America's City on a Hill

 Ronald Reagan frequently quoted his feel-good characterization of America as ”a shining city on a hill," including in his Presidential farewell speech.

He took the words from John Winthrop’s address to the Puritans embarking for New England on the great emigration fleet of 1630,  But as throughout his political career, Reagan's comprehension of principles was shallow, and his purpose manipulative.

Winthrop's speech, “A Model of Christian Charity," called on Puritans to build a Christian society in their new home, modelled on Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5: a "city on a hill" whose godliness would be an example to the divided nation they left behind, and "a light to the world" (Matthew 5:14).

The only way we can be what Jesus calls us to be, Winthrop told his fellow emigrants, "...is to follow the counsel of Micah [6:8]: to do justly, to love mercy, and walk humbly with our God."  He continued,

"We must delight in each other, make others' conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and our community in the work as members of the same body.  The Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us as His own people.  For we must consider that we shall be as a city on a hill.  The eyes of all people are upon us so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world...till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going."

The Puritans fell short of Jesus' commands for a Godly life, as we all do.  But the "Model" Winthrop set before his fellow emigrants put before America's following generations the Pilgrims' certainty that Jesus' teachings were the only basis for a Godly society, and that obeying Him was the only way God would be pleased to bless this new land.  

If we believe Jesus is Lord of all, as the Puritans certainly did, His commands for a Godly society are still the "model" for men of our time, and every other: even those for whom it is only an ideal of what makes a "good" secular society.  Massachusetts, which grew from Winthrop's colony, indeed adapted that ideal for their secular polity, constituting themselves a "commonwealth," rather than a  "state," in our new nation.  The "-wealth" in that form of government is "weal," the ancient English word for "well-being:" and Massachusetts' secular governing principle to this day is the shared well-being of its people.

When Puritan-descendant John Adams wrote Massachusetts' constitution a century-and-a-half on from Winthrop's day, he described that principle as "...a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall shall be governed by certain laws for the common good."

The Puritans' uncompromising faith was that Christ's teachings were those "laws;"; and they would have been horrified at the thought that "the people" should be their source.  But the Puritans' vision for their "city on a hill" was indeed (to secular understanding) a "commonwealth."  A famous example is that, following age-old English custom, when Winthrop's company moved to the Shawmut Peninsula and founded Boston, they set aside 50 acres as grazing-land held in common by the community: and it remains "Boston Commons" today, a public park belonging to all of Boston's citizens.

(I have to wonder if Reagan was aware that the Puritan leader he so admired was imbued with such "socialist" ideas ?  But of course Winthrop would have considered his "Model" the Spiritual communitarianism of the first Christians in Acts 2:44-45: a scripture Reagan may not have been familiar with.)

The Puritans' failed to live up to Jesus' commands that Winthrop set before them.  We all do; which is the human reality for which God offers the honest...any who will admit to themselves and God their failure...the grace of repentance and forgiveness in Christ.

John Winthrop would never have questioned that Jesus' "Model" of a Godly society "got it right."  He was at the same time too fervent a lover of Truth (Who Jesus IS) to not admit, confess and repent that the Puritan colony fell short of being the "city on a hill" Jesus commanded.  He did so in his writings in later life.

But Ronald Reagan invoked that image for a very different purpose than Winthrop's:

"And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm."

Reagan's nod to Jesus' commands came at the end of a valedictory in which he claimed America had risen in the previous 8 years (not coincidentally, his term in the White House) from recession, over-regulation, and the self-doubt of the Vietnam era, Reagan claimed too that America was once again respected throughout the world: he claimed a foreign leader at a summit-meeting once asked him the secret of the "the American Miracle."

I'm always very suspicious of self-congratulation, my own or anyone else's.  Christianity teaches the discipline of rigorous self-examination: (I Corinthians 11:28, II Corinthians 13:5, Galatians 6:4, and I Thessalonians 5:21): that God demands of us unrelenting vigilance against self-deluding pride, without which we cannot recognize our failures, repent of them, and be forgiven.

From his writings we know Winthrop regularly practiced that discipline for his own life, and the life of the colony under his charge.  And my understanding of Biblical truth is that all of us who honestly self-examine will find we fall short of God's command of righteousness, always.

Reagan's "shining city on a hill" is of the contrary spirit, a celebration of what he regarded as America's rightful pride in its greatness (restored, he said, under his administration).  He credits those words to Winthrop, rather than Jesus: and characterizes Winthrop not as Jesus' follower (which Winthrop himself doubtless considered the whole point); but as what Reagan extolled as a "freedom man."

Reagan saw in his "shining city on a hill" no sins to confess: no slavery, no massacres of native Americans, no Vietnam: and he doesn't.   A more honest President had held out to us in America's darkest days a vision of our nation that mirrored Winthrop's deep Christian consciousness of God's will and God's way; that America is "the last best hope" for human government on earth, and that our unrepented sins would destroy America, and that hope.  But self-congratulation, not repentance, was Reagan's purpose.

"...a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for 8 years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it...We made the city stronger, we made the city freer...

"And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America."

It grieves me that even decades later many Americans still buy into Reagan's shallow, self-serving, vision of his “shining city on a hill;” a fictionalized ideology rooted in "American Exceptionalism" more than in reality.  And I think we should be terrified that, because so many Americans believe the lie that God will bless an unrepentant proud nation such as Reagan urged us to be, America has never been in greater mortal danger than in our time.

About "Issues"

 I'm skeptical of "issues."  They primarily serve the purposes of politicians, who manufacture them at every opportunity.

Manufacture them because issues are a guaranteed way to get people to take "sides:" the work-of-the-flesh that Galatians 5:20 calls "factions."  As I've noted many times here, the Greek word is haireseis, from which we get our English word "heresy."  Strong's glosses haireseis as "a self-chosen opinion:"

If scripture classes "factions" as fleshly sin, we must know it has no place in a Christian's life.  The fact it manifests "self-chosen opinion" should tell us where taking "sides" about issues positions us in regard to Christ, The Word and The Truth.

Capital punishment has been one such "issue" in our society all my life.  I was thinking about it today: thinking especially that the worst thing that ever happens to a moral question is that it be framed as an "issue," subject to politicians' self-serving manipulation.  The worst thing we do with a moral question is take it on politicians' terms, and take a partisan "side" towards it according to our "self-chosen opinions."

I certainly have an "opinion" about capital punishment, and probably most people do.

But I was thinking of the times I hear a news-story about some murderer's sentencing.  In their "victim-impact statement" to the Court, it's surprising how often families of murder-victims use that opportunity to tell the murderer they forgive him.

More than once, I've heard family-members say they forgive because "I have to," as did some family-members of the nine Bible-study victims of white-supremacist murderer Dylann Roof.  Their desire to obey Jesus compelled them to forgive others, as they know they are forgiven in Him.

More than once I've heard families of murder-victims even ask that the Court not sentence the murderer to death.

When that happens, it's delusional to respond by "opinion," or even think opinions matter.  At such times, followers of Jesus will be powerfully moved in their spirit by the manifest working of His Spirit.  Amen.

Quaker Worship

 

^"What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." 

                                                                                                                                --  I Corinthians 14:26

Thus Paul begins his summary of instruction on the charismata (grace gifts) of the Spirit: by highlighting their normative operation in Christian worship-services, "when you assemble."

I think we have to understand, therefore, that God's absolute intent is that He ALONE structure our praise-giving, and Alone determine its content.

It's certainly not possible to know the innermost heart of every "worship-leader" and pastor, of course: but it's probably safe to say that few of our "evangelical" churches (even formally "pentecostal" churches) prepare for their Sunday service without some planned "order-of-worship" and sermon-topic.

And we can all testify that God can, and certainly does, work through even the most rigid and traditional orders-of-worship.  In addition to their edification of believers, Paul writes that our services of worship must be "done properly, and in an orderly manner" (v. 40).

But I've always admired the raw faith of traditional Quakers that God is "not a God of confusion" (v. 33), and will Himself Sovereignly order our worship in the "Spirit and Truth" He desires of His worshippers.  I've often thought a few Quakers sitting together in silence, listening for God to give one of them a word to speak to their waiting hearts, may please God more than any other Christian worshippers.

We often speak of our worship as "waiting on God."  How pleasing can it be to The Holy One that our "waiting on God" involves no waiting on God, and rather pre-empting Him ?

Trinity

I cannot understand the doctrine of the Trinity.  Cannot understand, or even very well picture, how our One God is in three Persons.  Saint Patrick's example of the shamrock is probably the closest I've ever come to understanding this Mystery at the center of all things.

And I doubt any of the greatest theologians have ever, or can ever, truly understand.  That inevitably follows from the fact we all experience, know, and believe, that man and his abilities are less than God's.  In every honest theology, "I AM" IS Mystery except as God is pleased to reveal Himself

I only know and believe, in my personal experience...probably the only place, and only way, any theology can ever be honest...that except in loving Jesus and knowing His love for me, I could never know The Father, nor have The Spirit.

Amen.

Worldviews

"For as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he..."    Proverbs 23:7

People see the same event different ways.  It all comes down to each person's “worldview,” what criteria he brings to interpreting reality.  And what criteria a person chooses tells you a lot about what he "thinketh in his heart."

Right now, I'm hearing people, even some Christians, say the January 6^th hearings are all about politics.

That’s not the worldview of anyone who agrees in God's commands that human beings do right and not wrong, that they speak truth and not lies.

And no Christian will ever consider any worldview but God's definitive.

Today's Confession

"Jesus said...“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

                                                                                                                            --  John 14:6

 

I believe Jesus Christ IS The Life, as He said.  So I will do no violence to others by word or deed, nor follow the ways of murderers.  Amen.

I believe Jesus Christ IS The Truth, as He said. So I will not lie, nor deceive myself, nor follow the ways of liars.  Amen.

I believe Jesus Christ IS The Way, as He said, and the only Way to the Father.  So I will follow no other way, and I renounce satan and all his ways.  Amen.

 

I believe Jesus, so I will follow Him.  What He said I will do.  This is my confession today.  Amen, and Amen.

At the Moment

 

Our Bible-study teacher often started the class by asking “What jumped out at you in this chapter ?”  There were always some folks in the class who had read and meditated on the chapter, and had “heard” a word there from the Spirit that they were eager to talk about.

The hour of discussion that followed usually gave us insights, questions, and challenges enough to ponder all week.  I appreciated the teacher’s wisdom in opening the class that way: it encouraged us to hear the Spirit speaking in scripture, and fed our spirits all week.

Not every student heard exactly the same word, of course: God doesn’t make robots.  There were even times people heard seemingly-contrary things in scripture.  Those times, it seemed folks in the class were able to practice spiritual discernment…another opportunity for us to hear the Spirit…and sort out differences, so they weren’t problems.

But usually our “differences” were like the blind men describing an elephant: our limited perceptual abilities “touching” the totality of God’s Wisdom at the different places we could individually reach.  When we realized that, I think it renewed, and increased, our awareness of God’s active UNITY, in His Spirit and His Logos.

It was amazingly frequent, too, that God confirmed something we’d been discussing in Bible-study, in the pastor’s sermon.  He didn’t sit in on our Bible-study, and had prepared his sermon some days previous; but it often turned out the pastor spoke on the same topic we’d talked about in Bible study that morning: sometimes exactly the same scripture: or a related topic that tied-in, or gave nuance, to what we’s discussed in Bible-study.

When that happened, it was exciting, and impossible to miss that God was actively guiding us.  It felt like His verification that we were hearing Him aright in our studying the Bible, and the pastor in preparing his sermon.  It gave us a powerful sense of God’s approval, that the church-body was walking in His Way.

Church leadership decided a few months ago to start on a year-long study-program of the Bible’s major teachings.  Among other things, the program co-ordinates the topics for Bible-study classes and the pastor’s sermon each week. 

Praying about it later, I was hearing that the program was not the way to go, and twice asked the pastor and a couple church-leaders to pray about it again.  My understanding of I Corinthians 14:29 is that private words from the Spirit should be submitted to the judgement of others who hear Him, and these brothers do.  They affirmed the program, however; so I have to think the word I heard was personal direction for me.

My wife said I’d still be able to hear the Spirit in the new Bible-study, as I do in the pastor’s “co-ordinated” sermons; and she’s right.  Anyone who’s listening for the Spirit will hear Him, in whatever way or place He chooses to speak.

My wife’s argument is tempting, and I greatly miss being in the Bible-study.  Miss most of all the sense of God’s immediacy and approval when He verifies the word we hear by His “co-ordination.”  If I was the least bit uncertain of the word I was given…that it’s not the right thing, at least for me…I’d act on her argument.

But I’ve spent years practicing to discern the Spirit’s voice: practicing, most of all, to distinguish His voice from the voice of self-will we all have to deal with.  I’ve learned that when I get it wrong (a normal part of any learning-process), He’s gracious to give me credit for asking, and for doing what I thought I heard from Him.  Learned too that if I continue listening to Him, He’ll correct me in anything I get wrong.

So I don’t doubt the new program is “good,” or that the Spirit will work through it.  I also don’t doubt His word of personal direction, that it’s not the way I should go.

It’s an uncomfortable place to be, for the moment: I miss Bible-study.  But it's the place God wants me to be, for the moment.  I’m eager to see what He has for me next.