Of Flags and Faith

The Christian faith has almost as many varieties and emphases as an intricate mosaic.  Most of these differences center on forms of worship, organizational structure, liturgy (or the lack thereof), and musical tastes.  A few are doctrinal in nature.  Among all the differences, however, there remains an uncompromising loyalty and obedience to Jesus Christ.  That is, after all, what identifies us as "Christians" - - the ones belonging to Christ.

This loyalty is expressed in numerous ways.  Among the earliest Christians it was the image of a fish, recalling the words of Jesus to Peter and Andrew:  "Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men  (Mark 1:17)".  For many today, it is centered in the image of the Cross.  For others it is the Bible, the Word of God, in which the stories and the teachings of Jesus are found.  Some would even opt for no physical symbols or objects but instead desire to emphasize the lifestyle of the believer as a reflection of the values and teachings of Jesus.  Either way, the centrality of Christ is essential.

The beautiful thing about this focus on Jesus is his universal appeal.  "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son....(John 3:16)".  The Call of Christ is extended to all persons.  No one is excluded.  Jesus is an Equal Opportunity Savior who does not discriminate based on race, gender, age, ethnicity, health, nationality or any other means.  Such barriers are man-made.  The Kingdom of God is far above these.

 It is this universal appeal of the Gospel that causes me to cringe when I walk into a worship center/sanctuary/church building and find the flag of the United States proudly on display.  Often it is flanked by the so-called Christian flag.  Both are a huge distraction to the worship of the One True God.  What is it doing there?  What theological purpose could it possibly serve?  How could God be glorified, exalted, praised, worshipped, or honored by the presence of such secular symbols of authority and sovereignty?

I must admit that I am a member of the Church of the Brethren.  Ours is a Pietist denomination now 302 years in the making, a product of the late German Reformation.  Early on we have embraced the theology of the Anabaptists, a radical theology  that takes the words and teachings of Jesus literally and places him at the very center of our faith and practice.  To declare "Jesus is Lord" is to proclaim our undivided loyalty to Jesus as the Son of God and the Savoir of our souls.  To him and him alone we will be faithful.

Such a position has no room for shared devotion.  When Jesus said "No one can serve two masters.  Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other (Matthew 6:24)" he was not talking only about wealth and materialism, though that was part of the focus.  Our Lord was referring to all the powers and influences of this life that compete with our stated devotion to God.  Jesus asks for an all-or-nothing commitment from those who would follow him.  However, this single-minded focus is being challenged on every possible front.  And in this country, especially, at this time in history one of the strongest and most deceptive challenges comes from a thing called patriotism.

It is at this point that I find myself offended by the presence of flags in a church building.  Let's consider for a moment just what the flag of the United States represents.

·        Ownership.  The flag is displayed over property that is declared to be under the ownership and control of the Federal government.  Post Offices, government buildings, military bases, embassies located on foreign soil and similar examples illustrate this point.

·        Allegiance/devotion.  When a soldier marches under the banner of his country's flag he declares that he will do anything to serve the needs of that country.  He will even die for it, if necessary.  There can be no wavering on this point.  There can be no divided loyalty.  No army could possibly succeed without such a commitment.  The astonishing thing about the current revolution in Libya is that a large number of soldiers have denounced Col. Moammar Gadhafi and joined the forces of the popular revolution.  In doing so they declare that their country means more to them than any single person.   Interestingly, they continue to fly the Libyan flag.

·        Pride.  The sight of the flag invokes pride for one's country and all it stands for.

·        Military strength.  The flag is uniquely and irrevocably intertwined with a nation's military force.

I suppose more could be said on this topic.  The four points described above, however, are sufficient to cause me to have serious concerns about the presence of flags in our churches.  Let me offer some counter arguments for each of the above.

·        Ownership.  "You are not your own.  You were bought at a price.  (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)".  Our church buildings are no more the property of the government than our faith is.  As believers in Christ we have been bought by the blood of our Savior.  We are exclusively his.  "[God] anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Corinthians 1:21-22)".  "Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession - to the praise of his glory (Ephesians 1:13-14)".    Our ownership belongs to God, not man.

·        Allegiance/devotion.  "If anyone would come after me let him deny himself, take up his cross, and come follow me (Matthew 16:24)".  "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the Kingdom of God  (Luke 9:62)".  These are just two of the many quotes from Jesus that clearly show the undivided loyalty expected of the follower of Jesus.  Other passages from the New Testament affirm such a position.

·        Pride.  "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before the fall.  (Proverbs 16:18)".  "Unless you...become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  (Matthew 18:3-4)".  Again we could list multiple passages that all say the same thing.  God honors the humble because the humble understand their proper position before the Living God.

·        Military strength.  "Not by power nor by might, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts  (Zechariah 4:6)".  He who told Peter to put his sword away also declared to Pilate "My kingdom is not of this world... (John 18:36)".  Jesus, the Prince of Peace, is the antithesis of militarism.  Does it not follow, therefore, that the presence of any national flag in a place dedicated to the worship of the God of the Universe should be seen as blasphemous?

There is perhaps another point that should be considered.  A flag represents an exclusive view.  It stands for a well-defined territory complete with boundaries.  Such boundaries both keep members in and non-members out.  This runs contradictory to the Great Commission and the Gospel message that salvation through Jesus is for all persons.

Finally, I would argue that as great as the United States is, our history has been less than perfect.  In fact, we have a long history of ethical and moral violations that continue to this day.  For all its merits the United States is hardly worth our worship.  So what is its foremost symbol doing in our places of worship?

For the first 220 years of Brethren history all flags were absent from our places of worship.  Beginning with the fundamentalist movement of the 1920's a few isolated exceptions appeared.  Since September 11, 2001, however, there is a growing tendency for flags to be placed in Brethren centers of worship, much to my dismay.  Obviously this coincides with the popular growth in the spirit of patriotism.  I am not anti-American.  But I will not compromise my loyalty and my service to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Not symbolically nor in practice.

gdg February 27, 2011

Your thoughts are welcome if offered in a spirit of love and respect.

We need not agree but we can still maintain integrity through healthy dialog.

Please post your comments below.

When Is A Crime Not A Crime? When HIPPA Says So.

The problem of alcoholism is a huge a complicated issue.  One of these days I may try to tackle it for a future blog post.  This is not that day.  Rather. I wish to address the issue of underage drinking.  It may or may not be considered a "Peace and Justice" issue, but it is one that tugs at my heart.

The statistics related to underage drinking are staggering and easy to come by.  Scores of advocate groups and institutional studies produce such an abundance of statistics that one can easily become numb to it all.  Each study reveals slight variances in results but taken as a whole they represent a surprisingly consistent picture of a most disturbing phenomenon among American youth.  For purposes of this article I chose to rely primarily on the Center for Disease Control's web site and most recent reports found therein.  If interested in the details I encourage you to visit http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm yourself.  Here is a summary of what you will find there.

            "Alcohol is the most commonly used and abused drug among youth in the United States, more than tobacco and illicit drugs.  Although drinking by persons under the age of 21 is illegal, people aged 12 - 20 years drink 11 % of all alcohol consumed in the United States.  More than 90 % of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinks.  On average, underage drinkers consume more drinks per drinking occasion than adult drinkers.  In 2008 there were approximately 190,000 emergency rooms visits by persons under age 21 for injuries and other conditions linked to alcohol."

Source:  Center for Disease Control web site

Here are some of the hard facts:

            In 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys found that among high school students, during the past 30 days

·        42 % drank some amount of alcohol.

·        24 % binge drink.

·        10 % drove after drinking

·        28 % rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.

The problem is huge.  The solution elusive.  Two issues especially weigh on my mind at this time, however.  These include the inadequate legal authority for police to bring charges of underage drinking against those who engage in it, and the difficulties in bringing charges against those who supply our youth with alcohol.  Both problems are rooted, at least in part, to a thing called HIPAA.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a blessing and a curse, depending on how one views it.  I am not about to bash the merits of HIPAA as if it were an evil piece of legislation that ought to be repealed outright.  I readily admit that it has its place and is, when rightfully applied, a helpful tool in many scenarios.  However, that does not excuse its moral obligations.

Consider this:  I recently became involved with a situation where a young person under the age of 21 engaged in an evening of binge drinking.  This person began vomiting and then passed out while a friend and the friend's mother watched.  After numerous failed attempts were made to arouse the young person a call was placed to 911.  An EMS crew arrived on the scene in short order along with the local police.  Interviews ensued; facts were recorded; the young person was taken to the local hospital's Emergency Room.  Tests were conducted and results came back:  no evidence of any illicit drugs, but the presence of alcohol was detected to the tune of a blood alcohol count of 290.  80 is the legal limit.  Of course for a person under the age of 21, such as this patient, the legal limit is 0.  That is a very major point that easily is overlooked.

A blood alcohol count of 290 is near fatal for a young person.  It is equivalent to a breathalyzer result of 0.290.  It is nothing less than alcohol poisoning.  Indeed this person remained unconscious throughout most the night.

Now here is the kicker.  The young person's parent asked police to charge their intoxicated child with underage drinking.  It was learned, however, that such a charge could not be made.  As far as the police were concerned there was no alcohol involved.  They did not see a bottle.  They only saw a young person who was unconscious and non-responsive to stimuli.  The parent argued that the doctor just informed them that this was alcohol induced.  The police said, sorry, we don't know that.  We have no access to records indicating that.  Furthermore, the police are not about to seek those records for to do so they would need a search warrant from a magistrate and even if that could be obtained, the cost of getting the warrant and investigating the case would be greater than the resulting fine that would be leveled against the individual.

Now I admit that I am not the sharpest tack in the box, but we are talking about a life here.  This is more than a statistic.  This is more than a sum of money.  This is more than a bureaucratic piece of red tape or an inconvenience to an important local officer dressed in a neatly pressed, gray uniform.  This is a young person who nearly died, who has been charged with underage drinking once before simply because they had two cans of unopened beer on their person, and who is a prime candidate to do this again unless some drastic measures are taken to intervene.  Such measures will not come with any assistance from the legal system, however, because it is not cost effective.  

The next day, after the young person came out of the stupor by the Grace of God and some excellent care at the hands of the E.R. staff, more information came to light.  The same parent learned that the alcohol was in fact supplied by the so-called friend in the friend's parent's house with the mother present.  Another call to the police.  Can charges be brought against the ones who supplied the near-fatal dose of alcohol?  The answer again was no.  Nothing really changed because, as far as the police are concerned, there is no evidence of alcohol being involved in this case.  HIPAA says so.

The young man whom I described above told his parents this would never happen again.  He went on this binge drinking one afternoon "as an experiment" he explained and he hated it.  Seven days later he was again intoxicated, got into a fist fight with some other friends at a shopping center, the same police force responded to the scene and charged him with disturbing the peace.  Upon doing a background check they discovered an interesting piece of information.  This 19 year old male also had an outstanding warrant for his arrest on an unpaid fine for shoplifting.  As I am writing this article he is doing time in the County Prison.  It would appear that stealing a bottle of cough medicine from a store is much more severe than two responsible adults supplying a minor with enough alcohol to kill himself or someone else with.  HIPAA says so!

By the way, not only was he charged with disturbing the peace and the unpaid fine for shoplifting, but once again no charges were brought against him for the real problem: underage drinking.

The more I think about this I suppose it is an appropriate article for Peace-Ability.  This is clearly a case of injustice.  For all its merits our legal system fails in this regard.  A nineteen year old male is clearly intoxicated on two separate occasions in the presence of police and no charges are brought against the youth or, more importantly, against the supplier of alcohol.  What would have happened if he would have died from that first instance when he was unconscious?  Then the friend/mother duo would have been charged with murder, at least in theory.  It was a real possibility.  If the 911 call had not been made he would not have received the medical attention he so desperately needed.  Does that one phone call leave the suppliers of alcohol off the hook?  No.  You see, they did not make the phone call.  I did, when I was summoned to the scene of the crime.

I am not a lawyer nor have I consulted one in this case.  However, from my limited ability to research the details of HIPAA and its application to this case I find myself challenging the position of the local police in making no effort to learn whether alcohol was involved.  According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) document entitled Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule there may be an exception.  The HHS states that hospitals and doctors "may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances."  It then lists the six circumstances.  I will quote only two I believe may apply here.  "in response to a law enforcement official's request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime,...[or] by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime."  (Source: OCR Privacy Rule Summary, page 7, revised 05/03).

I am both saddened and infuriated by this entire situation and by our society at large.  I find absolutely no redemptive value in alcohol whatsoever.  I cannot begin to understand why anyone would want to put this poison in their system.  But it is legal for consumption by adults over the age of 21, and I do not plan on leading a campaign to restore prohibition even if I would vote for it should the question ever come to a public vote.  But we are not talking about the legal use of alcohol here.  We are talking about an illegal volume of alcohol consumed by someone who is not permitted by law to have any alcohol and the two supposedly responsible adults who supplied it.  We are also talking about police officers who are so intimated by HIPAA and potential lawsuits that they are unwilling to do the logical, reasonable thing.  Consequently they failed to do their job.

As quoted earlier this is just one of the many cases of binge drinking among America's youth.  This is the one-in four statistic that is threatening our young people.  This young man was fortunate to have lived through it.  This time.  I pray for his sake that he has learned a valuable lesson from it all and will take corrective measures.  Sadly not all his colleagues have, or will, according to the statistics.  They are the ones for whom my heart aches as well.

-gdg February 20, 2011

Your comments and thoughts are welcome.

Please click on the "Comment" link below to add your response.

Unrest Among the Ancients: Egypt And the Face of Change

Author's Note:  Due to an especially busy personal schedule I have not posted

to this Blog for a couple weeks.  This article has been in the works since the

beginning of the uprisings in Egypt.  The article was completed on February

12, the day after Mubarak resigned as the Egyptian President.

Egypt is among the most ancient of nations.  Its history rivals that of the greatest civilizations in human history.  The great pyramids not only baffle the architectural world but serve as a reminder that this is truly one of the proudest and most enduring cultures.  Yet all of this means little in the midst of the current crisis that has rocked the Nation of the Nile and shocked the rest of the world in the past two weeks. 

As I am sitting at my computer writing this article, safely tucked away some 5,800 miles from Cairo, Egypt, I nevertheless am dumbfounded by the turn of events and the implications it holds for the world.  We are experiencing an historic moment the likes of which I have not really witnessed in my adult life.  I lived through the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's and can remember some of the events that highlighted that decade.  I know where I was when I received word of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.  Likewise I clearly remember the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy.  I followed, with great interest, Richard Nixon's humiliating departure from Washington D.C.  I witnessed the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  Yet what we are seeing these days is second to none in its intensity.

It is difficult to get a handle on the turn of events in Egypt.  Hosni Mubarak came to power some 30 years ago in the aftermath of the assassination of then-President Anwar Sadat.  At the time Mubarak was Vice President.  He, too, was injured in the attack that claimed the lives of eleven in addition to Sadat and wounded 28 persons.  He is the fourth and longest tenured President in Egypt's history.  Such a long reign, however, comes at a price.  He has survived something like six assassination attempts and a host of corruption charges.  As is the tendency among autocratic regimes the voices of opposition are not only viewed suspiciously, they are not even tolerated.  Consequently political dissenters are routinely imprisoned and mistreated.  Such has been the case in Mubarak's Administration.

Throughout history the citizens of a nation endure political oppression for only so long.  Somehow, someway, the general population begins to organize itself and resist such tyranny.  Consider just a few examples.

·        The Exodus of the Hebrew slaves from the grasp of Pharaoh;

·        The Fall of the Roman Empire at the hands of the barbarian hordes;

·        The division of Israel into two separate Kingdoms following the death of King Solomon and in response to his oppressive policies of forced labor and uncompromising authority.

·        The nonviolent independence of India from the British Empire;

·        The Civil Rights movement in the United States;

·        The return of the Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran and the subsequent removal from power of the Shah of Iran who, likewise, was oppressive.

These are just a tiny sampling that indicate the fact that such movements cross the barriers of time and culture.  The events in Egypt follow a similar pattern in some ways.  Perhaps more importantly they raise some fascinating questions and observations.  For example...

·        How do movements like this mass opposition demonstration become organized?  For thirty years Egyptians have lived under the same conditions they are living under now, yet there has been no opposition of this magnitude previously.  There is no leading charismatic figure who has rallied the people, such as a Martin Luther King or a Mahatma Ghandi.  I understand that Facebook postings played a large part in this and of course, that is a rather new phenomenon.  Could it be that cyber-social networks are really this powerful?  Can the internet actually topple a powerful political regime?

·        Have you noticed that the Egyptian people - - untrained and virtually unarmed as an "army" - -have accomplished nearly as much in three weeks as the United States and its coalition partners have accomplished in Iraq in over 8 years of of outright war?  This either says a lot about the effectiveness of mass civilian uprisings, or speaks volumes about the ineffectiveness of the American war strategy.  How is it that the most powerful military force on earth had to blow the nation of Iraq into pieces with its "shock and awe" approach back in 2003 yet finds itself still engaged in a challenging and dangerous struggle, while the Egyptian civilians have not launched a single bomb nor flown a sortie but are on the verge of removing a Dictator from power?

·        Speaking of Dictators, When is a Dictator considered a good friend?  According to former Vice President Dick Cheney the answer is: When his name is Hosni Mubarak.  Commenting on the status of the embattled Egyptian President Chaney said, "He's a good man, a good friend and an ally to the United States.  We need to remember that."  In response I say with friends like Mubarak who needs enemies?  This is a man with a proven record of civil rights violations left and right.  He has a thirty year history of corruption and oppression.  He heads a repressive regime that will not tolerate opposition and refuses to engage in fair elections.  Economic and social injustices abound.  From a political standpoint there is virtually no difference between Mubarak's Egypt and Castro's Cuba.  Why, then, is the former considered a "good friend" to the United States and the latter is an enemy worthy of a trade embargo and attempted assassinations at the hands of the CIA?  Could we have a little consistency here, please?  It is no wonder the international community distrusts the United States and views us as living by a double-standard.  True, among the Arab States Mubarak has played the role of a moderate and has shown some signs of cooperation with the United States.  Nevertheless, he can hardly be referred to as a "good friend".  The fact remains that Hosni Mubarak has contributed to the negative reputation of our nation because of his dictatorial style of leadership and our endorsement of it.

·        What are the long-range effect of continuing to support such a corrupt government like Mubarak's?  When Mubarak is toppled from power - - and it seems certain he will be - - - how will the United States be viewed by his successors?  Will we continue to be associated with the former regime and thus lose our credibility?  A worse case scenario would be exemplified by Iran at the time of the overthrow of the Shaw.  In that setting we were suddenly transformed into the role of an evil intruder.  However, the possibility exists for us to forge a truly effective partnership with the most populous Muslim nation on Earth.  This will not be easy.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama have an uphill struggle ahead of them as they attempt to relate to the new government in Egypt.

A final thought to the topic of Egypt.  No nation, and certainly no government, exists of its own will.  As Jesus said to Pontius Pilate: "You would have no power...unless it were given to you from above.  (John 19:11  NIV)"   Throughout the Bible it becomes clear that governments exist at the will of God.  Any government that abuses its authority and becomes a vehicle of oppression and injustice will ultimately face the judgment of God.  It matters not what continent such governments are located upon nor how many references are made that include the word "God".  The proof is in the results and not the rhetoric.

gdgehr  February 12, 2011

comments are invited below