Why Erasing “In God We Trust” Would be a Good Thing for Everyone

Genuine Christians don’t trust in God.

Real Christians trust in the eternal, heavenly Father of the resurrected and ascended Lord, Jesus Christ.  There is a difference, a BIG difference between these two deities.

Trusting in God does not require anything of us, because God-trusters always make God in their own image.

The generic God of the God-trusters is a God of convenience.  And what is America today if not the wasteland of endless, ad nauseum convenience?

Idolatry’s promise of religious convenience is at the heart of why God-trusters embrace their ever-convenient God.  Like all idolatry, trusting in the God of American civil religion is easy-peasy religion, because that God is always on our side.  What’s not to like?

Who wouldn’t want to be on God’s side when you already think you know that God’s side is always your side?

The angel of American manifest destiny

He is always, predictably, the God of our nation, our history, our wars, our empire, our manifest destiny, our foreign policy, our political party, our consumerist lifestyle, our race, even our skin color, if and when appealing to such racial niceties becomes necessary.

How nice it is to believe in an agreeable God who wants for your nation what you do, who believes in the rightness of your cause just as you do, who excuses the world-wide bloodshed caused by your country for the same reasons you do.

How insufferably convenient to embrace a religion of such logical redundancy.  Clear-headedness is never expected of anyone.

This is always the way with idolatry.

This In-God-We-Trust God emerges from our own selfish desires, hopes and priorities.  For even when we fail to achieve our desires, this God of the God-trusters is flexible enough to adopt failed outcomes as the deepest desire of his heart.  So, America can do no wrong, even when she fails abysmally and wreaks havoc among those who suffer from her miscalculations.

On the other hand, if there is one thing the Bible tells us about the one, true God, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the eternal Father of Jesus of Nazareth:  God is never convenient.

Following Jesus of Nazareth is not convenient, not at all convenient.  That’s why so few people really do it, consistently, day in and day out, for a lifetime.

When Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) devoted a chapter in his book, The Social Contract (1762), to the centrality of civil religion in the modern nation-state, he emphasized the civic dangers of Christianity.  In fact, he believed – rightly, in my opinion – that the gospel of Jesus Christ, when embraced by true believers, posed the single greatest threat to the long-term survival of any modern nation-state.  He even went so far as to insist that the Roman Catholic church (the only form of Christianity he knew) be outlawed if the nation-state hoped to survive.

Rousseau’s fears can be boiled down very simply:  The Christian God was not controllable.  The Christian God is neither predictable nor convenient – at least, not from a human point of view.

Jesus Christ can never be relied upon to cast his vote for “my side.”  And he always demands an allegiance transcending national, political and social loyalties.

The atheist Rousseau understood Christianity better than most American Christians.

If we understood the import of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Christians would be the first to ask that idolatrous phrases like “In God We Trust” be erased forever.

We would abandon the silly, meaningless conflicts over state-sanctioned “prayer” in public schools.

We would shun idolatrous ceremonies demanding that we “pledge allegiance” to a flag.

We would laugh hysterically whenever we hear the next televised nattering nabob boast about winning some war over saying “merry Christmas” in the public square.

We would speak up and declare, “No, I do not trust in your God of convenient nationalism.  I trust in the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ; Savior of ALL people everywhere; King of the universe; the Lord whose kingdom of righteousness makes public inconvenience a hallmark of the faithful.”

What Is Christian Worship?  Part 1

This post revisits one of my pet peeves:  the misunderstanding and misuse of Biblical vocabulary.  Today I want to begin looking at how we commonly misuse the word “worship.”

OK, I may be a bit like Scrooge, but I wish that Christians would use Biblical language the same way it’s used in the Bible.  Doesn’t that sound sensible to you?  Instead, we often redefine Biblical vocabulary (without realizing it) and then use it in ways that are totally disconnected from its original meaning.

For example, in a previous post I explained how we do this with the word “praise.”  Christians commonly talk about “praising God” when their actions, whether it be clapping and raising their hands, or repeating the words “praise God” over and over again, actually have no connection at all to the Biblical notion of praise.

Language certainly can evolve and change over time.  That is natural.  But for Christians – who have an unchanging, authoritative Book taken as “normative” (in one way or another) in its descriptions of God and human existence – using words from that Book in ways that are unrelated to their original significance becomes very misleading.  It is far too easy for us to import our modern (mis)understanding of those words back into the Bible without understanding the mistake we are making.  Such unconscious habits all but guarantee that we will misunderstand the Scriptures whenever we encounter those misunderstood words.

No one is thinking clearly or understanding Scripture accurately when that sort of linguistic confusion is going on.  Our modern use of worship vocabulary is one more pesky example of this common, Christianese word mangling.

So, I had been planning to write a series of posts about Christian worship for some time, but I was finally pushed over the edge last Sunday morning at church.  The congregation was coming to the end of the final song when the music leader shouted out, “Come on.  Let’s give God some worship.”

The crowd burst into applause.

Oh, my goodness.  I had to pick my eyeballs up off the floor.  I hope I didn’t groan too loudly.

So, let’s begin with a few word studies.  The word study is an important research method that every serious Bible reader needs to keep in his/her tool box, for one simple reason:  Words do not have meanings as much as they have uses.  Words mean what we use them to mean.  And word usage changes over time.  That is why dictionaries are regularly reissued in new, updated editions, because we don’t use all of our words the same way today as we did yesterday.

Ponder the very different ways we have used the English word “gay,” for example.  In 1934, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers made a movie called “The Gay Divorcee.”  Astaire played a randy, young heterosexual male who spends most of the movie chasing after a lovely, young lady – certainly not the plot-line this movie title congers up for theater-goers today.

So, the question becomes:  whose understanding of a word is being read into a text?  And is it an appropriate understanding or not?

Now we need to do something called a word study.  Open a good concordance.  Your concordance will list every appearance of every word in the Bible, verse by verse.  A good English concordance (like the NIV Exhaustive Concordance) has sections to help you deal with the complications created by the different English translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Now, open your Bible and read every instance of the word(s) you want to understand.  Look at the wider context of each sentence.  This may take some time.

Look at how the word is used in its literary context.  As you progress in your research, you will notice that the same word is often used in different ways in different contexts.  That is why dictionaries can often list several different definitions for a single word.  You will also notice that a variety of Greek and Hebrew words can be translated by the same English word.  (This may sound confusing, but it will sort itself out as you become more familiar with your chosen vocabulary.)

The New Testament uses 4 different Greek word groups that can be translated into the English word worship.

First, proskunien/proskunētēs – to bow down, prostrate oneself; to kiss; to do obeisance.

Originally, this word meant to show submission or respect to a superior.  The precise significance of the homage rendered depended upon the status of the one being honored.  For example, at numerous points in the synoptic gospels various people “bow down” before Jesus, not to worship him as divine but to honor him as someone able to do great things (like heal their leprosy, Matthew 8:2).

When the object of such homage is divine, then giving appropriate honor becomes “worship,” as people acknowledge God’s worthiness of honor, submission and obedience (John 4:23; Revelation 7:11).

But, there is something very interesting about this word:  with the sole exception of John 4, the New Testament never uses this particular word to describe what Christians do for God, whether individually or collectively.  In other words, New Testament believers are never described as giving worship (proskunien) to the Lord.  Odd, but true.

The ONE place where Paul uses this word in connection with an earthly gathering of Christians, it describes the response of a visiting unbeliever who is convicted of God’s presence by observing the spiritual gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:25).

We will come back to the importance of this observation later.

Second, latreuein/latreia – to serve.

Originally, in the Greek Old Testament (called the Septuagint, abbreviated as LXX), this word was used as a synonym for the “service” rendered to a master by a servant or slave – service of any sort at all.  Eventually, it became more narrowly applied to “one’s service of God.”  Most often it described the specifically sacrificial service offered by an Israelite worshiper in the temple cult where gifts, offerings, prayers and sacrifices were made.  Such temple service was an act of obedient sacrifice (Luke 2:37; Romans 9:4).

St. Francis worshiping with a congregation of birds.

Let’s note a few developments in this piece of vocabulary.  Worship is made an act of service offered in obedience; to worship God and to serve God become synonymous activities.  Worship is an obedient service, and obedient service can be worship.  Thus, the word could be extended to include the broader life of obedience.  For instance, see Deuteronomy 10:12 (in the Greek text), where the Israelites are told “to serve (latreuein) the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul.”  Here latreuein/worship becomes a lifestyle of faithfulness.

An especially interesting aspect of this particular word in the New Testament, is that – unlike proskuneinlatreuein is frequently used to describe Christian activities, but never to describe what Christians do when gathered together.  Hmmmm…

We will need to revisit this important fact about New Testament worship/latreuein before we finish.

Third, leitourgein/leitourgia/leitourgikos/leitourgos – to serve (a particular constituency).  The English word “liturgy” is derived from this Greek word.

Originally, in the Greek Old Testament, it meant “to offer a service” (similar to latreuein), but leitourgein quickly became more specifically applied to the cultic services of the priesthood.  For the Old Testament, leitourgia is the specifically ritual-oriented tasks performed exclusively by priests.

The New Testament retains this sense, for example, in Luke 1:23, “When Zechariah’s time of service/worship was completed, he returned home [from the temple].”  Also, check out Hebrews 10:11, “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties/worship/service.”

Two important points call for our attention in summarizing the New Testament’s use of the leitourgia word group.

One: it is never used for any particular Christian “office” such as apostles, bishops, elders, etc.  In this New Testament era, offering up leitourgia to the Lord is every believer’s privilege.  There is no such thing as a special Christian priesthood, because the New Testament insists on the priesthood of ALL believers.  Everyone who follows Jesus is now a genuine priest standing before God’s throne.  You don’t have to wear a dog collar or fancy vestments.

A Quaker “worship” service

Two:  this word group is often applied to the whole of the Christian life, much like latreuein.   Only once does it (feasibly) describe what Christians do when they are gathered together in a group.  This single exception appears in Acts 13:2, “While they [the church at Antioch] were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’”

Otherwise, the leitourgia word group never describes what Christians do when they gather together in groups.  At the fear of sounding like a broken record (does anyone use that metaphor nowadays?), this is another curious observation that will demand more attention before we finish this study.

Fourth, thrēskeia – religious service, religion, worship.

For the NT, this is the word used when debating the differences between true and/or false religion.  It is most often used to describe false religion (see Acts 26:5, “the strictest sect of our religion”; Colossians 2:18, “the worship of angels”; Colossians 2:23, “self-imposed worship”; James 1:26, “his religion is worthless”).

On one occasion thrēskeia describes true worship in James 1:27, “Religion/worship that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”  This single exception is most likely explained by the context of debate and the word’s previous appearance in verse 26.

So, one last time…let’s notice something very interesting about this word.  As we have noted elsewhere, thrēskeia is never used to describe the things that Christians do together when they gather collectively.  In the only instance where this word is used positively, thrēskeia describes an obedient, holy lifestyle demonstrated by generosity to the poor.

These are the essential puzzle pieces necessary for understanding how the New Testament uses the vocabulary of “worship.”  Now that they are all out on the table, see what you can make of trying to fit them together.

Next time we will begin the process of fitting it all together and synthesizing the New Testament sense of what it means to “worship the Lord Jesus Christ.”

More Whining from the Evangelical Advisory Board Spokesman

CBN News posted the following headline today:

“’This Is an Attempt to Intimidate Certain Voices’: Group Says Meetings Between Trump, Faith Leaders a Violation of Law”

The story concerns a letter (fully documenting its assertions) sent by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State asserting that president Trump’s so-called Evangelical Advisory Board is violating federal law.  Below is the substance of their complaint. I have highlighted the essential clauses:

“…the Advisory Board is subject to, but has failed to comply with, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2. It is clear that the President’s Evangelical Advisory Board is doing substantive work with the Trump Administration behind closed doors—without any sunlight for the public to understand how and why decisions are being made. We respectfully request that the Advisory Board cease meeting and providing advice to the President unless and until it fully complies with FACA, and that you produce to us certain documents relating to the Advisory Board.

 “FACA applies to ‘any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup thereof . . . which is . . . established or utilized by the President . . . in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government.’  The Evangelical Advisory Board’s activities are well within FACA’s scope.”

The gist of CBN’s reporting, particularly in its online interview with Advisory Board spokesman, Johnnie Moore, blatantly misrepresents the

Johnnie Moore, graduate of Liberty University

AUSCS letter.  Describing it as one more secularist attempt to “intimidate” evangelical voices in government, both CBN and Johnnie Moore distort the real complaint beyond recognition.

As anyone who reads the letter can see, the problem is not that Trump hangs out with evangelicals – although given the cataclysmic demise of evangelical integrity these days, they certainly can’t be anything but a corrosive influence on a president in dire need of both spiritual and practical advice.  (I would warn the president about the dangers of associating with “backsliders,” but I don’t think he is familiar with the term.)

The problem is not that Trump converses with evangelicals but that he hangs out with them in lonely back alleys, in the dead of night, where they talk in low whispers, without anyone taking notes or keeping a record of their conversations.  Such behavior would be unremarkable if these paragons of Christian virtue were swearing fealty to The Donald in the crushed velvet, over-stuffed chairs of Trump Towers.  Politically aware followers of Jesus have come to expect such treachery from the mammon-loving leaders of their mega-churches and other televised “ministries” lusting for more TBN airtime.

But the president is a public servant, at least in theory, not merely the crime boss he was before winning the election.

The American people have every right to know, as a matter of public record,

The recent dinner for evangelicals at the White House

with whom the president is meeting, from whom he is taking advice, and whether that advice is affecting the rest of us who pay the president’s salary.

American’s United is simply asking the president and his evangelical bed-fellows to obey the law.  That’s it.

Didn’t the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, cite Romans 13 not very long ago as an ominous reminder of just how law-abiding all Americans were supposed to be?  True evangelicals ought to be jumping at the chance fully “to comply with, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2.”

Of course, good ‘ole boy Johnnie (any grown man who insists on being called Johnnie has got to be a good ‘ole boy) insists that there is no such thing as an Evangelical Advisory Council. CBN reports,

“’From the very beginning we’ve made it clear that there is no evangelical advisory council at the White House…I don’t know how many times I’ve said that.  I think everybody just needs to recognize that this is an attempt to intimidate certain voices, and voices that will not be intimidated,’ said Moore.

While there is no doubt that Sessions was trying to “intimidate certain

Rev. Paula White opens the evangelical dinner with prayer

voices” with his immigration policy of separating immigrant children from their parents, under the aegis of Romans 13 no less, I confess that the intimidation factor in the American’s United letter escapes me completely.

Johnnie’s bald-faced insistence that there is no such thing as an Evangelical Advisory Council reminds me of the Monty Python “Dead Parrot sketch.”  After his recently purchased parrot dies, the disgruntled customer tries to return his now dead parrot to the pet shop, only to be faced with the recalcitrant owner who insists – contrary to all the evidence – that the bird is not dead, only resting.  Classic Monty Python.

Well, Johnnie Moore.  Monty Python disbanded long ago.  Your attempts to resurrect the group with a new Evangelical Council sketch won’t work.  It’s not funny.

After all, there is a stable collection of “evangelical” church leaders who periodically gather collectively with the president in Washington D.C., providing him with counsel about issues dear to their hearts, urging him to adopt policies favorable to their concerns.  The recent White House dinner for evangelicals was a gathering of the usual suspects.

Johnnie Moore’s denial and complaint is only the latest example of evangelicalism’s pathetic sense of entitlement and bogus victimization.

Paula and Franklin Graham say ‘cheese’ for the White House photographer

You, first, demand special treatment – why do we have to make a public record of our meetings with the president?  It’s not fair! – and then you cry the crocodile tears of “religious discrimination” when a public service organization calls you out for trying to play by your own rules.

Why can’t evangelical leaders willingly abide by the same standards applied to every other lobbying group?  Why the skulduggery, followed by another “stop picking on me” burst of tears?  It’s pathetic.

Sadly, this story, which is paradigmatic of the many reprehensible ills afflicting evangelicalism today, is one layer of dishonesty on top of another, and another, and another…

If you will, allow me to paraphrase the apostle Paul’s lament over mortality as I close.  Paul says, “Oh, my God, who will deliver me from this body-politic of death?”  (Romans 7:24).