Conflicted Citizenship I

In keeping with what seems to be my general nature, I find myself at odds with my identity as a Christian and as an American. While not a new struggle, I find that the more I consider the issue and the more I study, the more difficult I find it to reconcile the two. I learned early on, as every American child does, that Jesus was a white, middle-class, republican; (if I may steal that phrase from Derek Webb) and that the best way to live out my discipleship was to live out these values to the best of my abilities. My identification with my American citizenship was such that I projected the values of the United States on to my faith, and for much of my life have remained blind to the revolutionary political and socio-economic themes in the gospel. As far as I was concerned capitalism and democracy were the only hope for the rest of the world, and the gospel could save men from both sin and lesser forms of government.

It was not until I first left the states that I realized how differently the rest of the world views our nation. We are Babylon. We are Rome. In a very real way, the political and economic systems that we propagate and fight for are nothing less than Anti-Christian. I realize that this must seem like another Anti-American rant, but I assure you that I do not hate my country. My citizenship is a blessing that I will never fully appreciate, and the opportunities that life in the United States grants are unparalleled in any country at any point in history. However, perhaps because of the Anabaptist origins of my faith, I have a fear and an aversion to the gospel of power and prosperity that are so often preached in our faith. The idea that God’s primary concern is in “blessing me” (or blessing America) strikes me as both indulgent and unbiblical. While I firmly believe Paul when he writes that “in all things, God works for the good of those who love him”, I recall no place in which scripture tells us that God always heals, always rewards, or always answers our every prayer. The idea that God wishes us to be rich and prosperous stands in direct opposition to everything I understand Christ to be teaching. In the words of Atheist philosopher Sam Harris, “Christian values [are] belied by other indices of social equality…many a camel, it would seem, expects to pass easily through the eye of a needle.”

Tolstoy would assert that, as Christians, it is against our faith to recognize ourselves as a part of the state. He advocates a complete separation of the Church from the State, in the sense that we would refuse to participate in the political, economic, and military institutions of the nation. We would only observe those laws which we must. While I feel that this goes too far, I do strongly identify with the notion of abstaining from our rights in the government and “duty” in the military. I cannot support the notion that the principalities and powers of the world can be made to serve Kingdom values.

I seek to live this belief out in two ways: First, to the greatest degree possible, I remove myself from the political system. I am not registered to vote nor will I register. In not taking my right to select those in office, I seek to demonstrate my belief that these men and women do not represent me or my interests. My interests are (hopefully) in Kingdom values, and as such are counter to the systems of government in their fallen state. However, in giving up my right to elect officials, I must also give up my right to lobby for or against any policy or legislation. I recognize the sovereignty of American laws in American states and any civil disobedience on my part must be in reaction to injustice only and I must be willing to pay full penalty.

Secondly, as a Christian, my conscience does not allow me to participate in the military. In professing that God is Lord and creator of the whole world, I find that I cannot and will not bear arms against any child of God. Love of enemies does not permit for the slaughter of another life, and this is a value that I am willing to die for. I must state however, that I have nothing but the highest respect for those individuals who are in the military. Service to one’s country is an act of bravery, and such men and women should be held in the highest esteem. It is not soldiers I am against, but the system which says that the State’s interests have precedence over human life. I am willing to give my life and my allegiance to only one Kingdom, it is not America.

7 comments

  1. Becca Fullerton says:

    Wow, Seth. This is really well written. I remember when I first realized that being a good American and a faithful Christian aren't the same thing. I hope and pray that that notion won't be passed on to the next generation of American-born Christians.

  2. 1stRateNate says:

    I'm with ya about 90% on these issues. I too have a moral issue with the military and loving every child of God, and if I am threatened, I like to believe that I would die as well instead of taking up arms to save myself, but I also have a moral conflict in refusing to take up arms and as a result I allow a brother or a sister to be killed because of me not doing anything. In the present with America being the Super power that it is, it's hard for me to picture a time when I would need to do this, but if the tables were turned in the future, America was invaded, and my fellow countrymen were being tortured, raped, and murdered I would feel it my duty to help stop that evil.

  3. 1stRateNate says:

    I apologize for that awful run-on sentence… I usually hold myself to a higher standard than that!

  4. Sethero says:

    I agree with you in the sense of not allowing the oppression of our fellow country men, but I would hold fast to the notion that I am an advocate of nonviolence not of passivity. I would resist an evil power with everything that is in me, but I would not resort to violence or killing in doing so. My obligation is to uphold justice, so civil disobedience becomes the only just response to injustice. However, to resort to violence is to propagate violence as an acceptable means of change. However, violent resistance is preferable to no resistance at all…

  5. Dominick says:

    Unfortunately civil disobedience is effective only in classically liberal societies. I hold that while I am repulsed by the "clash of civilizations" thesis, the interests of broader humanity is better served by the liberal democracies of the world retaining military supremacy. And to quote Sethero quoting Mahatma "be the change…" while this isn't per say change, the principle of living out ones beliefs compels me to
    1. be prepared to kill one of God's children who threatens the welfare of God's other children (excluding of course when reform is an option, I find the death penalty distasteful)
    2. Support through my direct actions the form of government that far and away shows greater respect for human dignity.

  6. Sethero says:

    I am not trying to undermine your argument, but could you say more about how a society not based in non-violence has a respect for human dignity?

  7. kleimoladmk says:

    I tried to respond to this article, and wrote a rather lengthy explanation of government from the kingdom of power perspective.

    Wouldn't you know, it did not post and what I labored over for 30 minutes was lost. I'll try again tomorrow.

    Dale

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: