In one classic science fiction plot, antagonists attempt to
gain control of the future by attempting to alter the past. Though it might not
be as exciting as a Dalorian speeding at 88 miles per hour, maniacal forces in
our own reality are attempting to accomplish nearly the same thing by
drastically reconceptualizing our understanding of history.
Part of the way history is publicly remembered and allowed
to exert an influence over the cultural milieu is through the erection of
assorted monuments and memorials. This is itself a practice that, in part,
traces its origin back through the pages of sacred scripture.
In Joshua 4:5-7, the representatives of the tribes of Israel
are instructed as to the following: “Each of you is to take up a stone on his
shoulder, according to the number of tribes of the Israelites, to serve as a
sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, ‘What do these
stones mean?’ tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark
of the covenant...These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel
forever.”
This is not the only incident in Scripture where the
believer is admonished to respect assorted physical historical commemorations.
In Proverbs 22:28, the child of God is admonished to remove not the ancient
landmark.
No doubt one of the reasons thorough going secularists and
even their sissified allies among certain branches of the clergy leaning to the
left fanatically lobby for the removal of religious symbols and emblems
commemorating solemn events in the life of the nation is to no doubt alter our
perception of history in the attempt to shift the country's underlying values
and focus. By so doing, it is hoped that Americans will go from the most part
being an independently inclined group of individuals who will protect their
precious heritage to the point of laying down one's life should circumstances
require it to one where the state is looked to as the first as the source of
goodness and truth which it is free to redefine as changing circumstances
warrant.
One such perspective lent a voice calling for the removal of
Peace Cross (also just as correctly referred to as Victory Cross) in
Bladensburg, Maryland. The American Humanist Association is orchestrating the
campaign because the monument is erected on public land. In the mind of this
agitprop front group, this violates the non-establishment clause of the First
Amendment.
However, one area minister in the 9/27/2012 Gazette
newspaper of suburban Maryland provided what he considered a number of
Christian reasons as to why the memorial cross should be taken down. Rev. Brian
Adams of the Mount Rainier Christian Church is aligning himself with the
outcome advocated by the American Humanist Association because he does not want
the Cross associated with militarism and patriotism as a "general symbol
of sacrifice."
In making his argument, Rev. Adams enunciated a number of
questionable assumptions. He insists that the memorial is blaspheming the Cross
by honoring violent people with weapons defending a country while they try to
kill people from other countries.
No one in their right mind said war was a picnic. But how
else will at least a small sliver of goodness otherwise survive in a fallen
world? Does Rev. Adams honestly believe that once things have degenerated to
the point of physical hostilities that appeals to reason, compassion, and the
brotherhood of man alone will be enough to dissuade those bent on utter
desolation?
If the way Rev. Adams categorizes the Crucifixion and a
number of Biblical imperatives is a true summation of his doctrinal
perspective, as a denomination the Disciples of Christ is in serious trouble.
Though it along with the Resurrection is one of the building
blocks of the Christian religion and an offence or stumbling block to those
hoping to make it to Heaven under the power of their own good works which are
as filthy rags, the death of Christ upon that accursed tree was anything but,
to use Rev. Adams' words, "the symbol of the son of God dying
peacefully." History and medical science concur that it was in fact one of
the most tortuous forms of execution ever devised.
Because the believer so appreciates the price paid by Jesus
at the hill of Golgotha, over the centuries artists and craftsmen inspired by
the moving beauty of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of all sinners have
transformed this implement of abject fear and terror visually into a beacon of
hope and adoration. However, in the context of what happened that original Good
Friday afternoon, the bejeweled sculptures and golden masterpieces are about as
accurate as depicting a ride in Old Sparky the electric chair as if it was an
overstuffed Lazy Boy recliner wrapped in a plush snuggy.
By referencing a work as readily available as "The Case
For Christ" by Lee Stroebel (so much so that many ministries give away
free paperback editions), both disciple and skeptic alike approximately 2000
years after this hinge point of history get a better idea of just how peaceful
the passing of this Nazarene carpenter and rabbi was from this world. Stroebel
in a chapter on the medical evidence lays out these horrors.
First, Jesus would have been secured to the cross by driving
5 inch nails through a portion of the wrist containing a nerve nearly as
sensitive as the one in the area of the so-called funny bone. Once secured in
this position, the cross would have been hoisted upright with the feet being
secured in position in a manner similar to and as painful as that used upon the
wrists. Yet, the suffering had only just begun.
The gravity pulling Jesus downward as the cross was thrust
upward would have stretched at his arms, causing his shoulders to dislocate.
With gravity pulling the individual downward, whatever waning strength remains
in the individual is mustered to thrust the body upward in a reflex to merely
continue the otherwise simple process of breathing so few of us even give a
second thought to. In so doing, splinters would be driven deeper and deeper
into the flesh of the back as it slid against a roughly hued pole not crafted
with comfort in mind. This struggle would eventually result in suffocation as
the victim in agony would grow too exhausted to continue.
Death upon the cross was of such a terrifying overwhelming
agony that a new word had to be coined in order to accurately describe its
unique variety of suffering. That word was none other than
"excruciating".
So fundamentally wrong about this fundamental of the true
Christian faith, it is no wonder Rev. Adams is so profoundly mistaken in
regards to other interpretative matters as well. Rev. Adams writes that the
cross is the symbol of Jesus “telling his followers to put down their weapons,
and dying for the sake of hope, for the forgiveness and salvation of even those
who put him to death.” What Rev. Adams has done here has been to take a course
of action applied in a particular incident and elevated it to the status of a
categorical universal imperative.
Rev. Adams is correct in the sense that in John 10:18 Jesus
instructs that no man takes His life but that He gives it willingly. This was
demonstrated in Luke 4 when a mob angered at words Christ delivered in the
synagogue conspired to hurl Jesus over a cliff. Amidst such homicidal frenzy,
Jesus miraculously perambulated on through unnoticed and unscathed.
Yet, later on, the Savior was not as eager to elude His
captors. When Peter attempted to rescue Jesus resulting in the severing of the
ear of the high priest's servant, Jesus declares in Matthew 26:53-54, "Do
you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal
more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled
that say it must happen this way (NIV)?" Christ chastised a foremost
disciple because His unjust arrest was to unfold so that the greater purpose of
His being slain from the foundation of the world might be fulfilled so that all
calling upon the name of the Lord might be saved.
Though each of us are valued having been made in the image
of God, the way we proceed into Glory will not cause the very cosmos to unhinge
if it does not transpire in a precise manner as foretold as a part the public
record of religious history. Therefore, though honor is to be bestowed upon
those that lose their lives for the sake of the Gospel, one won't likely be
given additional brownie points or a crown in Heaven should one not do
everything moral within one's own power to preserve one's own life.
In Matthew 5:39, Christ instructs his disciples to turn the
other cheek. Often, the application of this passage has encouraged an undue
pacifism on the part of certain quietist sects and overly pious theologians.
However, what is being addressed here is more akin to individual insults and
certainly not the basis around which to build a foreign or defense policy.
The Gospels should not be construed as denying the
individual the right of self defense should the individual feel the necessity
to protect their life and that of their family. In Luke 22:36, Christ
instructs, "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and
buy one."
Scripture admonishes the believer to be as wise as a serpent
but as harmless as a dove. While the Christian is not to go around stirring up
undue trouble, neither is the Christian to enter unequipped into situations
that will result in overwhelming bodily harm or unnecessary physical death.
Just how literally do those raising the turning of the other
cheek to something on the level of the Prime Directive from Star Trek want to
take the remainder of the passage? In Matthew 5:41, the text reads, "And
whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." So will
those insisting upon the turning of the other cheek as an unmodifiable absolute
now teach their child that, instead of refusing to get into a car with a
stranger, that you as a parent will punish them severely if they don't comply
with every Sanduskite that slithers out of its sewer pile.
In his concluding paragraph, Rev. Adams declares that using
the cross to symbolize the military or to praise the military amounts to a
blasphemy equivalent to taking the Lord's name in vain. It seems that clergy
within the Disciples of Christ would only be interested in adhering to the
strictures of the divine scriptures when they think these teachings can be used
to tear down the pillars upon which this great country rests.
For example, a number within the Disciples of Christ are
also pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality and ultimately gay marriage.
So where is this denomination's outrage over violation of the commandments
prohibiting carnal relations between anyone other than a married man and woman?
This tendency to view the Bible and the traditional
teachings that are extrapolated from it as optional flow from the Disciples of
Christ positioning itself as a creedless church. Such a formalized belief is,
of course, a creed itself.
According to Wikipedia, there are those within the Disciples
of Christ that deny the Incarnation, the Trinity, and even the Atonement. So
what's the point of even bothering with any of the religious racket if Christ
as the only Begotten of the Father did not come to die for our sins?
The cross in Bladensburg is not a representation of what the
military accomplished through force of arms. Instead, the cross commemorates
those from Prince George's County Maryland that died in the First World War.
John 15:13 reads, "Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends (KJV)." Given the disdain he
has expressed for both those that take up arms in defense of the American
republic and traditional formulation of Christian doctrine, perhaps Rev. Adams
does not view the last full measure of devotion worthy of remembrance and
appreciation on the part of the COMMUNITY. It seems those like Rev. Adams only
extol this particular concept of social organization when it can be invoked as
justification to further curtail those areas of existence remaining under
personal purview or to confiscate additional percentages of your property.
Yes, a cross is a distinctively Christian symbol. But this
particular cross under consideration goes beyond the implement upon which the
Savior suffered and died.
At the base of each side of the memorial cross in
Bladensburg is embossed a virtue such as endurance, courage, devotion, and
valor. As well as representing those that died in Prince George's County during
this particular conflict, these virtues on each base of the cross remind that
it is not man that ranks these character traits among the desirable nobilities
to strive for but rather that these have been decreed to be so by God Himself.
To most in the West in general and the United States in
particular during the time of the First World War, deity or “the higher power”
to categorize the ultimate in a way the fewest possible could object to was
understood using Christian or Biblical formulations. So would those such as
Rev. Adams and his allies among the cultured despisers of the Almighty have us
remove all other historically accurate symbolizations of godhood as well?
Along with the words “In God we trust.” on the back of our
currency, does Rev. Adams also intend to agitate to have the eye of Ra remove
from particular tenders as well? Does he also want to knock over the
blindfolded goddess of justice standing outside many of America’s courthouses?
For does she not also represent, in a less than ideally Christian manner we’ll
grant you, the idea that justice originates in a metaphysical realm above and
distinct from the state no matter what that social organization’s swords or
bullets might insist?
The memorial cross in Bladensburg is dedicated to a finite
number of individuals, namely those from Prince George's County that died in
World War I. Therefore, historians employed by the county could do something
useful for a change, rather than continually stirring the pot about the short
end of the stick Blacks have gotten in the past but have more than made up for
now, by researching if there are any county records extant as to the religious
affiliations of these honored veterans. If it turns out they were all
Christian, nothing should be done to the memorial cross; should it turn out
that a number were Jewish, instead of abolishing the park altogether, perhaps a
plaque could be erected acknowledging the contribution of the patriots of that
particular faith. The county certainly doesn’t seem to mind rubbing it in the
public’s nose regarding the accomplishments of other minorities.
Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can
the righteous do?” The Founding Fathers were correct to warn of the danger of a
state so given over to the interests of religion that whether or not one was to
enjoy the basic entitlements and privileges of citizenship would be predicated
upon formalized membership in an established ecclesiastical organization.
However, that said, these thinkers also realized that any human undertaking
would be doomed to failure if such an enterprise went out of its way to slap
aside the outstretched hand of a beneficent deity.
by Frederick Meekins
