Repentance - Asbury Awakening

Much has been written and said about the events atAsbury University in the town of Wilmore Kentucky.  Reports of an awakening underway first at Asbury and later spreading to other campuses have captured the attention of even secular news organization.  This awakening has occurred among reports of other awakenings in lands beyond our shores as well.

I read an article written by a person who has written books about previous movements of the Spirit in colleges and church settings.  one of the comments he made that made him speak to the authenticity of the Asbury movement is repentance.  

Repentance is not a word we hear about a lot today. We get much more on grace. Before I go much further, I want to offer the dictionary definition of repentance — “the action of repenting: sincere regret or remorse.” From a theological perspective, I have also that repentance involves a “turning away”, so not only a sorry for something, but also the idea that you have realized that sin is destroying your life and you are ready to surrender your life to God and the principles of Scripture. This is an important distinction. I can be sorry that my action caused you pain, but true repentance would also mean that I will willfully work to not recreate that pain again.

So in the article that I was reading the author advanced the idea that a major component of true revival is repentance.  I am going to resist the urge to say “true repentance” because there is no room for an idea of false repentance. One of the common images of the Asbury Awakening is people at the alter.  The alter is quickly becoming an afterthought in many of our churches.  While I don’t believe the alter is the only place where repentance occurs, it can occur any place where the sacred and the secular meet, the alter has served for generations in our churches as a sacred place of experience with the Holy Spirit. 

Intimacy with God will always begin with repentance.  This is repeated in scripture so many times to ensure we don’t miss that point.  Repentance is mentioned so often and the verses in which it appears leads to a conclusion that it is essential in the human relationship with God.  Much has been written about the holiness of God.  

Imagine if you will the cleanest, whitest, brightest sheet, so clean and bright that it radiates an aura.  Onto that sheet now imagine the smallest speck of dirt.  It would instantly draw our eye. I believe that is the picture of our presence before the Most High God.  His holiness consumes us.  It overwhelms us.  And when we repent, the biblical witness is clear, we are forgiven.  And that forgiveness allows us to be enveloped by God’s holiness and stand in his presence.

I am going to say something that some may consider near-heretical, so bear with me.  I believe that we are loved even before we are forgiven.  Some will draw a picture that prior to  our repentance, God hates us.  I don't find that consistent at all with the witness of scripture.  I will admit that I understand what those who will disagree are saying, I just hope that they can bear with me for my explanation.  I believe that this is a clear statement of scripture found in Romans 5:8, where the apostle Paul tells us, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

So God doesn't go from hating us to loving us because of our salvation through repentance. But we go from resisting to embracing His love and being able to live into the transformed life assured through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This process begins with our repentance — our acknowledgement of sin and earnestly desiring to change. It likely will not be a perfected desire — we are people and while we might earnestly desire not to sin, we likely will sin. The desire is that we will be more mindful of the impact and potential for sin and will slowly walk back from the reality of sin in our lives.

So back to Asbury, and the other awakenings we are seeing reports of across the land (and even the world if you follow some of the events beyond our borders). I constantly read where a key theme in these awakenings is repentance. It is a desire to move away from the path we are on and onto the path prepared for us by a God that loves us beyond measure. This is not about God accepting us for who we are, but about us accepting God's vision for who we will be. And that begins by no longer resisting the creator of the universe and yielding to His plan for our lives. A plan that will move us into full measure!

Reflections on Memorial Day

 Reflections

I wrote this originally back in 2006.  However, for some reason it has invaded my thoughts heavily in the past several days.  I went back and re-read it and thought I would re-share it.  May we never forget those who answered the call of their country and the soldiers and their families that have

Monuments. What are they and why are we drawn to them? Why must we observe the monuments of yesterday, if not to learn 
for tomorrow? I love history, and the study of it. One person even said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it's failures. So monuments provide for those of us today, a marker for yesterday’s successes and failures.

For 10 years, we lived in the Washington D.C area. Having done my undergraduate work in History, the D.C area was the first place I lived as an adult that was truly “historical.” Sure, Mobile and Huntsville, Alabama both have local history and some national significance if you dig enough. But, Washington D.C, the place where our burgeoning nation would teethe on the concept of “government for the people, by the people,” was a hotbed of history. I remember the first time I drove into the city and was confronted with the sight of our Nation’s capital building, standing majestically against the skyline. It was almost indescribable to finally behold with my own eyes that which I had read so much about before.

Invariably, any visitor to the capital city will have certain sights etched in their memories. Maybe it’s the National Archives which contains the Declaration of Independence witnessed by 56 men brave men who challenged the world’s strongest empire when they affixed their names to the treatise that would proclaim “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Perhaps it is the Lincoln Memorial, where the man who spoke over the site of one of America’s greatest battlefields that “The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract" sits in granite immortalized. 

For me, the most visually moving monument is the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial. I visited it once alone, a private journey.

On a fall day, many years later (probably around 1991), I would go with my parents and sister to that hallowed monument.

Once criticized for its simplicity, no other monument ever had the dramatic effect on me that this one offered. I have walked Gettysburg and Appomattox. I have seen the remains of Hitler’s power in Germany. I have stood on soil where Americans have bled and died. Yet, somehow, this haunting memorial to 58,245 of America’s sons deeply moved me.

As moving as the monument was when I saw it alone, I was not prepared for the reaction my father would have at the Wall.

My father was a private person. He was of the breed that kept his emotions in check. That is not to say he never was upset or happy. He just never allowed others to see his emotions too deeply. He confronted the world with a sarcastic wit and was always ready to smile at himself and others. He served his nation proudly for over 20 years, going to defend the Republic of South Vietnam two times as a member of the 5^th Special Forces Group Project Delta.  He served in what has been described by one source as the most successful Special Operations unit in the Vietnam theater of war.  

Touring the Wall, a different side of my father was revealed. Together, we walked the path beside the panels that reflect the names. We stood together at the books that document the names on the wall. My father would recall a name, I would look it up. Each time I found a name and pointed it out, I could see him reflect on the memories of his brother in arms. When we didn’t find a name, he would nod his head, as if to say “he came home.”

My sister and I would talk later in the day about the reaction of my father at the Memorial. Dad was different that day. The crusty veneer that he presented to the world was cracked.

I still struggle with what I saw that day. I did not see the man my father had always appeared to be. I saw a man that felt the burden of seeing so many of his friends names' inscribed in the granite walls, brothers that saw their days end in a land far from home. 

There are many that may say that America had no right to be there, and the war was wrong. I will not argue the politics, but, the fact that American men bled and died there is not changed. Whether the government was right in sending them, these men -- these soldiers, adhered to the oath they took upon entering the service of their country. Theirs was not the argument of right or wrong, but of doing what those duly elected to office over them had ordered them to do. They answered the call of their country, and some paid the ultimate price for their loyalty.

The Baptismal Font in the church

   

 Recently, there appeared in the Narthex of our church a new "furnishing".  It is not such a large furnishing, although it is decidedly weighty.  It appears to be constructed of stone, marble by appearance, and is a bowl-shaped form on a pedestal.  It intrigued me because as I have traveled and visited some very old places of worship (in England, so in saying old I am reaching back 1,000 years or more), I have observed a similar object.  I have learned the object is a "Baptismal Font", and it kind of intrigued me as to what is the history of the Font and why is it placed in the entrance way (or as we say, the Narthex).

In the church, baptism is one of the two sacraments we observe (along with Holy Communion),  In a sacrament, God uses common elements -- in this case water -- as a means of divine grace.  Baptism is administered by the church as the Body of Christ.  It is an act of God through the grace of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit.

So what is this piece of furniture, this Baptismal Font and why is it here?  To discover the answer to that involves a brief journey back into Christian history.  Some of the oldest baptismal fonts to be discovered are actually in the catacombs of Rome.  When Christians were being persecuted by the government, outdoor public baptisms became dangerous.  So the early church in Rome, in order to protect its members, met in secret and these secret meetings required private practices for the rituals of the church.  Some of the baptisteries were shallow reservoirs scooped out to collect natural spring water.

Baptismal Font in Wesley's
Chapel, London

As Christianity gained wider acceptance, baptisms returned to the public eye.  Fast forward 1,000 years and baptismal fonts were moved outside the actual church itself, sometimes to separate buildings called a baptistery. In some places such as Florence, only people already baptized into the church were allowed inside a great cathedral. As a result, baptisms occurred outside or in the baptistery.  Time moves forward and we see the baptismal font begin to appear inside the church, at first in the back where baptisms still occurred before "entering the church".  We now see many churches with baptismal fonts brought to the front of the church as part of the platform area of worship.

So today at our church, we have two baptismal fonts.  The stone one at the back as we step into the

church and the one near at the front that we use when we conduct baptisms.  Recently, I took a class in leading worship.  As a part of the class. our instructor presented us with an interesting greeting.  As we stepped into the class, she had prepared a bowl of water and pointing to it said, "Remember your baptism and give thanks to God."  With that, she indicated we were to dip our fingers into the bowl.

Baptismal Font of Wesley's Chapel.  Notice the chains of
bondage broken by the cross on the inner stone.

This isn't a new practice, for I was instantly reminded of watching Roman Catholics enter the sanctuary for worship where they would dip their fingers into a baptistery font and then make the sign of the cross.  Only recently with pastor Adlene Kufarimai during that worship class, did this practice begin to make sense.

Of our two sacraments, baptism in a singular event.  Holy Communion we observe oat least monthly (in our church) and on other certain occasions.  While we may observe and in some situations have a part in the baptism ceremony for another fellow believer, baptism in the life of a Christian is s singular event.  However, much like our birth into this moral world, we would be foolish to never recall our baptism in the body of Christ.  St. Augustine of Hippo puts baptism into perspective when in an Easter address he said:

Such is the power of this sacrament: it is a sacrament of new life which begins here and now with the forgiveness of all past sins, and will be brought to completion in the resurrection of the dead. You have been buried with Christ by baptism into death in order that, as Christ has risen from the dead, you also may walk in newness of life.

Disunity and Growth

Discussions From the Pews and How to Avoid Them

A few years ago, I read the book "A Charitable Discourse:  Talking About The Things That Divide Us" by Dr. Dan Boone.  First, let me start off by saying that I have the utmost respect for this man.  He was the pastor of the college church when my oldest went to Olivet Nazarene University then the President of the school where my younger three daughters all graduated, Trevecca Nazarene University.  I have read a few of his books and always find his voice to be gracious yet direct.  He has addressed some difficult topics and groups and I hope that one day I can follow his examples in how to address people that are not in agreement with me.  That said, while I enjoyed the book, one chapter in the book bothered me then and still today.  Chapter 17 is entitled, the Emerging Church Coming to a Town Near You.  

This chapter deals with something that mostly seems on the wain within my view, the Emerging Church.  There is no way that I can present a good picture of what the Emerging Church is/was within the context of this post, However, I don't think that the matter of the context for the chapter is the most important point.  The chapter deals with a young pastor that had reached out to Dr. Boone, called Pastor Matthew in the chapter.  He related to Dr. Boone the story of his ministry in a moderately-sized congregation within the Nazarene denomination.  Sadly the church had suffered through some strife and had decreased from 115 to 75.  According to Pastor Matthew, there were attackers of the emerging church to thank for that.  

The young pastor begins with painting a picture of the attackers as "fundamentalists" and Pastor Matthew honestly didn't mind pastoring them.  They were "great tithers" and usually you could settle a discussion with them "because the bible says so", although we are assured that the pastor never probably uttered those words.  But, these folk have always been under the "umbrella of Wesleyan theology", however, Pastor Matthew assures us that once they can't poke anymore holes in the umbrella, they are sure to leave.

A number of months previously, Pastor Matthew had received a letter.  A simple one sentence question was all it contained, "Pastor, what do you think of the Emergent Church?"  Knowing this was a setup, Pastor Matthew provided a "balanced response".  Not good enough.  From there, things got ugly because Pastor Matthew refused to engage in the debate.  Queries were pushed aside with "That's something you should ask our denominational leaders," or "We don't do prayer labyrinths at our church, so that's not my fight."  

Eventually, the endgame for these folks was realized.  They pulled out the church and were currently meeting at a funeral home chapel.  Thankfully, the worst appeared to be behind the pastor and he was doing fine.  While he didn't mind serving the fundamentalists before they left, things were more, as he said it, "fun" now with them gone.  However, now that they were gone, the Lord was literally dumping new souls into the lap of the church.  "The anti-emergent church did in six months, what sixteen years of pastors before me could not."  He then enclosed a letter to the fundamentalists that he contemplated sending, however he had not reached a decision on whether that was the path to which he would set himself.  

The letter is heartfelt.  It talks about the shared pain that the past several months had inflicted upon both parties.  The pastor goes on to offer an apology for any lack of judgment, discernment, or pastoral care that may have been attributed to himself.  He assured them that if there was anything he could have done without compromising his identity as an ordained elder in the church, to prevent their leaving, he would have done so.  

He then moves into his direct response to those that caused disunity.  Portions of scripture are cited that condemn those who would cause disunity within the church.  Those leaving clearly were shortsighted and lacked kingdom perspective, uncaring for others and were driven by personal agendas.  "Friends, the church is a culture that is rapidly changing" he says.  People are attempting to make the church relevant in culture today.  He then moves into sections that attempt to reveal his agreement with his lost parishoners on some points, yet wants to be clear that these people have far to go before understanding Wesleyan theology.  Unity was the prime directive of Wesley in his theology.  

I could probably go on  cite more, but hopefully, the points are emerging.  I find it interesting that Pastor Matthew would emphasize unity while also being clear to indicate that these individuals don't have a place within Wesleyan theology.  Essentially, instead of realizing that their could be a shared tension within Wesleyan theology in incorporating a broad tent, he is clear to place them as squatters in a home not their own.  While he didn't mind being a pastor over them, it is clear that he didn't view loving and caring for them as his calling, but simply an exercise of pastoral duty.  With their being gone, he was having a lot more "fun."  

God,Gender, and the UMC

2016 GENERAL CONFERENCE The United Methodist Church
Proposed Constitutional Amendment – I

'As the Holy Scripture reveals, both men and women are made in the image of God and, therefore, men

and women are of equal value in the eyes of God. The United Methodist Church recognizes it is contrary to Scripture and to logic to say that God is male or female, as maleness and femaleness are characteristics of human bodies and cultures, not characteristics of the divine. The United Methodist Church acknowledges the long history of discrimination against women and girls. The United Methodist Church shall confront and seek to eliminate discrimination against women and girls, whether in organizations or in individuals, in every facet of its life and in society at large. The United Methodist Church shall work collaboratively with others to address concerns that threaten the cause of women’s and girl's equality and well-being.'

The World Health Organization defines sex as a matter of biological science.  Male or female sex in their definition is not social construct but instead can be determined through empirical science.  To put it simply, science can determine sex based on the absence and/or presence of scientifically observable facts.  The same WHO defines gender as a matter of identity.  So, in that respect, gender can be said to be a matter of social construct.  However, even within that context gender is not so fluid as with each definition of gender there are necessarily rules for inclusion and exclusion that provide  for some sense of knowing.  We will come back to the topic of gender later.

Given this background there is at least one problem with the proposed amendment identified in the highlighted text above.  What is unclear in this statement is whether we are talking about God having a scientific expression of sex or having a gender identity.

C.S Lewis once addressed those who can’t tell the difference between biology and gender.

“Everyone must sometimes have wondered why in nearly all tongues certain inanimate objects are masculine and others feminine. What is masculine about a mountain or feminine about certain trees? Ransom has cured me of believing that this is a purely morphological phenomenon, depending on the form of the world. Still less is gender an imaginative extension of sex. Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them. The real process is the reverse. Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Female sex is simply one of the things that have feminine gender; there are many others, and Masculine and Feminine meet us on planes of reality where male and female would simply be meaningless.” (Perilandra p.200)

There are those who will struggle with the above.  If you hold that truth can only be determined through scientific inspection, then you will be left a determination that there cannot be a distinction between gender and sex since gender in these expressions can't be scientifically assessed.  I think that there is a weakness in that view, commonly referred to as scientism -- chief being that the belief/statement itself cannot be scientifically evaluated.

So let us focus for a brief moment on the topics of sex and gender.  I believe that discussions of sex in regards to God are category errors.  In this, I would agree with the highlighted portion of the amendment.  However, it is unclear in the amendment whether it properly confines itself to sex alone.  If gender is in focus with this amendment, then it creates grave problems within our use of scripture.

Some may raise the argument that the issue of gender is muted within scripture due to the Hebrew language not having an expression of non-gender.  This argument seems to be injurious to the revelation of scripture.  The question on this argument seems to be, does language proscribe (or confine) our definition/understanding of God or whether the definition/understanding is simply described through language.  If there was a desire of God to express non-gender, then is it more likely that there would have been a work or phrase to capture that instituted within the language?

Another argument is that using simple masculine pronouns to describe God is demeaning to women.  How so?  God created man and woman and in Genesis we are told that after creating both man and woman God looked at all he had created and said it was "very good".  One need only to look to scripture to understand that contrary to the assertion that women are demeaned in the Bible, women are referred to with high regard.  Time and again, scripture provides references of feminine qualities within the Godhead.  Examples such as Jesus saying how he longed to gather Jerusalem like a hen gathers its young demonstrate a high sensitivity to the feminine.

So why worry at all about gender?  Some will argue that we could just remove all personal pronouns from Scripture in reference to God.  This is an idea that has extremely detrimental effects.  Unlike the deities of so many other religions, the God of the Bible is not an abstract idea or some other form but instead a personal God.  While he is transcendent, he is still deeply personal and this fact is best represented in the Incarnation of Jesus.  God does not remain wholly separate from His creation (an attribute of Allah in Islam) but instead stepped into creation to demonstrate His nearness and personal attributes.  We must not abandon the idea of a personal God to salve some modern conscience.  We don't abandon good theology for cultural peculiarity.

So, back to the WHO definition of gender.  If in fact the definition is acceptable, then it seems the church would have but one option and that is to determine how God self identifies.  Lewis offered this observation:

"Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses [or changes in biblical gender language] but against Christianity. It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery.'

While I can admire much of the attempt to amend the constitution, there are still troubling aspects as I have tried to indicate in this article.  Given the theological problems that are introduced through this amendment, it seems that voting for this amendment would have potentially more negative effects than positive.  One can only hope that the language about sex/gender of God was an exuberant overreach in trying to achieve goodness.  However, upon careful examination this amendment has serious deficiencies that need to be addressed prior to acceptance.    We must demand more care and consideration for scripture in considering amendments to our foundational documents.

I close with this quote from a Touchstone article by Wayne Martindale and his quotation of Lewis:

"With merely human constructs, we may change terms and cultural ideas as often as we like. Where revelation and divinity is concerned, however, “We cannot shuffle or tamper so much. With the Church, we are farther in: for there we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us.”"

Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=04-01-005-f#ixzz4j9AUYCi5

The View From Beyond the Grave?

Grief is painful.  Perhaps the only other pain like it I can think of is arthritis.  It might not be the most intense at a particular time (although it can be very intense), but it is the fact that it is not just something you suffer now, but something that you know is going to come back.  It sits like some kind of magical beast that can't be seen until it jumps upon you.  It doesn't jump from the darkness, it jumps and brings the darkness along with it.  it jumps on you and stands on your chest, depriving you of light and air and seemingly threatening your very existence.  Words can't assuage grief, they can't run it off, they can't even make it bearable.Not even time really relieves the pain, instead we just become accustomed to it, we accommodate it at best. 

I was listening to Ravi Zacharias talk about this topic. A person had asked the question of how could a loving God take away their mother when they were only ___ years old. Not at all an easy question. As Ravi pointed out it comes from a sincere heart and is a pain at the core of our being. I won't recreate Ravi's answer. It rests upon the presumption of a moral law giver (God) in even making sense of the question. 

The thought that came to my mind is that it seems to be the wrong end of the question in some respects. "Why do I have to live without?  This is a very egocentric question, the "I" rests at the subject of the question.  It focuses upon my pain, my needs.

Don't misunderstand, it is an understandable and natural question in so many ways. I have, and will again ask that question.  It is central to our human experience to ask. But let's flip the question to a different perspective. Our 'earthly life' is measured in seasons and years. With science, good living, and a lot of luck we will circle the sun perhaps 85 times if some actuary tables are to be believed. The real question is how is our time in this life is

evaluated or measured against all of time.  Tom Wright calls it life, after life after death.

We actually begin our time on this earth in a state of death.  We are dead in our sin.  However, through Christ we are offered life--life after death, not just at some point in the future ure but in the now!  That is a tremendous promise given to us.  Then, there will be but a shadow of death that will cross us in our futures before the fullness of life in the very presence of God is experienced!  Thus as Wright notes, life, after life, after death.

Oh but how we cling to our days here and now.  We struggle and we cling to them, because they are in fact a precious gift.  I wonder if a caterpillar mourns the end of his days as a caterpillar?  It seems natural that he would, he knows not the beauty ahead.  It is natural.  For you see, death brings an absence to us.  Those left behind will surely be missed.  Just as in this life we have an absence of the presence of God, in life, after life, after death we will have a brief absence of loved ones here, until we are united again.

In this life we can't help but plead to God for why someone would be taken so soon.  Why was our elderly grandmother who loved us dearly taken away?  Why was our spouse or sibling stripped of us in their prime?  Why was the young so early ripped from our grasp in this life?  Why must we experience absence so deeply?

I wonder, and this is the question I think is looking at it from the other end, I wonder if those who have gone before us are asking God why they must wait so long for us to be together again?  "Why can't eternity begin now?" they implore of Him.  Again, absence is something we weren't designed to deal with.  If absence is the pain then the only balm is presence.

The Flag and the Cross

It is July 4, a date on which we American celebrate with great pride our throwing off the yoke of a distant government that gave us little recourse but to separate from their tyrannical rule.  We set this day in 1776 to create a sovereign nation where the power of the government would rest in the people.  It is a day we celebrate with great pride.  

This year the 4th falls on Monday. Many will be able to enjoy a three-day weekend. Many sat in churches yesterday and many worship services probably included a patriotic-themed hymn. Some perhaps included a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. Some perhaps even included a recitation of the pledge to the Christian flag. None of these are terribly wrong I just wonder if they are right or perhaps appropriate is the better term. 

I have often wondered of late whether expressions of nationalism are appropriate within the time we have set aside to worship God?  Do such expressions further the gospel?  Do they cause a non-believer to consider the human condition and recognize the absence of God in their life?  Or do they feed into a sense of our own pride and entitlement?

This internal struggle began for me several years ago when I felt a disconnect from the Christian flag.  The Christian flag seems like an accoutrement strangely out of place in worship to God.  What is the purpose of the Christian flag?  I really can never understand it. The Cross serves as a tangible reminder of the work of Christ and importantly the call that work has upon my life. 

Here is my difficulty with a Christian flag, it seems to locate God and faith at an inappropriate level. To me, and maybe this is a problem of my perspective, it places God and faith at par with national identity. I am an American. That is something I am proud of and have taken oaths to defend. I am also a Christian. But let us not in any sense equate the two as anything similar. I can defend my Christian Faith but that defense is radically different than what a defense of the ideals of my nation looks like. One involves the potential to be engaged in warfare to defend while the other's defense is actually the emptying of self and accepting the indwelling of the spirit. One repels invasion while the other invites it. 

So to pledge my allegiance to the flag as a representative token of the ideals of this great nation is not in itself inappropriate. But to then turn and pledge to a Christian flag seems to be chalk and cheese.

Perhaps let me go even a little further. While I struggle with the Christian flag as a concept, I also struggle with the American (or any other nation's) flag presence in the sanctuary. The American flag represents the ideals of this country. Ideals that clearly have rooting in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Absent this worldview the ideas of democracy are incoherent.  However, the sanctuary is a place where the American ideals are overwhelmed by the very concepts in which they are rooted.

Paul wrote in his letter to the church at Galatia,

"But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.  For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise."

So as we enter the sanctuary as a representative of the presence of God, should we cast aside all other tokens that would identify is as anything but sinners saved through grace?  Perhaps to even go so far as to say that within the sanctuary where the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is worshiped we are all aliens made children through adoption and share in the inheritance that can only be claimed through Christ Jesus. Let our sanctuaries be free from any symbol, token, or words that would divide us or give us pause to do anything but glorify the Living God.