Transformation: The Game Changer?

In recent years, there has been a lot of discussion around the subject of transformation - both personal and corporate. Great excitement has gripped the hearts of intercessors who want to help find God-honoring solutions to the systemic socio-economic, educational, and governmental ills facing the nations of the world, in essence to see the will of God done on Earth as Jesus taught us. When fielding the questions surrounding the ideas of transformation we might ask ourselves “Transforming from what to what.” Some might focus on the idea of a kingdom culture - whatever that is?  These notions and theological perspectives are not new. These kind of perspectives were introduced into the Christian Church by Augustine of Hippo, late in the 5th century, in his book, “The City Of God Against The Pagans.” The book was in response to allegations that Christianity brought about the decline of Rome.  The book presents human history as a conflict between what Augustine calls the Earthly City (often colloquially referred to as the City of Man) and the City of God, a conflict that is destined to end in victory for the latter. The City of God is marked by people who forgot earthly pleasure to dedicate themselves to the eternal truths of God, now revealed fully in the Christian faith. Augustine’s thesis depicts the history of the world as universal warfare between God and the Devil.  Sound Familiar? This metaphysical war is not limited by time but only by geography on Earth. In this war, God moves (by divine intervention/Providence) those governments, political /ideological movements and military forces aligned (or aligned the most) with the Catholic Church (the City of God) in order to oppose by all means—including military—those governments, political/ideological movements and military forces aligned (or aligned the most) with the Devil (the City of Devil).  Sounds very American to me!  Is this the task Jesus called us to do?  Exactly what is the nature of the great commission and its relationship to human culture?  Was Augustine right in his assessments or preaching a heretical gospel?  What is the role of the Elect of God and sinful paganism? 


In Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus commanded his disciples to go make disciples throughout the nations. He continued by instructing them that they were to “teach them to observe whatsoever I commanded you to do.”  This command was given to a group of devoted Jewish followers of Jesus.  They were raised in a Jewish culture, spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, celebrated the four feastal holidays in Jewish culture - Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles, and Hanukkah.  Together their calling was to bring the gospel to the gentile nations which led to a major dilemma in the early church.  Were these early church members called to bring a gospel that included all the cultural values and practices of Judaism?  Or, were they called to just share the gospel and allow the gentile nations embrace it without the imposition of Orthodox Jewish faith and practice?  After all this is what the great contention in Acts 15:39?  The question posed at the first Great Council of the early church was,  “What does our own religious traditions and cultural worldview have to do with the task of making disciples?”  

In Acts 10:9-16 The Apostle Peter is presented a challenge to move beyond the boundaries of his own adherence to the Jewish customs of his day.  During the preparation of a meal, being hungry and waiting for his meal he goes to a rooftop where he has a vision.  The vision was a “sheet coming down with various unclean animals” that were forbidden to eat under levitical law.  God speaks clearly to Peter and tells him to rise up, kill, and eat the forbidden animals.  Peter immediately begins protesting and stating that he was a good Orthodox Jewish man and only adhered to the requirements of “eating clean animals” outlined in the Law of Moses.  The vision and purpose of the sheet of unclean animals - given to Peter was to prepare him to begin a work among the Gentiles.  He essentially was being commanded to “eat the food of the people that God sending him to bring the Gospel.”  The first place he was being sent to was to Italy.  What a great culture to be sent to.  Roman  culture was familiar to him. He would understand their food, their values, perspectives, and culture.  But,  as we continue to read this passage we find Peter having a great deal of difficulty accepting a calling to embrace eating at a table full of food he has never tried and with people he was taught to overthrow - not disciple.  After all they were the ones, who like Babylon, overthrew Israel, subjugated his nation, and dominated Jewish day to day living all his life.  Being sent to Cornelius, a Roman Centurion, had to be one of the most difficult challenges given to him up to this time that he faced.  This assignment challenged everything Jewish within him. Even later, (See Galatians 2:11-21)  we find Peter still struggling with his Orthodox Jewish Traditions as he works with these early gentile believers.

Another amazing passage to review for those who love exploring notions of “Christ and Culture”  is found in Acts 17.  The Apostle Paul, unlike the young Galilean Peter,  was born and raised in a south coastal city of Modern day Turkey called Tarsus. Tarsus was one of the most influential cities of Grecian thought, influence, and customs during the reign of Alexander The Great. He was born into a very devout Jewish family from the Tribe Of Benjamin.  Paul was fluent in Koine Greek, a Greek tongue commonly spoken in his native city of Tarsus, as well as being fluent in Classical Greek, which indicated that he had been exposed to Greek learning at the university level. "His mastery of the Greek literary technique of the diatribe and his occasional citation of Greek authors (Aratus in Acts 17:18; Meander in 1 Cor. 15:23; Epimenides in Tit 1:1) are considered by some as evidence that he frequented and was a learned scholar in the Hellenistic schools of rhetoric.  It is even possible to find phrases in Paul's teaching which could be taken to support Stoic doctrine; for example the statement that "all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together " (Colossians 1:16-17)....Paul's letters also often reflect Stoic terminology - as when he describes morality in terms of what is "fitting" or "not fitting" (Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:3-4). No doubt Paul would know and sympathize with many Stoic ideals.

However, even though Paul was fluent in Greek thought as he was, he described himself a radical Pharisee who was fanatical for keeping the traditions of his ancestors (See Gal. 1:13-14). Paul’s education in Judaism was under Gamaliel, one of the premier teachers of the law in the first century.  Gamaliel was himself a Pharisee in the tradition of the Hillel.  Hillel, although born in Babylon, moved to Jerusalem later in his life and became one Israel’s greatest spiritual leaders during the time of Herod.  He was known for his proselytizing by “bringing men to the law” which explains both Gamaliel and later Paul’s perspective within Judaism.  With respect to Greek culture and thought, Hillel was more open to Hellenism and more cooperation with the Romans which seems to fit within the perspective of Paul’s approach in Acts 17.  Paul, does not find it difficult to share the gospel with the Gentiles as much as Peter does even though both men were raised in Jewish Orthodoxy.   After reviewing these perspectives of both men, in my mind this presents to us the “enduring problem” that the church has had in presenting the gospel down through the centuries; “What is the relationship of the Christian faith and civilization?”

Yale Divinity School Professor, H. Richard Niebuhr in his Classic book, “Christ and Culture” (Published 1951)  introduces and interacts with five views held by the church in its view of mission and response to culture:

Christ against Culture. For the exclusive Christian, history is the story of a rising church or Christian culture and a dying pagan civilization.

Christ of Culture. For the cultural Christian, history is the story of the Spirit’s encounter with nature.

Christ above Culture. For the synthesist, history is a period of preparation under law, reason, gospel, and church for an ultimate communion of the soul with God.

Christ and Culture in Paradox. For the dualist, history is the time of struggle between faith and unbelief, a period between the giving of the promise of life and its fulfillment.

Christ Transforming Culture.  For the conversionist, history is the story of God’s mighty deeds and humanity’s response to them. Conversionists live somewhat less “between the times” and somewhat more in the divine “now” than do the followers listed above. Eternity, to the conversionist, focuses less on the action of God before time or life with God after time, and more on the presence of God in time. Hence the conversionist is more concerned with the divine possibility of a present renewal than with conservation of what has been given in creation or preparing for what will be given in a final redemption.

The Worldviews that we hold as Christians shape and influence our thinking toward culture.  As with Peter and Paul, our own personal and corporate cultures, education, national and global relationship with others affects how we do our disciple making. These perspectives are important to examine in our postmodern world. However, too often, Christians have been so caught up in the arguments between “Pagan Christianity" and "Incarnational Theology” they have forgotten what the mission Jesus assigned us.  Go make disciples!  What does this command really mean? Make disciples who share my cultural identity and values?  Make disciples who think like me?  Make disciples to share the same political ideology - or find themselves excluded from the christian community?  Does disciple-making mean include taking Native People groups or new immigrants and helping them to assimulate and share the values of “white privilege” and aspire to living the upscale western style suburban life?  Was this the goal Jesus had in mind when he gave his life on the Cross?

When reading passages in the Hebrew scripture like, Daniel 1:3-21, I often find myself again asking, “What gospel am I preaching when God calls me to go to a nation whose culture is a mystery to me?” Has God called me just to make disciples with people who I am comfortable with? God forbid that I go to anyone with an appetite for Mc Donalds in a nation like China or a need to “Starbuck” a church in Cuba!   What gospel are we really preaching?  

American Revisionist History: Have American's Ever Been Taught The Truth?

Over the last few years, I have studying and looking into the historical foundations of North American History 150 years before the nations founding.  Most of this material is not taught in the public education system and has been buried in various archives.  I began my research looking into the "roots" of why The United States got embedded into the quagmire of the African slave trade. Two contributing factors that led me into this research was my work with the late Dr. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, co-authors of The Light And The Glory and From Sea To Shining Sea, and a book given to my by my personal attorney entitled "In The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity by Jill Lepore."  I'd like to begin by sharing with you an overview of Lepore's book.  
     

The most brutal war in American history is one about which most Americans have never heard, but King Philip's War was among the most destructive war in terms of lives lost and blood spilled per person that the United States has ever seen. Sometimes named Metacom's War or Metacom's Rebellion, King Philip's War was a series of battles between Native American tribes that inhabited southern New England (mostly Algonquian) and the English colonists and their Native American allies between 1675 and 1676. "King Philip" is actually the English name of the Indian chief who is said to have started the war, Metacomet or Metacom. He was the second son of Massasoit, the famous Indian chief who welcomed the English to Massachusetts some forty years before. The casualties of the war were significant: 1.5% of English colonists died (800 out of 52000) and 15% of Native Americans in the area (3000 out of 20000) lost their lives as a result of the conflict.

The causes of the conflict are complex, as is the case in most wars. Jill Lepore, the author of The Name of War: King Philip's War and The Origins of American Identity, argues that the root cause was a struggle for cultural identity. The English colonists were committed Christians and were intent on converting as many Indians to Christianity as possible. Indians who converted often moved to "praying towns" where Christian Indians would often conform to English culture as a result of their new religion.

The Indians were caught off guard by such unheard of and aggressive attempts at conversion. The English also gradually encroached on the native lands of the Indians, since they believed the Indians did not truly own the land because they did not develop it. Both forms of encroachments led the Indians to feel that their way of life was under attack. And due to a lack of understanding, the English saw the Indians largely as helpless savages who were on the edge of being sub-human. Finally, English diseases were killing massive amounts of Native Americans. While some Indian tribes were allied with the English, those who fought against the English were in a struggle to preserve their identities.

The English, on the other hand, were desperate not to lose their Englishness. They feared that their identities would be lost due to their separation and that they would become Indianized. They also did not want to be incredibly violent towards the Indians, since this would make them like the Spanish Conquistadors. Ultimately, Lepore argues, the English colonists developed their American identity by triangulating between the English and Indian experiences by using the Indian experience to differentiate themselves from the English but also to contrast themselves with the Indians. They largely fought the war because they were attacked, but King Philip's War led them to become nearly as brutal as the Conquistadors which greatly disturbed them.

The proximate cause of the war was the death of John Sassamon, a Christian Indian convert, translator and minister, who revealed Metacom's plans to attack the colonists to the English. He was then killed. When the English arrested and executed three of Metacom's advisors for the crime, Metacom began his assault in earnest. Lepore covers all the events and more in the book but largely devotes her time to analyzing the ways in which King Philip's War was the result of simultaneous identity crises on the part of the colonists and the Indians in terms of their language, habits of cruelty, religion, slavery and historical narratives.

When I've shared this history, I am so puzzled by the push back how many "American Caucasian European decent" people push back by calling this revisionist history.  What I've learned through this work as it was first shared with me by my attorney is the truth that - "He who wins the war gets to write the story!"  So, much of our National discourse does not disclose the fact that the early colonist were engaged in a genocide of the First Nations of North America in order to make a land grab and engagement of enslavement so that they could have free labor for their new plantations. The second objection I have encountered is the fight over "Oral Tradition" vs "Written Tradition."  Most of those who have objected to the work of authors like Lepore's book have argued that "Oral History" is suspect and not really "truth."  Although, I understand this premise and our need for documentation there are long written histories kept in the National Archives in Washington, DC and various State Archives for the diligent researchers to review that verify the facts. But, most people are not interested or engaged in this type of study work and only rely on what they have been taught by the dominate culture who won the war.  I'll have to save this for another time.The third objection to sharing Native American perspectives is focused on two major faulty foundations.  First, that the First Nations attacked the early colonist first.  Second, the notion that our national narrative is the truth and everything else is "revisionism."  This is where my conversations with noted Christian historians, Dr. Peter Marshall and David Manual began.  

A number of years ago, a dear friend asked me if I would consider working with her on a "Thanksgiving Day" TV to be aired on Thanksgiving Day on a  number of Christian TV outlets.  I accepted the job and went with her to the Boston area - including Plymouth and Martha's Vineyard to work on this project with her, Dr. Marshall and David Manuel.  Now for those who are unfamiliar with these two men - let me point out that Dr. Marshall was the son of twice appointed Chaplain of the Senate (serving 1947 to his death) Peter Marshall senior and his wife noted Christian author Catherine Marshall. Peter Marshall's life was made into an oscar nominated film in 1955 entitled, "A Man Called Peter" based on his wife's biography of his life. Her son, the late Dr. Peter Marshall Jr. was a graduate of Yale University and Princeton Theological Seminary.  Peter began working with author/editor David Manuel on several books.

David was also a graduate of Yale University and worked for a division of Doubleday as a editor - including having worked on the editing team of Alex Haley's book, "Roots."  After becoming a Christian he made major contributions for Logos Publishing including writing and editing, Pastor David Wilkerson's classic story, "The Cross and The Switchblade" and 39 other books.  So, Both these men were well known, recognized, and respected for their historical literary works. I am making sure to answer my critics, who think that I have fallen into the hands of liberal agendas and American revisionism, that the people who I have been working with over the years on these matters are not only well respected by a part of the most academically astute American Historians of our time. The real revisionism that has been conducted is our national American Public Education system. I have no trouble in stating clearly, that the national narrative we have been taught has left out the truth of an American Genocide of Native People and our national government's plan to make slavery as permanent part  of the American economy just before Abraham Lincoln became president. Again, I will have to write more on these two facts at a later time.        

As I began working on this "Thanksgiving Story" with Peter, David and my friend, I was completely taken off guard as they shared with me the real story behind our national celebration vs. what I had been taught in our public school system and college.  The real story begins with a tale of slavery.  According to both Marshall and Manuel, a native American named Squanto, also known as Tisquantum, a Patuxet born Native America who was born in present day Massachusetts, circa 1580,  was captured and taken into slavery by the Portuguese and was purchased by a catholic friar in an open slave market in Europe.  This catholic friar, brought him back to the monastery, taught him and brought him to Christ while in the hands of the monastery.  He later was taught English and became a part of a mission to England where he met Captain John Smith.  Smith offered him a ride back to North America which he accepted.  Squanto, would later connect with the Pilgrims (who came from Amsterdam on a missionary led endeavor to share the gospel) and would become known for serving as am interpreter and guide for them as they settled into Plymouth in the 1620's.  Talk about "revisionist" history... these guys were telling me stuff I had never heard before.  I thought Thanksgiving was all about "Pilgrims came from England looking for religious freedom!"  What we all were taught in our American History books was revisionist history.  These early settlers had religious freedom in Amsterdam for over 12 years.  They came because they were led by the Holy Spirit to share the gospel.  Everyone interested in this story should read Marshall and Manuel's book, "The Light and The Glory."

Wow.  However, at the time what caught my attention was the fact that both Peter and David shared with me was that fact the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Dutch were perusing the North American coastlines looking to capture young Native American boys, ages 14-17, and enslaving and selling them in European slave markets.  Where was this story in our history books.  This ultimately led me to further investigation and conversations with various native tribal leaders (working on the continued injustices of the American Native populations and First Nations people around the world) who have been greatly impacted by a little know Papal Edict known as the "Doctrine Of Discovery" which became embedded into our American legal system.  My question has become, "What's up with the cover-up?"  In my mind, having worked in the "Healing and Reconciliation" prayer movements in our nation these matters are important for Christian's to have a true understanding in our national sins for what I call "informed intercession."  God knows the truth about our history and so should we - especially when repenting over our "true" national sins.  Psalm 33:4 states that God only works in truth.  So how can we successfully see the fruit of our intercession orsee healing in our nation, if our understanding of history has been based on cover-ups. Prophetically, I believe God is moving in uncovering the hidden works of darkness in our time and generation.  Daniel 2:22 states, "He reveals deep and mysterious things and knows what lies in darkness, though He is surround by light."  God intends for truth to be brought to light so that we can brought to the place of brokenness and repentance. So, our modern day notions of American Exceptionism, being the greatest nation on the earth, a land of opportunity (free land and free labor), and ideas of being a historically based Christian nation  is not only based in American myth but also Augustinian and Calvinistic heresy known as dominionism.  Again, I have to save these perspectives for another time.  Let me very clear, to those who again accuse my friends and myself of "revisionism" and being anti-American, just because I do not share the nationalistic views being taught in our American history books or by skewed views of Christian fundementalist or right winged political conservationism does not make me anti-American.  Why would I be engaged in all the prayer movements for "Healing America's Wounds" if I were anti-american?  I am engaged in pulling down "principalities, powers, and wickedness" in high places!"  (See Eph. 6:12)   

The purpose of "pulling these strongholds" down is to release "God's presence" and "Blessing" into our nation.  As Christians, we are not called to build Christian Empires, with standing armies, or force a colonial Euro-centric gospel on the others in our nation.  As Christians we are called to walk in "Truth." Jesus was very clear when he said, "my kingdom is not of this world." (See John 18:36)  Romans 12:2 states that as followers of Jesus we are called to "not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of our mind." I Peter 2:9 says, "... we are a Holy Nation."  We are no longer a part of this pagan nation called the United States Of America. If you feel that that is extreme can you explain how "Marriage Equality, Transgender Restrooms, abortion, war, and other very American activities" are Christian?  No we are dealing with a pagan nation who has always been engaged in non-christian behaviors.  This is why our nation is under judgement.  The only hope we have is Prayer, doing the work of Justice, and sharing the gospel to those who do not know Christ.  But, when the "principalities, powers, and wickedness" prevails it makes the gospel difficult to share.  That's why repentance, prayer, and cultural engagement is important in the work of "healing and cultural transformation." We need to get this right!

There are three major historical perspectives that need to be explored  The Native American perspective, The African American Perspective, and the Euro-centric Colonialism that our nation was founded in.  Then we, together, can form a true American perspective.  Then we can explore our National identity and calling as Christian people to bring the gospel effectively in this post-colonial era God is calling us to.  The real issues holding us back as a nation has to do with our refusal to acknowledge the truth, stepping down from positions that empower "white privilege" and seeing how our nation's white wealth and opportunity which is enjoyed today was built on land grabbing, thievery and slave labor.  Now that's the truth and everything else is historical revisionism.  

Americans Christians Can't Change What They Won't Acknowledge!

This morning is a good day of reflection for me.  Isaiah 58:12 has always been a theme verse for me when I center down, look at where I've been, and what I still need to complete in my assigned time and sphere of influence. It reads, "you will rebuild the ancient ruins; you will raise up the foundations laid long ago; you will be called the repairer of broken walls, the restorer of streets where people live."   As I continue to reflect and explore what this verse mean and how it applies to my life I really want to know - What ancient ruins?  What foundations?  What broken walls? What streets need to be restored?  Of course, we know that this ancient prophecy has to do with the rebuilding of the ancient city of Jerusalem after its destruction in 586 BCE.  Isaiah's words offered a future hope to those who were living in exile. If we could find a modern application it would be a good prophetic word to the Syrian refugees now living in exile either in camps or in Europe.  I don't think many of us would like it if we were forced to leave our family history, land and nation behind after a terrible period of destruction as many of the Syrian people have had to do. When I read Isaiah's words, I can only apply them spiritually since I have never had to live in conditions of a war torn country like Isaiah was speaking to.  So, like any good scholar or theologian, I have to first understand the history and context Isaiah was writing to and then ask what the text offers me as a American Caucasian living in a nation built on European settlers (my ancestors) who like the Assyrians, Babylonians, the Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires built their nations on land grabbing, genocide, slavery, and exploitation.  What is my obligation as a Christian to rebuild, raise up, restore, and repair the people who my nation has exploited?  Some in my nation believe that historically that the United States Of America is a Christian nation and needs to be called or taken back for Jesus' purpose.  Many of those who hold this position need to be asked "Back to what?" pseudo-historian David Barton calls us back to our founding fathers who owned salves, and American Evangelical Preachers claim American culture has experienced such rapid moral decline; "We need to take it back!" My question is for Who?  When? and What time period can we point to when our country was our country was an example of godly morality?   

       

Our national education system has always taught that our nation has always been a land of opportunity and it has been explained that this is the reason so many immigrants want to come here. The foundation of this thought begins in the idea of "Free Land and Free Labor!"  Can you imagine someone coming into your house, forcibly removing you, sending you into exile, and then saying "Free Land and Free Labor?"  That's what these pagan nations did to Israel. They took the ancient Hebrews and uprooted them from the Land and brought them into their empires to be their labor force to build their empires. In this same manner, the founding of America began with forcibly taking land from the First Nations people then trying to get them to be the labor force in the European's New Canaan. When the Native population fought back our early colonial ancestors killed them, took the land, forced them to migrate westward and finally incarcerated them into concentration camps called reservations.  Also, don't forget these illegal immigrant European leaders couldn't get the natives to cooperate to become their servants so they brought in the Africans - giving us a legacy of slavery. So what does all this have to do with those of us today who find ourselves engaged in the work of Isaiah 58:12?  

Recently, I was watching an episode of a great American TV ministry that tells an interesting version of American history that I think needs to be redressed.  The story about the Cape Henry landing.  The American Christian Myth is that The Virginia Company arrived to the shores of Cape Henry with good intentions.  Simplified, once they arrived to the shores of what today is Virginia Beach, The Rev. Robert Hunt and these early Virginia venturers plant the English flag and a cross and dedicated the land to God for the propagation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  There is no dispute here about the planting of a cross or of the English flag.  That is completely true.  But what is false is the fact that these venturers came with a motivation to spread the Gospel.  Here are few Questions to ask?  Who gave them permission to plant a flag and a cross and claim the land for their endeavors? A ruling council in England, composed of members of the joint-stock company who were usually merchants of great distinction, was formed immediately after King James I granted the charter of 1606.  By what authority did King James I have to grant such a charter?  It was granted under the "Doctrine Of Discovery" which says "Go to heathen, pagan, and unchristian lands, dispossess  the inhabitants and bring them into perpetual slavery!"  Now that sounds like a very noble thing for Christians to do, right?  They're heathens anyway - just wasting all this rich land which was needed for expanding the England's wealth. Here's what the charter reads:

"Wee, greately commending and graciously accepting of theire desires to the furtherance of soe noble a worke which may, by the providence of Almightie God, hereafter tende to the glorie of His Divine Majestie in propagating of Christian religion to suche people as yet live in darkenesse and miserable ignorance of the true knoweledge and worshippe of God and may in tyme bring the infidels and salvages living in those parts to humane civilitie and to a setled and quiet govermente"  

Notice that they are referred to as infidels and salvages (this language comes right out of the "Doctrine of Discovery").  Then notice the aim was to bring them under the control of the English government assuming that they had no governments of their own. Secondly, they aimed to use their anglican beliefs to bring them under English rule.  No where in the gospel or the Great Commission do we see this as a part of the mission assigned by Jesus to the church.  But, here another important reason the English came (and it had nothing to do with the Christian faith outlined in the New Testament): 

"the saide severall Colonies shall and lawfully may by vertue hereof, from time to time, without interuption of us, our heires or successors, give and take order to digg, mine and searche for all manner of mines of goulde, silver and copper, as well within anie parte of theire saide severall Colonies as of the saide maine landes on the backside of the same Colonies; and to have and enjoy the goulde, silver and copper to be gotten there of to the use and behoofe of the same Colonies and the plantacions thereof; yeilding therefore yerelie to us, our heires and successors."  

So, the principle motivation in "civilizing the natives" was to provide free labor for the plantations and to gather the gold, silver and copper for themselves, their heirs, and successors."  Wow.  This is a direct quote from the charter and not a mythical story that Rev. Robert Hunt and his co-labours (who came to pillage the land) planting a cross to further the Gospel.  In fact, during my work in seminary, I spent a great deal of time researching this story at the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Virginia and found that whoever did the writing of the scripts for the American TV ministry wrote a total fabrication of the facts.  The Cross was planted to let the Portuguese, the Spanish, and The Dutch know that this land (now known as Virginia) was English territory and was rightfully claimed under the "Doctrine Of Discovery." (See http://druumm.onefireplace.org/resources/documents/doctrine_of_discovery.pdf.pdf)   

I am somehow appalled at all the myths American Christians believe just because some big ministry says so.  My question is what is the purpose of telling these kind of myths.  Anyone who examines the real story of our nation will have to explain how could Christians say they were coming to propagate the natives and civilize them then be engaged in the genocide and pillaging of the resources of the land for the benefit of themselves, heirs and successors.  Even though they invoked the name of Jesus - show me in the Gospel how "thievery, murder and genocide" is a means of evangelism.  I can hear my critics now, "Yeah but they were savages and killed our ancestors!"  Here's the simple ancestor to that - If someone came onto your property, looted your house, and pointed a gun at you while doing it - would you fight back?   It's time that the church in American comes to grip with the truth. 

Here's another myth we all heard in school that was supposedly to instill within us the value of telling the truth - George Washington chopping down a cherry tree.  Maybe we should ask ourselves why the story of cherry tree being chopped down was so important that it was taught to us in the public school system. The symbolism is fascinating.  Imagine if this story was about a Fig Tree being chopped down like in Luke 13:6-9.  Israel is likened to a fig tree in the Bible. What does the cherry tree represent in our  American Story?  What does the hatchet represent?  Why did young George choose the cherry tree in particular? This is how we would exegete the story if it was in the Bible.

So, this Cherry tree myth is probably one of the most well-known and longest enduring legend about George Washington.  In the original story, when young George was about age six he received a hatchet as a gift and damaged his father's Cherry tree.  When his father discovered what he had done, he became angry and confronted him.  Young George bravely said, "I cannot tell a lie... I did cut it down with my hatchet."  Reportedly Washington's father embraced him and rejoiced that his son's honesty was worth far more than a thousand trees."  Thus the moral of the story is to "Tell The Truth!" Unfortunately, most American Christians can't handle the truth.  They would rather believe the myth of our nations founding, never acknowledge that the privileges we now enjoy as a people was built not one a mission to win people to the gospel but rather on theft, murder, slavery, rape and genocide.  Everything Christians should be redressing in light of Isaiah 58:12.   Psalm 33:4 says "For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth."  This text is very clear, that ALL GOD's works are done in truth!"  If I am to understand what the psalmist says - this means God does not work in areas of falsehood, lies, myths, legends, or in denial of truth - He only works in truth. In fact, Jesus said "I am The Truth!" (John 14:6).   But as the old adage says "Truth may set you free but first it may make you miserable!"  It's time for the church in America to come to grips with the Truth especially in its role in the "Doctrine of Discovery,"  "American Exceptionalism," and ensuring turning a blind eye to the truth of the church's role in the genocide of American tribes, their removal from the land, and the nations legacy of slavery.

So the next time you hear "Let's take America Back" or listen to those pseudo-Christian historians tell you we are a nation based on the Christian faith - ask "When was America a Christian Nation?"  What time period were godly principles employed in the foundation of our country -when at the same time the American church ran "residential schools"

(see http://www.nmai.si.edu/education/codetalkers/html/chapter3.html)

played a huge role in "slaver," and relegated African Americans to sit in the back of the church

(See http://scholar.library.miami.edu/emancipation/religion4.htm)  

and participated in the "Trail of Tears."

(see http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536601076.html)

and then we wonder why the nation is under judgement and little progress is made in "Healing the land."