I don’t recall how it
began, but yesterday I was thinking about that phrase in our Pledge of
Allegiance: “…under God…” Apparently there are some people who oppose it, if
social media posts can be trusted. Frankly, I don’t remember any comments to
that effect. What I do remember is a lot of social media posts defending it in
ways that make it seem there is a
concerted, organized attack on it.
Anyway, it occurred to me
that the implication is strong, if not intended, that being “one nation under
God” is what makes us “indivisible.” The two concepts at least are related;
therefore, what can be concluded from the obvious: that the United States a
is not, in fact, one nation indivisible—under God or otherwise? We are a
divided nation, a “nation coming
apart at the seams, a nation in which each tribe has its own narrative and the
narratives are generally resentment narratives."[1]
I expect the knee-jerk
response is, “I and my tribe are under God. If everyone would just be like us,
we’d be indivisible!” It may describe “undivided;” however, it does not
describe “united”, as in States of America. It describes uniformity. There’s a
difference. Uniformity is related much more closely to satisfaction and
complacency than to growth and progress.
If we truly desire to be
indivisible as a nation, why aren’t we engaging in efforts toward
reconciliation and unity, instead of raging at each other over the slightest
differences of opinion.
Some things are clear: first,
we’ll never agree about what “under God” means. One source identifies 35 Protestant
Denominations in the USA, most of them sub-divided into numerous branches and
schisms. The founders of the denomination I serve envisioned a Christian coop
through which could be realized their proposition “That the Church of Christ
upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one…”[2]
Today their “Restoration Movement” to unite all Christendom is splintered into
three distinct (and often antagonistic) denominations.
Christian history is a
chronicle of uninterrupted human division. Furthermore, in this land of
religious freedom, the number of Protestant Denominations doesn’t begin to
account for the variety of ways in which deity is perceived and worshiped.
So, how do all those
denominations and schisms emerge? Some charismatic person becomes convinced
that he or she has a unique and unerring insight into God’s will and intention
and convinces a group of followers to break away with him or her. The power
behind most schisms is the magnetic persuasiveness of the founder who has a
splinter of truth, rather than the presence and leading of the Spirit of God in
whom alone dwells absolute truth. [The Protestant Reformation, perceived by
Protestants (sic) as a valid response to corrupt leadership in the Mother
Church, notwithstanding. In most cases I expect every schism represents itself
as “restoring true faith;” but that’s another blog.]
We can’t agree on who God
is or how we are to relate to God; nor can we agree on what it means to be
God’s people. Therefore, we render the term, “under God,” essentially
meaningless.
A second clear reality is
that our current strategy of insulting and vilifying and demonizing everyone
who disagrees with us cannot possibly be considered a faithful embodiment of
the presence of God under whom we claim to be “indivisible”. Such interpersonal
animosity has not produced—nor will it ever produce—indivisibility; nor has it
created—or will it ever create—a climate in which an indivisible nation can
thrive or even emerge.
Finally, the familiar
tactic of demanding conformity to our own ideology has been equally
unproductive in affecting any kind of indivisibility. I’ve said before: my
favorite definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a
different result.
The greatest irony of all
is that out of the vast variety of Christian doctrinal communities, the consensus message perceived
by a “spiritually yearning, institutionally pissed off public”[3]
is that we really don’t believe what we claim to believe. We are perceived as
hypocrites.
We wave the “Grace” flag,
as if we really believe it: “For by grace you have been saved through
faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of
works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians
2:8-9 NRSV). Most of us who grew up in
the church can sing “Amazing Grace” from memory.
But an overwhelming number
of professing Christians don’t believe it, if their witness by word and deed is
accurate. What too many professing Christians’ lives testify—and the consensus stereotype by which that spiritually disillusioned public judges us all—is that we are saved by
affirming correct doctrine—being “right”--and excluding everyone who doesn't affirm our correct doctrine.
I’m just not willing to
bet my eternal destiny on the correctness of doctrine, knowing full well that
my perception is limited by the clay of which I am made. Instead, I’ll place my
trust in the One who alone is my doctrine, and I’ll confess in the words
of St. Paul:
For we
know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10but when the complete comes, the
partial will come to an end. 11When
I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a
child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12For now we see
in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to
face. Now I know only in part; then I will
know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13And now faith, hope, and love abide,
these three; and the greatest of these is love. (I Corinthians 13:9-13
NRSV)
And therein lies what I
believe is the only credible doorway through which we may finally live out our
pledge to become an “indivisible” nation: “The greatest of these is love.”
We’ll never agree. On much
of anything. But, in love, we can seek to understand
each other and to embrace our differences, not necessarily as error, but as
partial truth. And in that effort to transcend our antagonistic obsession with
uniformity, I suspect we’ll discover a more nearly complete indivisibility.
That’s the way I see it
through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together in
the Walk,
Jim
[1]
David Brooks, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-case-for-reparations/ar-BBUvAS7?ocid=spartandhp&fbclid=IwAR3MQXOlmusWGxquJ3ZCXXYo1_LmLkeHISpNNVrkfC1OmNJdTShsVbRSwpM
[2]
Thomas Campbell, Declaration and Address.
https://stevekinnard.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/church-history-14-thomas-campbells-declaration-and-address/
[3] My
crude adaptation of a phrase coined by Thomas G. Bandy in Christian Chaos, et. al.
