The Cross is Not a Universal Symbol of Sacrifice
By Austin
Yesterday the Supreme Court came down on a decision in Salazar v. Bruono that the WWI memorial in the Mojave desert featuring a cross may be able to remain as it was, because the symbol of the cross does not violate the separation of church and state, and does not discriminate against other faiths (viz., Judaism). The “Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs” (Anthony Kennedy), but rather “evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies would be compounded if the fallen are forgotten (Samuel Alito).”
Justice John Paul Stevens retorted, “the cross is not a universal symbol of sacrifice…It is the symbol of one particular sacrifice, and that sacrifice carries deeply significant meaning for those who adhere to the Christian faith.”
In this exchange it is Stevens who is right. Too often people talk about the death of soldiers as the “ultimate sacrifice,” and the use of the cross in this imagery is blatant. 
But the death of a soldier attempting to kill another human being in the service of the selfish goals of his country has nothing to do with Jesus’ sacrifice.
Let’s rehearse what this sacrifice was: it was of a man who had the opportunity to lead a violent rebellion against a foreigner oppressor, and who instead submitted himself to their twisted justice, and was murdered as an example to anyone else who crossed that authority. In this sacrifice he unmasked this authority for what it truly was (read John’s trial and crucifixion scene and you’ll get the picture), showed the pattern of all Christian discipleship, and set us free from our destructive lives.
Opposed to this you have the death of soldiers in combat. While I would never want to dishonor men and women who have died in battle, their death has nothing to do with Jesus.’ The personally die for a variety of reasons, sometimes really noble ones (like the story of Sgt Rafael Peralta who smothered an enemy grenade to save his comrades), and you can definately call this a sacrifice.
But not an ultimate one. Most of the time this is a sacrifice to the self-interest of a nation or party or race. Whatever way you slice it, Jesus’ sacrifice is truly universal, and a sacrifice specifically for the enemy.
For the cross to become the symbol of a death that is almost the complete opposite from Jesus’ is blasphemy. It’s too bad that once more America confuses the gods it serves.
The Tyranny of the Minority or: a response to Drew
By Sarah
“…Power in the hands of the politically uneducated is a very dangerous thing.”
Drew made the argument in The Tyrannical Majority that those who are politically uneducated make very bad policy decisions.
I would agree with that argument. But based on bad decisions made by the minority of those who have traditionally held power, is it the majority that’s politically uneducated, or the minority? This of course depends on whose definition of political education we deem as most valuable.
First, let’s look at historical decisions by the minority:
- Slavery
- Indian removal policies
- Laws preventing married women from owning property
- Jim Crowe
- Sterilization of Puerto Rican women
- American Indian genocide
These policies were enacted by the people who claimed that we were too politically ignorant to make beneficial policy decisions. Prosperity and opportunity would likely be more widespread today without these policies in our history (though it would require a very different size and structure, respecting the original inhabitants of this country). As a result of the history of these and similar policies:
- Women and people of color generated trillions of dollars that went to wealthy white men. Today, women and people of color (most especially women of color) still hold far less wealth than white men.
- Native Americans live in poverty that we associate with developing nations, on tiny plots of land, and we enjoy the wealth generated from taking and privatizing their land.
- Women and children are still victimized by law enforcement and the legal system as a result of being victimized through sexual assault and exploitation.
In addition to recognizing the continual negative consequences of the decisions made by the self-proclaimed politically educated throughout our history, asking ourselves a couple of questions about political knowledge will aid our discussion:
- Who gets to decide what political knowledge is essential?
- Who gets to decide who is politically knowledgeable?
The tyrannical minority (can I call it that?), which has decided these questions throughout history, consider themselves the only ones with enough political knowledge to answer them. The consequences of even considering the answers to these questions would inevitably lead us to legally limit voting even further.
All of this leads me to call into question the predominate view of “political education.” If these are the results created through the application of our “political education,” than maybe we need a new definition.
Perhaps the majority can help us here. The inner-city people of color in poverty whose voting health Drew questions may in fact consider both Drew and I unfit to vote. We both live a rather privileged life compared to people both Drew and I live among, and in fact live more privileged lives than many in the U.S.
As a privileged group, our record of looking out for the best interest of urban communities of color, and as a result the entire country, is dismal, including our presumption that our knowledge has helped us make better decisions than they would have if they had been part of those decisions all along.
I do agree that civic education is important, but not just for inner city black children. Considering the intentional misinformation spread by politicians and media outlets, something more along the lines of deliberative polling, which is but one of many inclusive, participatory decision-making processes where all people can become educated, would aid us in making better decisions.
Still, I do think we are improving “the system” because we listen to the voices of inner city black folks living in poverty, even if they haven’t had a quality civics class (wouldn’t this disqualify many of us?). Perhaps if we had listened to them all along we would be facing far fewer entrenched, systemic problems created by the self-proclaimed “politically educated” tyrannical minority.
Tyranny of the Majority or: this is really going to make Sarah mad.
by Andrew Dyrli Hermeling
I am about to embark on journey into treacherous waters. Sarah, esteemed founder of the blog and my sister-in-law (at least she will be in 70 days), does a whole lot of admirable things trying to activate under represented voters. And I really do admire that. I however do have a few concerns. I will begin with a little history.
The leaders of the American Revolution were, as I have alluded to previously, woefully divided by their ideology and goals for the new nation. Some, like the first President, sought legitimacy for the emerging American landed aristocracy, alienated by British Lords who would not acknowledge the nouveau riche of Virginia as equals. Others, like Jefferson, sought freedom from the oppression of progress and commerce, instead encouraging the ownership of property by venerating a new American archetype, the ‘yeoman farmer.’ However, one thing these leaders did agree on was that political power in the hands of the politically uneducated is a very dangerous thing. There were some, such as Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine, who would be considered populists, but in the end these individuals were pushed towards the fringe of the movement, and the center focused on combating “the violence of majority faction,” to quote the Federalist Papers. And the truth is, they had good reason.
During the period of the Articles of Confederation, populism was a powerful force, most explicitly illustrated by a series of events in the infant state of Massachusetts Bay. As poor farmers floundered under rising debts, the majority consistently advocated for the printing of paper currency. However, the majority, largely uneducated, were unconcerned about the issuing of currency without specie to give it value. Thus, as anyone with an elementary understanding of economics could predict, the rapid printing of new money led to skyrocketing inflation, ruined the economy of Massachusetts, and perhaps more importantly, served as the catalyst for Shays’ rebellion. Thankfully, the failings of populism in Massachusetts ultimately led to the drafting of the current Constitution and an increased stability in the American government.
Suffrage was, as we all know, severely restricted, and many would argue is still not truly universal. And, despite where many might think this post is leading, universal suffrage is something we should strive for. HOWEVER, there is a very important cost, a cost that I fear is not being paid. If the events that took place in Massachusetts are any indication, stability and governmental effectiveness can be achieved when only certain requirements are met. Universal suffrage is a goal that we as a nation should surely seek, but not without pairing it with education. The founders of the nation preferred oligarchy not because they sought to establish a new tyranny, but as a protection from the tyranny of the majority, something they could identify from experience as a very dangerous force. And I am beginning to fear that while we have expanded suffrage in admirable ways, we have failed to finish the job. Helping poor inner-city residents register to vote is one thing, but are we really improving the system if these individuals do not understand what they are voting for? Now, we could turn our heels and step backwards by suppressing voter turn out as the Republicans do, or we could put our money where our mouth is by demanding civic education. Unfortunately, with standardized civic education historically comes standardized attempts to simultaneously teach civic religion, so this is not a goal without its pitfalls. However, as we debate democracy, it is important to understand that while the goal of the government may be to protect the rights of ALL, doing so may not be the automatic result of the will of the people. Just look at Massachusetts. The people, without a grasp of the basic concepts of economics, wanted more money printed to pay off their debts. In doing so they nearly destroyed the state they had fought to free.
American Freedom vs. Real Freedom: A Declaration of Dependence
By Austin
I was perusing the comments over at Christianity Today in response to the decision about the national day of prayer (that I wrote about here - see more from Kathy Kattenburg here). There was some lament in there, along with some atheist who must be trolling the comments and being obnoxious. Some of the responses by Christians were:
“what a sad day for America. They are surely taking away all our freedoms. The leadership in this country makes me sick.” (Marrie Rowe)
“Wow such a sad day in America. The atheist have their right to believe or not to believe as we have our right to believe in God or not, it is our freedom OF religion… The Constitution is slowly being re-written and some people do not even realize it. People need to wake up. We need God BACK in America today. We as christians need to PRAY for our nation.” (Cindy Peplaw)
These are pretty standard responses from Evangelicals. Cindy is certainly right that we need to pray for our nation (see Jeremiah 29), but what many of my fellow Evangelicals get wrong is the nature of freedom in the U.S.
Evangelicals in the U.S. have a real thing for religious freedom. If I criticize it too much they would say to me, ‘image if you lived in a country where you weren’t free to worship! It would be awful!’ And of course there’s some truth to that (although they often forget that the most vibrant places for the church are often in the most oppressive – and there is a good theological reason for that). But there is a bigger truth often missed – that in America, our founding document called “The Constitution” gives absolutely no guarantee of freedom.
Do we think that Paul wasn’t serious when he says ”you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness…” (Rom 6.16)? When Christians posit the antithesis between “sin” and “Christ” they seem to completely forget the fact that America rests on the “sin” side of the ledger, because there is only one thing on the “Christ” side of the ledger - Jesus himself! That’s another way to say “Jesus is Lord.”
Another way to put this is the way John Howard Yoder does. He says:
One of the major efforts of spiritual gear-shifting involved in thinking Christianly is that of getting over this revolutionary idea of freedom, as meaning being left alone to do as one wants, ‘free’ of any outside influence or controls. The freedom of the Christian is not freedom from as much as freedom to: what matters is not fromwhat we are freed, but for what.
For the Bible is more realistic than the revolutionaries of 1776 or 1789; it tells us that we have a choice, not between freedom and unfreedom, but between two kinds of slavery…God gives us the freedom to choose whom we will serve. (The Christian’s Declaration of Indepedence)
And this should properly be called a declaration of dependence.
A Victory for Christians – No more Day of Prayer
By Austin
Kathy Kattenburg over at the Moderate Voice points to a story NPR did about a U.S. District court ruling that makes it unconstitutional for the President to proclaim a national day of prayer (a practice that stared in 1952).
Why do I say this is a victory? Because for too long, American Christians have blurred the distinction between worship of God in church and worship of nation at sporting events, national holidays, and schools.
But this blurring is wrong. Christianity has always defined itself against such provincial bonds because it proclaims the life, death, and resurrection is for all peoples, and that the church is universal. I have more in common with my Chinese, Iranian, or Cuban bothers and sisters in Christ than I do with my American neighbors who do not confess Jesus as Lord.
Holidays like the “National Day of Prayer,” while often initiated in good faith, actually participate in national “liturgies” of unity. And these liturgies have a specific function that Christians are often confused about. I’ve heard Christians say that national day of prayer should help us get back to the faith of the founding fathers (read Drew’s discussion of such “faith” here), but the real function of these liturgies is to develop a primary loyalty to one’s nation, rather than a loyalty to Jesus. It does not rule out loyalty to Jesus (obviously that’s a part of this holiday), but it promotes a particular vision of what that loyalty means - the hope is that by getting the country “back onto God’s path” the country itself will prosper and flourish.
But the main guarantee of loyalty to Jesus is not success. In fact, the one guarantee is that if you follows the way of the cross, you will suffer (consider: Acts 5.40-42; Acts 9.15-16; Rom 8.16-18). The attitude of early Christians we see in the New Testament, and texts form figures like Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, is that they expected and welcomed suffering. They almost universally did not expect prosperity – which is one of the reasons Romans found them so strange (their view was that Christians were atheists, anti-family, and immoral). Roman civic religion, as Augustine noted in the City of God, promised prosperity to the nation. But Christians knew, said Augustine, that the real “patria” (fatherland) is not the nation, but Jesus.
So this is indeed a real victory for Christians. The more our faith is publically distanced from the nation, the freer we are to be who we are. If we truly confess Jesus as Lord, we will always remember what the Epistle to Diognetus says about Christians:
They live in their own countries, but only as nonresidents; they participate in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign country is their fatherland, and every fatherland is foreign.
leave a comment