The Altar or the Plough

Last updated on: August 15, 2024 at 9:01 pm By Gene Veith

I happened to come across a great exemplum (a story used to illustrate a scriptural point) from a priest named Robert McTeigue, writing in the conservative Catholic publication Crisis, entitled Parishes Are Preparing Their People for. . .What, exactly?:

In Matthew 20, we see the apostles James and John (through the good offices of their mother) asking to be placed at the right and left hand of Our Lord in His kingdom. Jesus asks the brothers, “Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They assure Him that they can. What happens next?

Not long afterward, James is the first apostle to be martyred. Unlike the red martyrdom of his brother, John suffers a white martyrdom—enduring all manner of abuse and exile—dying after many years of faithful service. He is the last apostle to die. Biblical commentator William Barclay relates the living and dying of both James and John to a Roman coin in circulation during their lifetime. The coin depicts an ox facing both an altar and a plow. The inscription on the coin reads: “Ready for Either.” In other words, the ox is ready for the “red martyrdom” of being sacrificed at the altar, or for the “white martyrdom” of a life of unglamorous service, hitched to the plow until death.

Isn’t that good? This is from the account of Jesus’s great discourse on Christian authority explaining “whoever would be great among you must be your servant. . . even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20: 26, 28).

I had never noticed before that even the buildup to that account is profound. James and John make their self-serving request. Jesus asks them if they can drink the cup He is going to drink. They naively say, Yes! And Jesus agrees with them: “He said to them, ‘You will drink my cup'” (Matthew 20:23).

He is referring, no doubt, to His cup of suffering, as He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane: ““My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39). Similarly, everyone who follows Jesus is called to bear a cross of self-denial: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matthew 16:24). But our crosses and our cups are not identical.

James does drink the cup that Jesus is about to drink. “About that time”–soon after the death of Stephen, the first martyr– “Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword” (Acts 12:1-2).

But his brother John also, according to Jesus, drank the cup of Jesus. But he lived to a ripe old age. According to tradition, he was the only apostle who died of natural causes.

Fr. McTeigue uses the language of “red martyrdom” and “white martyrdom.” This alludes to some old Catholic categories:

Red represents Christians who are martyred in an instant, in a violent death while showing love for God and their enemies.

Green represents Christians who obey Jesus’ command to take up their crosses daily, demonstrating the love of God through lives of self-denial.

White represents Christians who “die to the world” through temporary or long-term periods of spiritual retreat. Today’s discipleship bases, prayer mountains, and retreat centers give us an experience of white martyrdom.

Lutheran that I am, instead of thinking in terms of these monastic-influenced categories, I see all of this in terms of vocation. Some Christians are called to dramatic tasks, to the point of martyrdom. Others are called to long, ordinary lives of service. Both involve self-denial. Both involve faithfulness to Christ.

And this takes us to the Roman coin with the ox, which faces two possibilities: he may be called to be a sacrifice. Or he may be called to pull the plough. He is ready for either.

Similarly, we Christians do not really know what God is calling us to. But we must be ready for whatever that will turn out to be.

Tomorrow, I invite you to descend with me into a rabbit hole, as I try to find the origin of the story of the ox and to identify this ancient Roman coin. . . .

Illustration: A drawing from a professional development course with African pastors led by John Holz from WELS Friends of Africa

Premium Content

The Future of Our Political Parties

Last updated on: August 2, 2024 at 5:33 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

What will happen to American political parties after one of them wins and the other one loses the upcoming presidential election?

Natan Ehrenreich has a provocative theory. Call it winning by losing. He has written an article for National Review entitled How the Losing Party in This Election Could End Up Controlling the Next Era of American Politics. It’s behind a paywall, but here is his argument. . . .

If Harris loses and Trump wins, that would mean the end of woke identity politics in the Democratic Party, while Republicans would double down on Trumpism. In that event, a sane-seeming, FDR-JFK-LBJ kind of old-school pro-American liberalism would easily beat the next generation of Trump-style Republicans, setting up an “era” of success for the Democrats.

Conversely, if Harris wins and Trump loses, that would mean the end of Trumpism in the Republican Party, while Democrats would double down on woke identity politics. In that event, a sane-seeming Eisenhower-Reagan limited government conservatism would easily beat the next generation of woke Democrats, setting up an “era” of success for Republicans.

Thus, whatever party loses the next election will be in a position to dominate American politics for a long time.

If this were to be true, Republicans should be voting for Democrats and Democrats should be voting for Republicans. I see some other problems with this hypothesis.

First of all, it assumes that the losing party would purge its ranks of the losing ideology. But party leaders are pretty entrenched. And both the leadership and the base of both parties are populated with ideologues who would rather be ideologically pure than win elections. Otherwise, why not shift their party’s message now?

Also, Ehrenreich assumes that neither party will have sustainable success once it gets in power. If Trump makes America great again, surely now-great Americans would continue to choose the party that carries on his legacy, even against old-school Democrats. And if Harris gets elected, that might be because America has become a woke nation and will continue to be so.

And there are other reasons why a party once in power might stay in power. Democrats are stirring up the fear that if Trump is put back in office, this may be the last election, that Trump will refuse to step down, rule as a dictator, and put an end to American democracy. Trump gave support for that fear when he told a gathering of Christian voters that after voting for him this one time, they “won’t have to vote anymore.” (He later explained that he was talking to infrequent voters, urging them to come out to vote this time, after which they could revert to their usual non-voting habits.)

I don’t believe that a Trump dictatorship is his intent or is possible even if it is. I am more worried that if the Democrats win the presidency, the House, and the Senate, they could implement their agenda of granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. By creating two more reliably Democratic states, they would have four more Senators, which could give them a perpetual majority in that body. And they could also pack the Supreme Court by adding enough liberal justices to outvote the current majority of originalists on the court, removing a check and a balance on their power. The result could be a one-party government, like California already has, which could become very difficult for even an old-school Republican party to break through. And they could impose their progressive ideology with no restraints.

Finally, it appears that the Republican Party, even though Trump is its standard-bearer, is already rebranding itself to appeal more to the mainstream. In the course of a thoughtful discussion of Christians’ involvement in politics, Randall Fowler makes this observation:

Among many other things, the 2024 Republican National Convention marked the triumph of Log Cabin Republican attempts to purge the GOP platform of any references to traditional understandings of marriage, sexuality, and the human person. The Republican Party is visibly distancing itself from Christianity and social conservatives. And all pro-life language and policy stances on abortion have been removed from the party platform as well. In isolation, each of these moves may not represent a wholesale abandonment of Christian voters, and not all Christians agree on issues of abortion or marriage, but they collectively convey a party doing its best to rebrand itself in accord with prevailing secular norms.

Click the links for the evidence of what he asserts. Fowler, a professor at Abilene Christian University, says that Christians in politics want to be prophetic, but they keep playing different prophetic roles:

Republican Christians post-Moral Majority have typically wanted to be Moses (laying down the law) or Samuel (anointing the king). Our marginalization in the post-Trump GOP marks the end of that dream, although we are not yet Elijah consigned to the wilderness. Perhaps our model should be Nathan—the conscience of the kingdom, capable of rebuking the king when he falls astray but not estranged to the extent he is barred from the royal court. Doing this will require a renewed vigilance to ensure the spiritual health, theological seriousness, and moral formation of our own churches. May we be faithfully prepared for such a time, for it is coming soon.

In Ehrenreich’s terms, if both Democrats and Republicans revert to a more “normal” perspective, what that might mean is a single dominant ideology. It would be secularist, morally and culturally permissive, pro-abortion, opposed to free market economics, unrestrained in government spending, and championing big government. The parties would both agree on all of that, but would disagree on details. To see what that looks like, see Great Britain, where the Conservative Party has become almost as liberal as the Labour Party.

Christians who care about their vocations as citizens may have to emulate yet another prophet: Daniel in exile.

Illustration: Belshazzar’s Feast by Rembrandt – www.nationalgallery.org.uk : Home : Info, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67423

Premium Content

A Parallel Economy

Last updated on: July 13, 2024 at 5:43 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Some conservatives are trying to form a “parallel economy” as an alternative to that of the woke corporations, the internet platforms that will censor ideas they disapprove of, and the finance companies that will cancel your account if you transgress their norms.

Some Christians are grabbing onto the idea of a “parallel economy,” wanting to do business only with fellow Christians. This goes beyond the “buy Christian” ethos of the Christian Yellow Pages, focusing on the business side, urging companies run by Christians to develop Christian-run supply chains, vendors, and financial institutions, as well as hiring only Christians and marketing exclusively to Christians.

David Bahnsen, a leader in the work/faith movement (who has expressed appreciation for my books on vocation), has written a good response to those who think a parallel economy completely set apart from the regular economy is possible. From It’s Time to Think Honestly: Theological and Economic Error in the so-called “Parallel Economy” in World Magazine, which expresses some sympathy with the concept, but comes to this conclusion:

The interconnectedness of the modern economy is so engrained in our exchange of goods and services, it would take less than five minutes to enumerate a hundred ways in which “parallel economy” companies are going “unparallel” every minute of the day. We have every right to find companies that profess to share our belief system, but proclaiming that in so doing we are immunized from those who do not reflects an economic ignorance that is hard to imagine. Indeed, any rebuttal to this argument will be read on a computer made by a hardware company, across broadband lines provided by a company, on a phone made by a company, using an email system provided by a company, where the enterprise involved is deemed to be potentially hostile to the Christian way of life. If one tries to dismiss all of these categories, they surely could not dismiss the same reality about the furniture we sit in while reading it, the utility provider involved in the electricity, the maker of the paint on the laptop, the refreshments being consumed while reading it, etc.

Christians, he says, don’t need to do this: “Jesus encouraged His disciples in John 17:11–18 that we are not to be ‘of the world,’ even as we are ‘in the world.’ There exists a connectivity to the world on this side of glory that is inescapable, and devoid of ethical compromise.”

And he brings to bear the purpose of vocation, which is about loving and serving our neighbors. The neighbors for Christians in the business world are their customers. “In summary,” he writes, “our duty in producing goods and services is to bless our customers and do our work excellently.”

I would add, though, that from what I’ve read about the parallel economy movement (see here, here, and here), proponents are not necessarily advocating complete separation from the regular economy. Rather, they are mostly engaged in developing alternative products to those that have become associated with woke progressivism. To compete with chi-chi Starbucks, there is now the more macho Black Rifle Coffee. Bud Light, a brand now associated with transgenderism, is being answered with Ultra Right beer. To compete with censorious social media, alternative conservative-friendly internet platforms have been put together, like Rumble and Truth Social. Already Fox News is an alternative to the left-leaning news networks, and conservative and Christian websites abound. Why shouldn’t there be alternatives to PayPal and other digital services? Why shouldn’t conservatives organize meetings with investors to fund these sorts of businesses?

These ventures strike me as legitimate and in accord with free market principles, finding an unserved niche, recognizing a market, and trying to meet the need. But they do not constitute a parallel economy. Rather, they are part of the regular economy, as they should be. And maybe they will compete effectively with their left-leaning rivals, put them out of business, and replace them.

Illustration: Two Parallel Lines by Nova Division, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content

Monday Miscellany, 7/15/24

Last updated on: July 15, 2024 at 10:14 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

The attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Also, Republicans have their convention, and Generation Z takes politics way too seriously.

The Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump

The would-be assassin’s bullet grazed his ear, meaning that Donald Trump escaped death by a fraction of an inch. “It was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening,” Trump said after the shooting, and he was surely right.

The video of the shooting showed Secret Service agents shielding Trump with their bodies and forming a human shield around him as they ushered him away, a moving example of self-sacrifice in vocation, since, as far as they knew, there may have been more incoming shots. Then again, some of their colleagues may have failed in their vocation in not securing the rooftop of the building and possibly even ignoring bystanders’ warnings that they saw a man with a rifle on the roof. Agents eventually killed the shooter.

A member of the crowd, fire fighter Corey Comperatore, was also shot and killed when he shielded his wife and daughters with his body when the bullets started flying. He really did take a bullet for them. This is a moving example of a father’s self-sacrifice in vocation. “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Two others in the crowd were critically injured.

Trump’s reaction when he was shot was especially stirring. Pumping his fist in defiance as blood streamed down his face. Talk about being bloody but unbowed. A photograph taken by A.P. photographer Evan Vucci captured the moment–a bloody Trump surrounded by solicitous Secret Service agents, lifting his fist, with the backdrop of an American flag. The photo, in its composition and in its emotional impact, is a brilliant work of art, showing not just what something looked like (which is the most that amateur photographers like me are capable of), but what it felt like and what it means. Give Evan Vucci a Pultizer Prize for photojournalism. Nico Hines of the liberal, anti-Trump Daily Beast, praised the photo and called it, in the words of the title of his article about it, “One of the Most Iconic Photos in U.S. History.”

The shooter was 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks. As of this writing, we don’t know whether he was ideologically driven or was an mentally unstable young man driven over the edge by the hysterical rhetoric of the campaign–that Trump would destroy democracy; that he would impose a fascist state; etc. At any rate, it seems clear that the strategy of demonizing your opponent and raising apocalyptic fears about him risks provoking political violence. It’s telling that President Biden, to his credit, pulled all campaign ads for the moment, which suggests that this is what they consisted of.

I appreciate what an editorial in the Wall Street Journal said about the shooting and what it means for the country:

The shooter alone is responsible for his actions. But leaders on both sides need to stop describing the stakes of the election in apocalyptic terms. Democracy won’t end if one or the other candidate is elected. Fascism is not aborning if Mr. Trump wins, unless you have little faith in American institutions.

We agree with former Attorney General Bill Barr’s statement Saturday night: “The Democrats have to stop their grossly irresponsible talk about Trump being an existential threat to democracy—he is not.”. . .

The photo of Mr. Trump raising his fist as he was led off stage by the Secret Service with a bloody face was a show of personal fortitude that will echo through the campaign. No one doubts his willingness to fight, and his initial statement Saturday night was a notable and encouraging show of restraint and gratitude. . . .

The near assassination of Donald Trump could be a moment that catalyzes more hatred and an even worse cycle of violence. If that is how it goes, God help us.

Or it could be a redemptive moment that leads to introspection and political debate that is fierce but not cast as Armageddon. The country was spared the worst on Saturday and this is a chance to pull out of a partisan death spiral.

UPDATE: Trump is reportedly going to change the tone of the convention in light of his near-death experience, away from whipping up his followers to instead promote national unity. He said that he had originally planned to hammer President Biden in his acceptance speech:

He said that his address would focus on unity and bringing the country together in light of what happened.

“It is a chance to bring the country together. I was given that chance,” he said. “This is a chance to bring the whole country, even the whole world, together. The speech will be a lot different, a lot different than it would’ve been two days ago.”

The Washington Post reported earlier on Sunday that someone close to the president said that Trump was almost “spiritual” about the assassination attempt.

Republicans Have Their Convention

The Republican National Convention gets underway today in Milwaukee. Donald Trump has virtually all of the delegates, so his nomination is assured. The biggest question is who Trump will pick for his vice-presidential running mate.

Pro-lifers are reportedly angry that the Republican Platform, at Trump’s behest, says little about abortion, being content to leave the issue up to the states instead of pushing for a national ban. Cultural conservatives don’t like it that porn star Amber Rose is slated to give a speech. This doesn’t sound like the victory of Christian nationalism to me, but expect Democrats and their media allies–desperate to switch the nation’s attention away from President Biden’s disabilities–to raise an alarm to that effect.

For the schedule of events, go here. The overall theme will be, of course, “Make America Great Again.” On Monday, the theme will be “Make America Wealthy Again.” Tuesday, the theme will be “Make America Safe Again.” On Wednesday, it will be “Make America Strong Again.” On Thursday, when Trump will formally accept the nomination, the theme will be “Make America Great Once Again.”

You can stream the convention at YouTube, X, Facebook Live, Rumble, Amazon Prime, Twitch, Direct TV, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website. Fox, PBS, and CNN will offer extensive coverage. CBS will offer primetime coverage from 8:00-11:00 ET each night. NBC will devote two hours on Monday and Tuesday (9:00-11:00 ET) and three hours on Wednesday and Thursday (8:00-11:00 ET). ABC will devote just an hour each night to the Republicans, 10:00-11:00 ET.

Much more interesting will be the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on August 19-22. If Biden steps down, the convention will have to pick a new nominee, and who knows who that might be? If Biden continues to stay in the race, the Democrats who have loudly proclaimed that he is incapable of running against Trump and being president will be hung out to dry. On top of all of that, anti-Israel demonstrators are vowing to disrupt the proceedings.

Generation Z Takes Politics Way Too Seriously

Young adults of Generation Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, are limiting friendships and their dating possibilities on the grounds of politics. This is especially true of young women.

From Dace Potas of USA Today, Gen Z’s widening gender divide has turned political. It’s ruining our relationships:

In America, 40% of young women in America identify as liberal compared with only 25% of their male peers. On the other hand, 29% of young men identify as conservative compared with 21% of their female peers. . . .

Polling suggests that more than 70% of college Democrats wouldn’t go on a date with a Republican, whereas the opposite is just 31%. Thirty-seven percent of young Democrats wouldn’t even be friends with a Republican. Women are much more likely to take this position, with 59% of women from both parties saying they would not go on a date with someone who voted opposite them.

Premium Content

Aborting the Elderly vs. Treasuring Them

Last updated on: June 30, 2024 at 7:23 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Our society is anti-life both at its very beginning and at its very end.

Randy Alcorn, whom I’ve blogged about, has written a thoughtful post entitled God’s Heart for the Elderly and the Infirm. Because my mother died recently and because I’m getting old myself, what he had to say really stood out for me.

He began with this point:

One of the many problems facing Western society is that we worship youth and make the elderly disposable. Euthanasia, which is legal in my home state of Oregon, is simply abortion of the elderly, disabled, and terminally ill. The same logic and arguments and appeals to “compassion” and quality of life and financial concerns are used for both [abortion and euthanasia].

God, though, has a different perspective. Alcorn quoted and discussed a number of Bible passages that we “elderlies” (a term I heard one of my grandchildren use in reference to me and my generation) should hang on to. Here is one:

The righteous flourish like the palm tree
and grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
They are planted in the house of the Lord;
they flourish in the courts of our God.
They still bear fruit in old age;
they are ever full of sap and green. (Psalm 92:12-14)

“Ever full of sap”! But what fruit can an old person bear? Alcorn says,

Our physical and mental abilities can and will decrease over time, but may we as God’s children never feel useless. We can always pray, and we can usually speak and mentor and reach out in the name of Jesus, and show the love of Christ and the wisdom of having invested our lives in Him.

I would add, though, that being “useful” is not really the point. To value life–that of others, as well as our own–for how “useful” they are or I am is to succumb to the philosophy of utilitarianism, which is in accord neither with Christianity or with logic. Some things are useful; that is, they are good for instrumental reasons, because they lead to other good things. But some things are good in themselves and are to be valued as such. In fact, instrumental goods require something to be good in itself, as the end to which they aim. In other words, when we hear the invocation of “useful,” we have to ask, “useful to do what?” (E.g., “I am useful because I can earn money.” But what’s money useful for? “So I can buy what I need to live.” But what’s living useful for? Or is life good in itself?)

But I appreciate what Alcorn says about the benefit that the very aged can be at the very end of their lives when they are at their weakest and most frail: “God uses waning health and vitality. . . to increase impact on others who benefit by caring for the elderly (my father and I gained a much closer relationship in his final years, when he needed my help).” Caring for the helpless elderly is like caring for a helpless child. It is good for the person who does it. The weakness of the person in need of care can create compassion and thus love in the caregiver, however painful the service and however agonizing the Cross laid upon the caregiver turns out to be.

Alcorn also sees a benefit for those in need of care in “preparing the sick and elderly for Heaven. It is easier to let go of this world when there is no realistic hope that our health will improve, but only get worse. Now the whispers of Heaven become glad shouts of invitation.”

Here is my favorite passage on the subject:

“Listen to me, O house of Jacob,
all the remnant of the house of Israel,
who have been borne by me from before your birth,
carried from the womb;
even to your old age I am he,
and to gray hairs I will carry you.
I have made, and I will bear;
I will carry and will save. (Isaiah 46:3-6)

We have been carried by God even before we were born! From the womb! So much for the claim that children are not human before birth. And he continues to carry us for our whole lives. “Even to your old age”! When we have “gray hairs I will carry you.” He will carry us, and He will also save.

Photo by Sh-Andrei: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photograph-of-an-elderly-man-kissing-an-elderly-woman-8884105/

Premium Content

America vs. Political Panic

Last updated on: June 30, 2024 at 5:55 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

America faces huge problems, politically and culturally. There is no doubt about that. And in this election year, both sides want to fill us with alarm. But on this Independence Day, let’s take a breath and consider what we have to be thankful for about this country.

If you listen to our politicians from both sides, you would think that America is a dystopian hell hole. In President Biden’s State of the Union address last March, when the media was praising his performance as disproving the charge that he was too old, he said, “Our cities are choking to death, our states are dying, and frankly our country is dying.” In Donald Trump’s response, he agreed with how bad things are: “We’re a third-world country at our borders,” he said, “we’re a third-world country at our elections.”

Is it really so bad to live in America?

Is America really racist to its very core, a land of oppression in which privileged groups exercise their power against marginalized groups, such as women, homosexuals, and racial minorities, as progressives claim? Is the American economy so bad that businesses are going bankrupt because of all the federal regulations, workers can’t find jobs because factories are moving to China, and families can’t pay their bills because of government-created inflation?

If all of this is true, why are so many people from the rest of the world trying to come here? Why are they pouring over our borders illegally in numbers too big for us to handle if the U.S.A. is dying, is a third world country such as the ones so many of them are trying to leave, is racist, oppressive, poor, and without jobs?

A liberal newspaper warns, Democracy won’t survive another Trump presidency. A conservative newspaper warns American democracy won’t survive the anti-Trump witch hunt. It sounds like American democracy is doomed either way.

Is America with its constitutional form of government really so fragile?

Does anyone think that either Trump or Biden has the broad national support that would allow him to suspend the Constitution, declare that the public will no longer be allowed to vote, and make himself ruler for life? If they don’t believe in democracy, why are they trying so hard to get elected, as opposed to just seizing power as dictators usually do?

Political rhetoric, of course, is filled with exaggerations designed to make the public afraid, to the point of fearing one candidate and turning to the other as a savior.

That rhetoric may include some truths or at least half-truths, and it may warn of tendencies or consequences that should be taken seriously. But we citizens need some perspective so that we can keep a clear head and avoid succumbing to political panic.

My Patheos colleague Jim Denison had a thoughtful reflection on said State of the Union address in which he points out how our constitutional democracy is designed to limit sweeping changes and how our Founders, aware of the dangers of human depravity, “set out to create a system of government that was best equipped to protect its people from their leaders.”

That statement deserves to be enshrined as a maxim and as a prime criterion of all political theories and practical policies: How to protect the people from their leaders!

Denison quotes Jonah Goldberg: “Presidents don’t matter as much as they would like you to think . . . Five years from now, America will be okay. You’ll probably be okay. And if you are not okay, it will in all likelihood have nothing to do with who was elected president in 2024.”

Of course, we Christians have a moral impulse, to be concerned not just for our own self-interests but for our neighbors. Not everyone will be okay. Not aborted children, not mutilated adolescents, not families that can’t make ends meet, not people losing their jobs, not soldiers killed in any wars that might get stirred up. . . .

This concern–the love of neighbor–is what properly motivates Christian political activism, not some ambition to seize power for the church or some utopian vision of building heaven on earth.

At the same time, as Denison reminds us “God is on His throne.” Those of us who believe in the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms know that we don’t need to build the kingdom of Heaven on earth because God is already reigning, working mysteriously for His purposes, which includes working through our human vocations, including that of citizenship. So remembering that God is on His throne can preserve us from political panic.

Furthermore, God blesses us through our country, government and all. Our country, even in its troubles, is God’s gift to us. Can you count the ways?

Illustration: American Flag via PickPik, royalty free

Premium Content