensus, and more importantly, it doesn’t jive with Scripture.

America — A Pagan Nation?

~ fundyreformed ~ 24 Comments

In the conclusion to my series on understanding the land promise made to Israel, I made the claim that America is just another secular, pagan nation. I’m not too surprised that someone objected to my claim. The idea that America is a Christian nation is a very common idea, but it is still misguided.

Yes, some godly people were involved in the founding of America. Most of our founders at least acknowledged God. But when they founded the nation, they founded a run-of-the-mill, secular nation. God made no promise in His Word about the founding of our nation. Our nation granted freedom of religion to non-Christian religions. The laws of our nation are secular laws, they do not come out of the pages of Deuteronomy.

But wait, some would say, didn’t our laws derive from Biblical principles? That may be, but they were still secular laws for a secular people. Excommunication from the church is never dished out by the secular state, here.

We may truly be thankful for the Christian, godly influence in the founding of our society. That may have given us advantages and blessings. But it does not constitute our country as uniquely created by God. We have no claims for God’s special favor. Like every other nation of men, we are accountable to obey God’s laws. And God ultimately is responsible for the authority our leaders have (Rom. 13).

Since America is just another secular nation, it should not surprise us when our country follows the whims and desires of fallen man. Christians in the era of pre-Christian Rome had a far worse society to deal with than we have. Roman senators openly kept mistresses and/or homosexual boys, Christianity was directly persecuted, and Bibles were illegal. Yet one will not find the Christians of that era complaining about how bad things were and how hard it was to be a Christian.

Today, however, Christians complain about how bad things are, and they long for the good old days, when America was truly a Christian place. However, America never was a Christian place. Morality apart from Christ is as heinous to God as immorality apart from Christ. A day where everyone saves face and looks good, while still being rebellious to God in their hearts, is not an age I want to return to. And I am at a loss to see how preventing homosexual marriage, and laws of this nature, do anything to “reclaim America for Christ”. The law is powerless to save.

We as Christians need to realize that we will always be in a world that hates us and in an environment that makes it hard for us to live for Christ. Always, until Jesus comes, that is.

And while I’m all for efforts to impact our culture for Christ, focusing on politics and political reforms often diverts us from the cause of the Gospel. It also blurs the distinction of Christianity in the eyes of the world. Rather than being known as those who prize the Gospel and love Christ, we are viewed as those who aim to foist our morality on the general public through whatever means possible.

Christianity is not a political party, nor a social club. American Christians, can’t ignore their global brothers and sisters. God is for America just as much as He is for Pakistan, North Korea, and every other nation where members of Christ’s body live. I’m not against being patriotic, but we must not pretend God is. We are citizens of a heavenly country, and just “passing through” this world, whatever earthly country we may dwell in.