"Oh
that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might
not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! I am not pleased with you," says
the LORD of hosts, "nor will I accept an offering from you." - Malachi
1:10
"Then the Lord said, Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,
Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous; And the wisdom of their wise men will perish, And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed.” - Isaiah 29:13-14
Back during the 2012 election season (which, thank God, has passed), there was something of a firestorm amongst conservatives when the Democratic Party initially refused to mention God in its platform. More recently, I saw similar outrage being directed at the president for his
failure to include any mention of God in his Thanksgiving address,
apparently for the fourth year in a row. And while I understand the good intentions of those who wish to see God
acknowledged in such venues, I think we're missing a larger issue in
all of this outrage.
Scriptures such as those I've cited above make it
clear that God is not interested in "lip service" or habitual, cursory
acknowledgment. Witness how that, in Isaiah's day, He actually said that
He would rather have had someone lock the temple altogether than for
"useless fires" to be continually lit on His altar. He didn't care that
the people acknowledged Him, because their acknowledgements were effectively empty;
they had no interest in obeying His Word or cultivating their
relationship with Him. They were following religious traditions that
really meant nothing to them personally, and they showed this by pursuing their own desires and ignoring God in every other aspect of their lives, to the point where He finally brought judgment against them.
In light of this, what
do we really gain when a party that would rather not acknowledge God at
all is shamed into doing so by bad publicity (or, for that matter, when
a party that is proud to acknowledge God in its platform implements policies that are contrary to His Word)? What would we
gain if a president who has publicly stated that the Sermon on the Mount
cannot be taken seriously were to acknowledge God verbally in a public
address out of political expediency? Are these not more "useless fires"?
Perhaps it could
be argued that such mentions "keep God in the public consciousness".
Maybe. But then we would have to ask ourselves what is meant by "God".
After all, the word is a title, not a proper name. It's a simple reference to a supreme being,
and what concept of divinity is meant by it depends upon the point of
view of the speaker. Thus, while public mentions of "God" may identify
us as a religious people, they do not necessarily indicate that we are a
Christian people or that we take the obligation to follow Christ seriously. Our behavior says much more about us than our words, certainly in the eyes of non-Christians, who are quick to note hypocrisy in the church. They expect more of us than what they see in the world around them, and, quite frankly, they have every right to. God Himself expects more of us (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 2:1-3).
In the end, these arguments about public mentions of God, as they currently stand, are much ado
about nothing. Unless they indicate a desire to know and follow the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as He has prescribed (namely, by becoming disciples of the Lord Jesus), we gain nothing from them except for a deceptive sugar-coating that may make us look good and feel religious, but ultimately insults the One we think we are honoring.
- Scriptures quoted are from the New American Standard Bible
- Image courtesy of http://www.desktopwallpaperhd.net/emptiness-wallpaper-house-paper-aziointelli-art-67438.html
