I was reading in Titus 3. Verse 1 says, “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient…to be peaceable and considerate.” Other New Testament passages say similar things, including Jesus’ own words. And it got me thinking, again, about the American Revolution.

Did God prompt the American Revolution? Was he pleased when we declared war on King George? I think not. But I’m really puzzled about this, because I also think that until recent years, America has been used by God as a light to the nations. So the implication is that for God, the end justifies the means. And obviously, that’s not the case. Thus my befuddlement.

The traditional view is that the Revolutionary War was, somehow, a religious cause fought in the name of Christ. A holy cause to create a Most Favored Nation for God. Or something like that. People like James Kennedy and other Jesus-Created-America advocates talk as if the Founding Fathers all held a prayer meeting, and God spoke to them and said, “Verily verily I say unto you, go overthrow the British.” That may be the majority view among my fellow United Brethren.

But I can’t see Jesus being in favor of the war. What were our grievances? There was the “taxation without representation” issue–a matter of an unfair political process. The Jews in New Testament times had that problem. There was the forced billeting of soldiers in private homes. The Romans no doubt did similar stuff, in addition to making you carry their backpacks for a mile whenever they wanted. And those early God-fearing Americans feared that the English might inflict on us some of their liberal anti-slavery nonsense. Those Colonials wanted to keep their slaves, just as today’s conservatives insist on keeping their assault rifles.

The Revolution didn’t meet any criteria for a “just war.” The revolutionaries already possessed plenty of freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, but wanted more of the liberty part than any citizens had ever been accorded. So they went to war, and they won. I’m a beneficiary of that.

What’s more, what those Founding Fathers did next–create a democracy with religious freedom and so many characteristics which all countries should have–showed incredible wisdom, vision, and principle. The Constitution they put in place provided the foundation for America’s later greatness.

But does the end justify the means? I can’t possibly accept that God prompted and favored the Revolution, because the idea directly violates Scripture. Romans 13 is very clear in stating that the American Revolution was not something God would sanction: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established….Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. Unless it’s the American Revolution, in which case it’s okay.” Oops, I added that last line.

God doesn’t violate his own rules. How could he tell us to be subject to rulers and authorities, and then say, “Okay, we’ll make an exception in this case. Nobody should have to pay this much for tea.” Jesus would not have signed the Declaration of Independence, and he would have reprimanded Simon the Zealot for picking up John Hancock’s pen.

Don’t get me wrong. I love my country. I believe we’ve been enormously blessed by God. I’m just puzzled. Because Scripture indicates that God would have been saddened when we violated Scripture by going to war against our rulers. And he is no doubt further saddened that, instead of showing repentance for what was clearly an unbiblical course of action, we continually give him credit for somehow inspiring the war and leading us to victory. And yet, once the deed was done, God got behind us as our biggest supporter.

Or did he? Is America’s greatness more a product of a model governmental system, vast national resources, Judeo-Christian values, and a high percentage of God-fearing citizens (at least early on), than a product of God’s blessing?

There’s a big picture which I suspect only God can see.

It’s no fun living in a bulletproof Republican district. While epic wars rage in other parts of the country, all is tranquil in northeast Indiana. I’ve seen very few political ads, and the charges candidates throw at each other are pretty lame, the political equivalent of, “The other night, my opponent didn’t eat his broccoli,” countered by, “Well that’s nothing. My opponent got a C- in eighth-grade English.” Nasty, nasty stuff.

When I voted this morning, I was surprised to see several state-wide seats up for grabs, including a US Senate seat. I thought this was the year free of Senate races, but no, there was Richard Lugar’s name on the ballot. Lugar has been a senator since the Pleistocene era, and I like him. But he obviously took our district for granted, and figured he would save his campaign funds for other districts. Likewise for other state-wide seats.

For probably half of the positions on the ballot, the Republican candidate had no opposition. That stinks.

I said previously that I wouldn’t vote for Mark Souder, our Republican congressman, but I wouldn’t necessarily vote for his opponent. Well, I did vote for his opponent. Initially, he may have fantasized about pulling a huge upset, but I can’t imagine that lasted long. For most of the campaign, he exerted energies exuding false optimism, rallying troops in a doomed cause, convincing people to contribute money to a sinkhole, and generally playing the role of sacrificial donkey for the Democratic party. I gave him points for effort and general pain and anguish, and voted for him. This can only be described as an act of irresponsible, cynical citizenship on my part.

I like the new voting machines.

My district has a fine Congressman in Mark Souder. He’s a true-blue genuine Christian, and he even attends a United Brethren church (Emmanuel Community, which I attended before Anchor started). I’ve been amazed at how refreshingly candid, non-talking-pointish, he is about what’s happening in Washington, even when his words are negative toward persons and causes which he, as a Republican, should champion. I trust him. I like him.

But I’m not voting for him this year. I won’t necessarily vote for his opponent, either. I just won’t vote to re-elect Mark Souder. There’s a principle involved which, on the one hand, can be labeled politically naive, but on the other hand could be labeled…well…principled.

I’m perturbed when blacks give a pass to the indiscretions of their leaders, such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and that crazy-lady congresswoman who doesn’t like metal detectors. I get perturbed when sports fans give a pass to the shenanigans of their favorite team or player. I get perturbed when society in general gives a pass to the charades of immoral Hollywood celebs. If we have some affinity for a person or team or cause, we look the other way. When actually, we should be holding our own to higher standards.

Republicans should carry the main responsibility for holding Republicans accountable. Thus my decision. Mark Souder entered Congress in 1994 as part of the “Contract with America” class which deified the idea of term limits. We were told they would serve three terms, then leave. And they would work for a Constitutional amendment to limit terms to 12 years max.

Well, Mark Souder served his three terms, then another three terms, and now he’s going for his seventh. So he’s already broken this “contract” with the American people of his district. He has two explanations.

1. In 2000, his district was redistricted, so he was essentially running for election in a brand new district. And in that campaign, he made no promise about term limits. (For a majority of people in his district, like me, he’s been their Congressman since 1994.)
2. He notes that Democracts don’t play by term limits rules, so if the Republicans left office after three terms, they would be giving away the huge advantage that incumbents have, Democrats would take over, and godlessness would reign.

I fully understand this incumbency issue. I also know Newt Gingrich and Company, being intelligent people, fully understood this consequence when they wrote the Contract with America. It’s a no-brainer. Of course this would give up the huge advantage that incumbents have. Heaven forbid that Republicans should lead by example and principle. I say: you should have counted the cost in 1994. If the cost would be too great to follow through on the Contract, then don’t put that provision in the Contract. By putting it in, knowing you wouldn’t follow through, you were merely playing cynical, manipulative games with the American people. With me. And I resent that.

And so, despite my enormously high regard for Mark Souder as a person, I will no longer vote for him. Out of principle. We need to have some Republicans who stand on principle regardless of costs. (A friend of mine, a staunch Republican, told me he wasn’t voting for Souder either, and for the same reasons, so it’s not like I’m an island of righteousness.)

Not that it will matter. Souder’s new district is pretty much a bullet-proof Republican district. He’ll get re-elected easily this year…and in 2008…and in 2010. And that’s probably good for both our district and the country. But promises are promises, and the term limits pledge is fully within his power to fulfill. So there, right or wrong, principled or (probably) stupid, I stand.

This week’s Time magazine has a cover story about Iran, with an article about what a war with Iran might look like. Sounds like we’re definitely headed toward a confrontation. My opinion? Sure, go ahead and invade. The Iranian people will welcome us as liberators. They’ll throng the streets as our tanks drive by, showering flower petals on our troops and breaking out the wine glasses. They’ll be swinging, swaying, records playing, dancing in the street. All we need is music, sweet music. There’ll be music everywhere.

George Bush can occupy Iran, and then let the next president deal with it. As soon as he/she deals with catching Bin Laden…and leaving Afghanistan…and Iraq…and rebuilding New Orleans…and filling in that unsightly hole in the ground in The Big Apple…and fixing immigration…and health care…and global warming. Okay, our soldiers in Iran might have to wait a few years. But hey, it’s not like they’ll be in danger or anything. Meanwhile, maybe it’s time for some more tax cuts so we can do some more shopping. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Pluto is a planet only by popular opinion. Many astronomers would say it’s more a round chunk of ice, and that it’s smaller than several similar objects discovered well beyond Pluto. A fellow named Mike Brown has discovered 15 such “planets,” some of them twice as far from the sun as Pluto is. He’s not in favor of giving them planet status. And yet, if tiny Pluto is considered to be a planet, why shouldn’t Xena, a large round object which is even larger than Pluto?

In the past, Brown argued for eliminating Pluto as a planet. But public support for Pluto–not based on science, but on mere sentiment; it would be like taking statehood away from Alaska–was too strong. Pluto, since its discovery in 1930, has been part of our culture. And Brown, being pragmatic, says, “There are places where science reigns, and others where culture reigns. Science doesn’t have to win this one. I’m willing to give up the hard-nosed science view of what a planet is in lieu of a cultural view.”

I like that approach, and I see it applying to Christian political action.

We live in a secular, religiously pluralistic culture that values freedom of religion. That’s bedrock America. But Christians constantly fight for causes which go against those values, advocating things which support our religion (Christianity) at the expense of other views. I’m of the opinion that we should just say, “On this one we can let the culture win.”

For instance, I’ve never supported the hubbub over school prayer. Maybe it was okay once upon a time, but the culture has moved on. Prayer doesn’t belong in schools. That just demeans prayer. Let this one go. Kids can still pray if they want. I did.

Nativity scenes on public property? That goes against religious pluralism, which I think is a much greater value in a secular society like ours. Likewise for posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses. What does it gain us? It does offend other religious groups. Maybe they’re being overly sensitive, but that’s okay. Better to live in peace and be able to submit to the other’s desires (a Christian concept about which the Religious Right is clueless), than to stubbornly insist on a “Christianity First” approach.

Including “In God We Trust” on our money, and “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Those aren’t battles I care to fight. Besides, they are lies. We’re not a nation under God, at least not anymore. Why would I say it as part of the Pledge, which is actually a display of loyalty toward my country? I can pledge my loyalty to the USA without pretending that we operate under God’s authority.

But other battles are still worth fighting. I don’t want to see gay marriage legalized. I would be surprised if it’s not legal throughout the country in 20 years. The culture will have moved on, and we’ll need to deal with it (just as we dealt with the end of prohibition). But the inevitability doesn’t mean we should cave in now.

Some issues, too, are just a matter of fairness. Like the teaching of creationism alongside evolution. We have a right to fairness. So do Buddhists and Muslims and atheists and all the rest (which  means if we can display our religious symbols on public property and post them in courthouses, so can they).

It’s okay to fight on behalf of the public good, too, as in opposing gambling, the legalization of drugs, pornography, abortion, racism, and global warming. Those go beyond religion, and it’s not necessarily necesssary that we craft them as religious causes and thereby exclude people who also oppose those things, but for more secular reasons.

We white evangelical Christians could, if we wanted, even fight on behalf of the poor. But alas, I’ve strayed to the back burner.