"Respond to this statement:..."

I am somewhat frequently interviewed by students here at MVNU for Research Writing projects, Public Speaking presentations, or Christian Life and Ministry papers. Tonight I was interviewed by Daniel Coutz. It was one of the more thoughtful interviews that I have experienced and I appreciated the approach. The conversation went something like this:

Daniel: "Respond to this statement: The United States is a Christian Nation."

Travis: "No earthly empire is distinctively in keeping with the way of Jesus. Those who claim the United States to be a Christian nation need to enroll in a post-reformation church history course that discusses the period of American colonization. Also helpful would be a study in theology and philosophy to explore the definitions of theism, deism, and idolatry.

Daniel: "Do you feel the American flag should be displayed in churches? Why or why not?"

Travis: "No. The church is laced with a history of symbol and icon for visual engagement in worship and when one considers what the American flag represents I would have to question what one is worshiping. I would have no problem with displaying a flag in a church if it was displayed beside every other flag of every other nation so long as the symbol is understood to represent equality and unity.

Daniel: "Respond to this statement: The loyalty of a person belongs first to his country."

Travis: "Why would one view an earthly empire as something to which giving loyalty is necessary or a priority? My suggestion is that most would give said loyalty due to an enculturation that promotes a sense of loyalty as nessecary. I would also suggest it has something to do with the supposed 'safety' provided by the military branch of a certain country's government. Fear would be that which fuels loyalty to an earthly empire."

Daniel: "Respond to this statement. Christians living in the United States should be patriotic about the United States."

Travis: "One's definition of patriotism would be primary. I find it problematic for a follower of Jesus to pledge his allegiance to an earthly nation. So in the sense that the recitation of the 'Pledge of Allegiance' is patriotic, then patriotism may be considered contrary to 'worshipping no other gods.'"

I did.

After much deliberation I did decide to vote this year (at least in the Ohio, March 4 election). I primarily decided to vote due to a tax levy for the Knox County MR/DD. I could have justified voting "no" but after much careful consideration, prayer, and dialogue with intelligent, informed friends, I did vote yes for the tax levy. My primary dilemna was one considering the role of the Church and the role of government. Another post will further unpack said dilemna. The only other position for which I voted was the Democratic Party presidential candidate. I voted for Barack Obama. Once again, another post will further unpack my decision.

Political Involvement 1.0.2.

I am restating a question from a previous post:
It is the task of the follower of Jesus to attempt to understand the political climate of first century Israel while considering Jesus' involvement or lack thereof in said arena. Based on such study, if Jesus were to show up in America in 2008, would he involve himself in the American political system? If so, to what degree? If not, what we he do instead and why?

Political Involvement.

Should followers of Jesus be involved in American politics? If so, to what degree? If not, why?

Should I Choose?

I posted a poll that only recorded a few answers: Should one vote when all candidtates adhere to a position(s) and/or practice(s) that is/are contrary to that of a follower of Jesus? Please post your thoughts.

Presidential Candidates.

Just for fun I completed an online survey to see with which 2008 presidential candidate's views my opinions most closely match. Though I didn't like the ambiguity and overly-general questions here are my results:

Dennis Kucinich (D) - Ohio Representative: 78.33% match
Ron Paul (R) - Texas Representative: 68.33%
Mike Gravel (D) - Former Alaska Senator : 66.67%
Joseph Biden (D) - Delaware Senator : 49.17%
Hillary Clinton (D) - New York Senator: 48.33%
John Cox (R) - Businessman: 48.33%
Christopher Dodd (D) - Connecticut Senator: 48.33%
Barack Obama (D) - Illinois Senator: 48.33%
John Edwards (D) - Former North Carolina Senator: 47.50%
Bill Richardson (D) - New Mexico Governor: 46.67%
Mike Huckabee (R) - Former Arkansas Governor: 44.17%
Sam Brownback (R) - Kansas Senator: 40.00%
John McCain (R) - Arizona Senator: 40.00%
Governor Mitt Romney (R) - Former Massachusetts: 40.00%
Tom Tancredo (R) - Colorado Representative: 31.67%
Rudy Giuliani (R) - Former New York City Mayor: 28.33%
Duncan Hunter (R) - California Representative 23.33%
Fred Thompson (R) - Former Tennessee Senator: 23.33%

I am ecstatic that 15 of my 18 matches rank below 50% with only 3 between 60% and 80%. I am for the abolishment of the two-party system and my results may reveal why. It is impossible to find a candidate with whom I highly agree due their stances being formulated not on a per issue basis but on a "party-line."
Take to survey for yourself: http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

Imprecation

Now listening to: Dashboard Confessional, Dusk and Summer album.

Does anyone have any thoughts on "divine vengeance?" A friend of mine sent an e-mail to me discussing "imprecation psalms" to defend the position that violence is not always wrong because it may be being carried out by God. You may read the except that he copied into the email at http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/09/crying-for-justice.html. My response was as follows:

"So... maybe there were people in other countries praying hard enough for divine vengeance against the United States, thereby we could call Hurricane Katrina imprecation. God bless the U.S.A."
Please note: The preceding sentence is laced with a double-dose of sarcasm. I am not of a reformed mindset nor do I claim that any natural disasters are caused by or initiated by God.

Thoughts?

Two Parties.

My political stance is notated as "unassociated." I cannot say that I am Republican for I do not adhere to all that Republicanism is. I cannot say that I am Democrat for I do not adhere to all that Democratism is. I suppose by default that I would be Independent even though I am not essentially independent from any group, community, coalition, or partnership. Why must our nation's political system be constrained to a two party system? If one is not Republican or Democrat it is next to impossible to have the monetary system of support to be elected into a major office. Monetary support and campaigning is a whole different issue.