Britons are heading to the polls in a few days to decide on their future in Europe. James McBride, a British-based minister for COGM, formerly with WCG then CGI, has recently opined on the subject. You can read his analysis here.
James' views aren't exactly subtle: "The future of the United Kingdom hangs in the balance, the core question being the vital one of national sovereignty." Surprisingly, "The nation is a divine institution. Nations develop from original family units that have grown large, each developing its unique language, culture, traditions (see Genesis 11)."
But it gets better: "The fusion of disparate nations - different in language, heritage, culture - in a union flies in the face of God's wise decision to establish mankind in sovereign nations."
Uh... where to begin. How about the "United Kingdom" itself. Do we assume James supports independence for Scotland and Wales? On this basis shouldn't the US abandon American Samoa and Puerto Rico?
Then again, might one ask James exactly which "original family units" were responsible for modern nations? In a North American context are we talking about Native American roots? I doubt that's what James means. In a Kiwi context are we talking about the Maori tribes that arrived on great sea-going canoes from Eastern Polynesia? Again, methinks James has something else in mind.
This kind of logic probably made sense in the Europe of the eighteenth century, an age of rampant jingoism. Today, not so much.