Triple the Fun
In response to Joe's pity for the fact that ONE of us has to work Sundays, the good news is that I'm on vacation. I have, however, found a wireless hot-spot for my daughter's new laptop computer, so I'll at least throw in an article for your consideration tonight. This will not only make up for the fact that I won't be able to post an article tomorrow, but also set an all-time DH record for three posts in just one day.
[Side note: I have not checked the veracity (is that the right word?) of this article. It is, however, an article, so it does meet the stringent requirements set forth in our by-laws.]
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
Published: June 17, 2005
St. Louis
IT would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.
It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.
People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality. Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers. But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith.
Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues. In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.
By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.
For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.
John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri.
[Side note: I have not checked the veracity (is that the right word?) of this article. It is, however, an article, so it does meet the stringent requirements set forth in our by-laws.]
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
Published: June 17, 2005
St. Louis
IT would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.
It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.
People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality. Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers. But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith.
Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues. In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.
By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.
For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.
John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri.
posted by Al Sturgeon | 7:05 PM
90 Comments:
Joe, I agree with you (naturally). I think God stresses tough love. Being a Christian is certainly not easy. We cannot go on living in darkness and expect to see His face. If we facilitate (by failing to condemn) others' sin, we are doing them no long-term favors.
The question is, though, how involved should the government get?
Should our government define morality (i.e.,marriage), or should we, as Christians, be working harder than ever to ensure God's idea of morality is perpetuated?
I know you (Joe) really believe the government should stay out of personal decisions.
As Christians, what do we do? I'm not a fan of people who bring their stand-up, shout-out politics to Church. I think we, as Christians, have both an individual and collective duty to vote for the moral benefit of our society (sometimes we disagree). But I'm also a proponent of separation of Church and State.
Someone help me here...how do I reconcile these? I am a Christian...I have a Christian duty. Does this duty necessarily require me to support government intervention into moral matters?
Joe: Point well taken in regard to "truth." I may assume too much, but I assume the implication made in the article, however, is that although we have the truth of Jesus, sometimes an issue is not so cut and dry in regard to truth - and although we have access to God, He doesn't always give clear answers to such issues.
I see your stem cell research question to fit perfectly here - there's an argument on both sides. Which one is right? (Article's answer: "People of faith are not of one mind...") We agree that we are to love both sides that are in need, so how do we deal with this legally? Well, there may be more than one stance on that... I think that's all he's saying...
Now the homosexual marriage question gets to Whitney's overall question (which I'm sure there are much better people than me to try to begin an answer)...
God did legislate morality to Israel and it didn't turn out so well. Jesus, in fact, was given the opportunity to do a world takeover (all the kingdoms of the earth) and turned it down, choosing a different path. We follow Him down that path...
Now in this country we get a voice in setting law, and the Constitution we live under leaves out giving religious preference to anyone; instead, religion is to be a free choice. I can't - and shouldn't - try to force you to follow my religious beliefs.
So, if our legal standard is not a religious standard, than what standard do we use as our basis?
It seems (and I may be way off here) that the basic premise agreed on is not to allow one person to harm another person. Everyone deserves protection and a fair chance. Our laws seem to be based on this overall concept (that can be generally agreed on with our without a religious text in hand).
You have a right to sin in America. In fact, a God-given right if you ask me. Jesus did not show God to be a God that forces morality. Instead, He loved those who did wrong, and in so doing, offered them a "better" path (the WAY and the truth and the life...). Your choice.
When we delve into matters like homosexuality...
I can't buy your argument that allowing homosexual marriage in our society is to condone it. If so, we condone greed. We condone adultery. We condone lying (in some instances). We condone lots and lots of things that are "sinful" according to the New Testament, and if this is the way it works, we've got a LOT of moral legislation to do (Jerry Falwell just shouted Hallelujah). I don't think we're called to legislate the Bible, however.
Now to apply...
Homosexual rape. Easily understood as wrong because it harms someone.
Homosexual marriage. You'll have to do some work to convince me that those who choose this are "harming" someone else (unless you look at it with a religious bent). In fact, NOT allowing it does fail to meet the standard of giving everyone a fair chance (tax breaks for marriage, etc.).
Okay, I'll quit writing before I start trying to explain my explanation... Hope others jump in to comment, too...
Whitney said:
Someone help me here...how do I reconcile these? I am a Christian...I have a Christian duty. Does this duty necessarily require me to support government intervention into moral matters?
An excellent question. I spent most of my 20s in grad school trying to find an answer to it. The answer I finally came to is: no, you do not have a Christian duty to support government intervention into moral matters. In fact, you may well have a Christian duty not to.
Christian morality applies to Christians. The morality of those outside the community of faith is not really any of our business. We are not to judge the servant of another. Besides, there are more than a few hints in scripture that Christian morality is not even possible without the help of the Spirit, which outsiders do not have.
The fundamental message of the New Testament on matter of church and state is that they are 2 separate realms. The church is a community set apart. It has standards and practices that don't apply outside its bounds. Thus, the Christian is a citizen of 2 worlds. Within the world of the church, s/he is to strive toward fulfilling the Kingdom; in the outside world, the NT's message seems to be, "Keep your head down, meet your obligations, and expect the worst. But don't let your treatment out there cause you to lose hope."
Which is why I have a problem with what Joe said:
My disagreement with Danforth is that by applying scripture in his own way, he supports homosexuality.
No, actually he doesn't. He simply declines to use the world's tools (the power of the state) to enforce Christian morality on those outside the Christian community. That's a long, looooong way from supporting homosexuality.
Danforth is doing what it is his Christian obligation to do. Jesus hung on a cross rather than use the power of the state (which was explicitly offered to him) to force himself on people. That is our example.
Al said:
the Constitution we live under leaves out giving religious preference to anyone; instead, religion is to be a free choice. I can't - and shouldn't - try to force you to follow my religious beliefs.
This is not only a constitutional principle, it is a Christian principle. To force one's religious beliefs (including morality) on others is to act in opposition to Christ.
juvenal said:
The fundamental message of the New Testament on matter of church and state is that they are 2 separate realms. The church is a community set apart. It has standards and practices that don't apply outside its bounds. Thus, the Christian is a citizen of 2 worlds. Within the world of the church, s/he is to strive toward fulfilling the Kingdom; in the outside world, the NT's message seems to be, "Keep your head down, meet your obligations, and expect the worst. But don't let your treatment out there cause you to lose hope."
I don't know that the NT is so clear on matters of church and state. In the world of the NT, the 1st cent CE, the idea of Christians in control of the government was not even on the horizon. The idea juvenal mentions does not deal with church and state, but church and the outside world. The scriptures that speak on the issue of the state say more about ultimate power belonging to God and the state deriving that from him (Romans 13, John 19:10-11). The idea comes from the OT concept that since God is the God of all peoples, not just a local God of Israel, he is in ultimate control of all nations and can use them for his will (see Isaiah 10:5-6 for one example).
Augustine is really one of the first to deal with the question of church and state in his City of God. The main reason it became an issue for the Western church was the conversion of Constantine. Since that time, many have tried to answer that question, some wanting to subsume the power of the state under the church and others arguing for the separation of church and state.
The idea of Christians legislating morality is not even addressed in the Bible and is not even in the purview of any of the NT writers. They could not even envision a world in which the church (see Christians) were in control of the government. I would say that they could not even imagine a system of representative government like what we have in the U.S. That's not how the world worked back then.
All this is to say that humility is of utmost importance for any Christian legislator (or for that matter, any Christian arguing for or against legislating morality based on what the NT says). Does this mean the Bible has nothing to say about this topic? In a sense, yes. As juvenal said, the church has standards of morality that do not apply to outsiders. Yet the Bible does have a lot to say about social justice issues such as how we treat the poor and those who are in need. God condemns those rich who would use dishonest practices to oppress others (Amos 8:1-7, for one reference). Jesus proclaimed a Jubilee for the poor and oppressed of his day, spending much of his time with such people (Luke 4:18-21).
Christians will choose different ways to address this problem. One might suggest that we use a system of Social Security to provide for their needs, while another might rather leave the government out of it and gather a group to go to the Salvation Army and serve food to the homeless. Both in my scenario are attempting to address the same issue of the morality for Christians, but in two strikingly different ways. Shall one of them say to the other, "You don't care about the poor" simply because the one chooses to treat the matter differently? Yet that is in essence what "liberal" and "conservative" politicals are saying to one another. Basically, "If you don't follow my version of the Bible's answer to this issue, you are wrong." (See Romans 14 where two different groups of Christians had two different understandings of what God wanted them to do, but both were doing what they did in honor of the Lord. Paul's basic response is don't judge one another [14:13], but instead pursue peace with one another and ways to build each other up [14:19] because we are not accountable to each other but to God [14:12])
The Bible does not directly address stem cell research, homosexual marriage (of course not, the government of the time did not give people a tax break for being married), and the like. It should be understandable then that issues such as these are more complicated than some would suggest. This does not mean that the Bible has nothing to say, but that what it says does not necessarily lead two faithful Christians to the same conclusion about what one's resulting action should be based upon one's belief in God. It would seem that we in Churches of Christ would understand this even better, considering our history of divisions on church practice such as one or multiple cups, kitchen or no kitchen, Sunday School or no Sunday School, etc. Have we still not learned our lesson?
(Sorry, juvenal, I don't mean to pick on you by only quoting you, it is just that your comments are at the bottom and I was thinking about what you said.)
I should have less to say more often and just post an article written by someone else - makes for better discussions.
I'm all for humility. In fact, I believe that was Danforth's original point (people of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research...blah, blah, blah...).
To me, the last half of Duane's comments simply reinforce the premise of Danforth's entire article (i.e. people of faith may come to different conclusions on these matters).
To the church/state discussion, however:
Duane writes, "They could not even envision a world in which the church (see Christians) were in control of the government. I would say that they could not even imagine a system of representative government like what we have in the U.S."
I, of course, agree, but offer that Jesus envisioned it (my reasoning, the stor of the temptations at the outset of his ministry). And so I have to agree with Juvenal that since Jesus did not offer the pursuit of political power (i.e. forcing Christianity on others) as his path, then my following his lead keeps me from making that my goal, too.
Pick away, Duane.
You're quite right that the NT documents never envision a world where the people are free to, and expected to, participate in the government. Nonetheless, it does give us broad principles for dealing with power, including the state.
I disagree with you regarding the NT's vision of the relationship between church and state (with power flowing organically from God to rulers) was the vision espoused by the church for centuries. There are several problems with it, all of which I good-naturedly suspect you are already familiar with.
For starters, you left out the most important NT passage directly addressing church-state: Jesus' directive to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Whatever else that cryptic remark might mean, it does express a fundamental separation of the two realms. Whatever Paul or John might have said on the subject must be interpreted in light of what Jesus said.
As for the much quoted Romans 13, I think we have fundamentally misunderstood it. It is the passage I specifically had in mind when, in my previous comment, I said the message of the NT seemed to be "keep your head down." Paul cannot have meant in Romans 13 what we usually interepret him to mean -- that there's some kind of positive ontological relationship between God and rulers. Why not? Because if that's what Paul means in Romans 13, then what Paul tells the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6.
Romans 13, as interpreted under your view, prescribes a completely different vision of and attitude toward rulers from 1 Cor. 6. (Not to mention, a completely different view from what Jesus' directive teaches.)
As for the OT, you're correct that it presents a very organic connection between God and rulers, and gives a great many policy prescriptions regarding social justice. However, I don't think it is appropriate to lift the vision of the OT out of its religious context and apply it to the post-OT world.
The OT is the story of God's national covenant with a specific people -- a political nation. He created their state, prescribed their civil laws, and personally directed their leaders. However, in Christ, God no longer covenants on a national level. There is no chosen political nation. God's covenant in Christ is a personal one with whomever chooses to engage it.
Much as I like the social justice message of the OT, I can't lift it out of the OT and apply it now. Neither is it appropriate to do so with passages like the oft-quoted, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." National covenanting is not something God does anymore.
What I can take from the OT is a picture of what kind of god God is, and who and what he cares about. I know, for instance, that God cares deeply about the poor. On that, the OT and NT speak with one voice. Therefore, I know I should care deeply about the poor. But how (or whether) I should put that care into political action is less clear.
some wanting to subsume the power of the state under the church and others arguing for the separation of church and state.
And some wanted to subsume the power of the church under the state, something that still goes on today, though in a different form.
One thing we do agree on, Duane, is that humility is always the best way to go.
"Because if that's what Paul means in Romans 13, then what Paul tells the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6."
Should read:
"Because if that's what Paul means in Romans 13, then what Paul tells the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6 makes no sense."
I think humility is one of my greatest attributes.
There's a nice article in the latest copy of Relevant Magazine that dovetails nicely with this discussion. Naturally, they haven't posted that article on their website (www.relevantmagazine.com) yet. If anyone wants to call me, I'll read it to them.
Why don't you just type it in here. It can't be any longer than some of my comments, or Duane's.
Great conversation ... But an initial response.
Juvenal states: "Because if that's what Paul means in Romans 13, then what Paul tells the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6 makes no sense."
From the context, I'm not buying the correlation drawn from I Cor. 6.
Paul instructs the church at Corinth not to bring disputes started and relating solely to the internal family before a political and secular court.
I don't see how that relates to the expected action/attitude of God's children re: social injustice an external problem that should be addressed by God's family.
Wow, what a great discussion!
I remember when I was growing up, my Mom would always say "you can't legislate morality!" She said it a lot. I hear other people say it, a lot. A few years back, I was reading the Texas Penal Code, and it occurred to me that legislation consists almost entirely of morality. Said a different way, almost all law is in one form or another a legislation of morality.
In many muslim countries, you can slit your daughter's throat because she was raped. In America, that will get you tried for murder. Two different cultures, two different sets of laws regarding the morality of the culture.
The question is not whether or not morality is being legislated, but whose morality is being legislated.
Politically active Christians are attempting to see to it that their morality is legislated rather than the other guy's. It's just that simple.
I've always admired the framers. They put in place a system that allows Christians to rule without Christianity ruling. "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1) takes on a whole different dimension when discussing self government. The framers built a system where Christians must be active in government (politics) or they are being disobedient. I love it ... and am active.
Far from believing that Christians should just stay out of the fray, I believe that we should "occupy until He comes". That means that we must do our best to understand what God is telling us in scripture, and apply it to modern times and situations. Sometimes we fail at this because we are a flawed people, but this is no reason to quit. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, but in either case we keep running the race.
Take homosexual marriage ... if we simply give in and say that our morals should not be applied to those who are not Christians then we get to live with what Torronto lives with. I'm sorry, but I don't want a bunch of mostly naked men displaying different fisting techniques in the center of my town. In Canada, if you are Christian and preach against homosexuality as a lifestyle, then you've broken the law and can be arrested. The Christians in Canada gave in, they didn't fight with enough vigor or numbers or whatever to keep out the homosexual agenda and now they are losing their freedom of speech. Do we want that here? I don't, so I fight.
If Christian morals are not legislated then whose? Atheists? Secular Humanists? Muslims? Whose?
Greg
I can only give a cursory response as I have to finish typing up some notes for the class I’m teaching tonight, but here goes anyway.
First, I don’t think I gave a view about what the NT vision is regarding church and state. I don’t think it is something the NT addresses at all in the sense of our current discussion.
Juvenal, I’m sure we agree on a lot more than just humility. Let’s start with what
Juvenal said:
For starters, you left out the most important NT passage directly addressing church-state: Jesus' directive to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Whatever else that cryptic remark might mean, it does express a fundamental separation of the two realms. Whatever Paul or John might have said on the subject must be interpreted in light of what Jesus said.
While I disagree that this passage has anything to do with church and state, to show what I mean, take a look at the context in Mark 12. The passage follows:
13 Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 14 And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15 Should we pay them, or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it." 16 And they brought one. Then he said to them, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" They answered, "The emperor's." 17 Jesus said to them, "Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were utterly amazed at him.
The difference in translation does not really make much of a difference in terms of the context. That is where I will point anyone every time. What we bring to this passage is church and state. That is our issue, not Jesus’. (I’ll discuss Mark’s issue in a minute.) The surface point is clear. Religious and political rulers of the day try to trap Jesus by asking him if it is lawful (obviously lawful not meaning in terms of Roman law, but Jewish law) to pay taxes to the emperor. There are two ways they are trying to trap him. The first is whether or not he’s a political revolutionary—hence the Herodians. If he says don’t pay taxes, that ultimately is a stance against the Roman government, and the Herodians are there to catch him as advocating treason. The other trap is from the religious side. The Pharisees know that the OT Law forbids any graven images, not just of God, but of anything, to include humans (see Exodus 20:4). But Jesus does not even have a denarius with the image of the emperor on it. Who does? The Phariees! His ultimate answer, “Go ahead and pay taxes.” (And one might assume, don’t make any graven images like God commands—one possible interpretation of “give to God what is God’s.” To know exactly what Jesus has in mind here is really a matter of trying to read his mind. He does not specify what it means to give to God what is God’s so I would suggest that we not try to specify either and pretend that our answer is what he meant to the exclusion of all other possible answers.) So, as opposed to other would-be Messiahs of the day, Jesus is saying, “I did not come to overthrow the Roman government,” not “keep church and state separate.” The latter is our issue. Such is the context in Jesus’ day.
The context of Mark is shortly before the destruction of the temple and the Jewish War of 66-70 C.E. Part of the misunderstanding of Jesus’ disciples relates directly to Mark’s audience. Just as Peter only confesses Jesus as Christ and misunderstands what that means, it is very likely that Mark’s readers still misunderstand their role in the Jewish War. Should they participate in the attempted revolt against the Roman government or not? The answer from Jesus’ lips for their time is a definite, “no.” Submit to Roman authority.
So, then, rather than Jesus’ remark expressing a fundamental separation of the two realms (our issue), it really expresses a submission to the Roman government and its authority.
While it is true that, Whatever Paul or John might have said on the subject must be interpreted in light of what Jesus said, what he said agrees with what they say (and BTW, in John it is Jesus who says it, not John), which is basically, submit to governmental authority and don’t try to overthrow it. That is not your place. He does not address participation in government and certainly not legislating morality.
Now for the OT. I don’t think there is an “organic” connection between God and rulers either in the OT or the NT. The fundamental belief as I see it expressed is that God has the ultimate power and can and does use human governments to enact his purposes. That is why I intentionally chose Isaiah 10, rather than something having to do with the covenant with Israel. Isaiah 10:5-6 says, “5 Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger-- the club in their hands is my fury!
6 Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.”
I’m not sure that anyone would argue that God has a covenant with Assyria, yet Isaiah clearly states that God is using that nation for his purposes (see also the complaint of Habakkuk and the Babylonians). See also Isaiah 45:1 “Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him-- and the gates shall not be closed.”
The concept is that God does use nations to carry out his will, not just Israel. All power belongs to him and he is in ultimate control of human rulers and governments. Is he always using them? Probably not, but Jesus and Paul (not to mention Peter in 1 Peter 2) represent this OT view (it was their Bible after all).
See what happens when you give me a day off? I write too much. Sorry for the long comments.
Nothing to be sorry for from where I sit, Duane! :-)
You guys remember the kid in college who asked the really stupid questions, but how on occasion you were really glad he asked them because it was your question, too, and you were just afraid to look stupid?
Well, I'm glad we all understand the role I play for some of our readers out there...
I'll risk looking stupid twice:
FIRST POTENTIALLY STUPID QUESTION:
I think I understand the current issue on the table to be whether or not Christians, based on Scripture of course, should support efforts to make "Christian" morality (not the non-religious moral standard of "my rights end where your nose begins" and giving everyone a chance) the law - whether or not the person is interested in following the Christian moral in question or not. To this issue, Juvenal votes against, Greg votes for, and Duane abstains by claiming that both ways are possibly justified from Scripture.
Is this right?
SECOND POTENTIALLY STUPID QUESTION:
Does everyone now agree with Danforth's basic argument? (Re-read his 1st paragraph if you need.) It seems that Duane and Juvenal agreed on this, and no one is arguing against.
Thank you for your support.
Bartyles and Jaymes
Al,
Good way to sum up so far. I would answer "yes" on both counts.
I've also seen Jesus' temptation to rule the kingdoms of the world used several times in this discussion to support abstaining from legislating morality because Jesus abstained from government. I really have a hard time making that view fit the context of the temptation scene and make it say something about church and state. I hesitate to say this because of where it might send our discussion, but Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew, and he was not a member of the church, he was its Messiah. It is stepping outside the realm of the politics of his day to say that his rejection of the kingdoms of the world means a rejection of Christian participation in government. It was instead a rejection of first of all worshiping anyone other than God, and second, a rejection of earthly Messiahship. He did not come to set up an earthly kingdom (see my earlier comment from Isaiah 45:1 on Cyrus as God's Messiah in an earthly way), but he redefined what Messiah was. That is what his rejection of the kingdoms of the world is about. If you can somehow take that meaning and then show me the connection, I might buy your interpretation. But that has to be the starting point.
Once again, I keep trying to push the idea that the Bible, including the NT, is not clear on the subject and could not possibly be. That's why we have people within our own history such as Barton Stone who was completely against such things as voting and was a strict pacifist (which is not very common). Alexander Campbell, on the other hand was not in agreement with that point of view. In fact, he was very much behind a social/governmental solution to the slavery problem that was Liberia--free the slaves and send them back to Africa, their homeland, even though they came from many different nations. But I digress.
Some legislated morality has worked. If it were not for Social Security, how many people who pay taxes that go towards this would give money to help those who are disabled, who have a father or mother die and can no longer make a living, etc.? I truly believe that poverty would be much worse in this country than it is right now (and it is pretty bad). But that is probably less legislating of morality than it is related to the idea of all people being created equal and deserving fair treatment. (If you can't tell, I've stepped out of my realm of knowledge here.)
Having said all of that, I am more in agreement with Juvenal in that I don't believe it is possible and maybe not even desirable, to try to legislate morality. But that is my opinion. And it comes more from the idea of John, 1 John, and 1 Peter of being "in the world but not of the world" and being "aliens and strangers" in regard to the world rather than thinking that the Bible teaches us to stay out of politics. It is my action in response to what it means to be "in the world but not of the world," but it is not the only valid response to what it means to live that way.
I'll echo Joe's and some others' "Wow!" This is a fantastic conversation...why am I the only woman here?
Juvenal, if I read the first part of your comment/answer right, I have to ask: Are you saying that I (we) have a Christian duty to NOT support government intervention? Therefore, do we simply not vote? Or do we vote to support things that stand in opposition to what we proclaim to be Christlike? I do appreciate your answer, and I see your point. I don't think I agree 100%, but you make an argument that is definitely worth my time and consideration.
I have not finished reading further than Greg's comments yet, but wanted to say to you, Greg, thank you for your answer. The more I thought about this topic, the more I started to come to the same conclusions you set forth.
That said, there is no quick and easy answer, definitely worthy of more study of the Word. What I do see here is a group of Christians who will act according to what they see as being the right, Christian thing to do. If we act according to our good conscience (fully convinced in our own minds--Romans 14:5-7), then I think we may all be right.
Thanks, Duane.
As to SS, I would argue that, whether people like the specific program or not, it is based on the overall premise set forth in the Preamble (justice, general welfare, etc.), and not on religious grounds.
And as to the Temptation story, I'll bring up something I posted a few weeks back now from Eugene Peterson - the idea from Luke/Acts that the Christ with a nose and ears carried on after his return trip home in the Spirit-blessed disciples.
Specifically, Paul's trials are reminiscent of Jesus's trials in their indifference to political power as to the practice of Christianity.
Peterson wrote, "It is quite extraordinary, really. First Jesus and then Paul have the attention, even if briefly, of the most important leaders in that part of the world and fail to convert them, fail to bring them to their knees, fail even to get taken seriously by them. But it seems the indifference was mutual... [Later, he continued...] Strategies are introduced from time to time to target "important" leaders, men and women in high places in government, business, or the media, for conversion. It is not a practice backed by biblical precedent. There are, of course, Christians in high places politically and prominent in the celebrity pantheon, but their position and standing doesn't seem to mean anything strategically significant in terms of God's kingdom. To suppose that if we can just "place" Christian men and women in prominent positions of leadership, we are going to improve the efficacy of the community in worship, missions, or evangelism, has no warrant in Scripture or history."
OKAY, I MAY HAVE LOST EVERYBODY, BUT COME BACK NOW IF YOU'RE SCANNING THIS COMMENT!!!
I may be way off here, but I don't think anyone (Juvenal, and for the remedial class, me) is arguing against Christian participation in government. The argument is that, (a) there are no good reasons to force non-disciples to behave like Christians, and related to that, (b) if we do, it has absolutely no positive effect on the kingdom of God. (Example: Bar two homosexual people from marriage; they are still homosexual people, and how will this help disciples of Jesus be more like Him? Or from history, let's threaten the Indians until they get baptized!)
My personal conclusion is that Christians should vote (like Duane argues, I don't condemn those like Stone and Lipscomb, who advocate non-participation). My idea is based on the Parable of the Talents. We were born with a voice in our laws, and we should use it (my conclusion).
My argument, sounding redundant here, is that our voice is misused - better yet, wasting time - when our most important issues involve forcing people to behave like Christians. Instead, I think our voice should be used to advocate the admirable foundations of our government like justice, domestic peace, equal treatment under the law, etc.
Are we talking homosexual bestiality or heterosexual bestiality?
:-)
Sorry. Just kidding.
I'll apologize for this one in advance, but it is kind of funny to write this response with your big longhorn picture featured on the comment page staring back at me! :-)
Mooooon, river!!!!!!!!
I think there's been a long-held understanding that animals deserve a little protection, too, don't you agree? Killing for food and to prevent overpopulation have been the basic standards, I believe, and bestiality has generally been considered a bit inconsiderate of animals. I don't know, they might like it.
The point is that the standard is not a religious standard. If someone argues legalizing bestiality, the legal argument in our country is not that God doesn't like it.
Therefore, prostitution and polygamy are up for argument I'd think.
I believe the general argument against prostitution is the widespread abuse of women that accompanies it, which very much fits the standards I proposed. The legal standard isn't that the Bible thinks it is a sin. The same goes for polygamy.
All three of these DO fit the legal standards I proposed (so far in America), but if they don't, then someone can make a good argument for making them legal. And if they do, what does the Kingdom of God gain by the result of the battle over legality?
Soapbox: This brings up the oft-offered argument that we should protect the "sanctity" of marriage. What does that mean?
Christians are called to marriage according to God's terms. Non-Christians are not. How do we sanctify non-Christian marriages?
Oh, and to the last paragraph, we already accept/legitimize all sorts of sin according to your standards, don't we?
A little hyperbole right back atcha! Should we require church attendance (okay non-church goers, this is for the sake of argument, so give me a break)? Should we require baptism? The list could go on and on, but you see my point.
DeJon said:
Paul instructs the church at Corinth not to bring disputes started and relating solely to the internal family before a political and secular court.
This is not a purely internal dispute, unless all you mean by that is that it's between two church insiders. The dispute in 1 Cor. 6 is a legal dispute over property. Somebody is cheating someone. Those are matters generally decided by civil courts. There is no reason for the Corinthian Christians to think of it as an internal matter -- that is, until Paul warns them away from the civil courts.
Paul's opinion of government officials in this passage is certainly very different from that presented in Romans 13, as usually interpreted.
Romans 13: government officials are God's instruments and should be supported.
1 Cor. 6: government officials are corrupt and unholy and should be avoided.
Joe & Al,
I see both of your points...still thinking this one over.
But Al, I have a question. If one of the aforementioned issues were to go to a vote of the people (you already said you think we should vote), what side do you take?
Do you you vote for pushing "our" morality (I prefer to call it God's morality) on others? Or do you vote with Satan? I am not trying to be mean here, but don't you think if the legality of homosexual marriage went to a vote (as it did last year in several states) and the majority said, "Yeah, I'm OK, you're OK...do what you please...ladies, marry your ladies. Men, marry your men," Satan would be doing backflips of joy.
I agree that we shouldn't force our views and/or morality on others as we go through our daily lives. (I mean, we could drag 'em kickin' & screamin' into the baptistry, but then we might accidentally drown someone, and that would do harm--right back at square one.) They will either accept it or they will not.
But given the choice, don't we have an obligation to let our voice be heard through our vote?
Can anyone give me an argument how, as a Christian, you could vote to legalize something obviously immoral? Therefore accepting it by failing to condemn it?
How does this scripture apply? Luke 11:23 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters."
p.s. Al, Joe's longhorn picture freaks me out, too. Moo.
DeJon said:
I don't see how that relates to the expected action/attitude of God's children re: social injustice an external problem that should be addressed by God's family.
Romans 13 is no more about social injustice than 1 Cor. 6. Neither of them are. (Actually, 1 Cor. 6 might be, given what we know about the makeup of the Corinthian church, but leaving that aside...)
GregS said:
I've always admired the framers. They put in place a system that allows Christians to rule without Christianity ruling.
They did no such thing. Such a position is completely unsupportable on the historical record.
Your later question, however, about "if not Christian morality, then whose?" gets right at the most difficult issue in the whole arena of church-state relations. It's not one anybody has the answer to.
You are correct that a nation's laws do reflect morality. Always and unavoidably. Legal and political philosophers to this day are still trying to figure out how that can or should work in a pluralistic society like America's, allowing the most liberty possible for all the various belief systems (thus avoiding civil strife) while still managing to maintain some set of common national values (so that laws are possible).
For my money, the philosopher John Rawls has the best take on it thus far, though his argument is not without its problems.
Ay, carumba! I hardly know where to start with Duane's comments. So much good stuff there, and so much of it I disagree with. :)
Needless to say, Duane, I think your reading of "render unto Caesar" is incorrect. The political and religious complications of who asked Jesus the question -- the Herodians and the Pharisees -- heightens the passage's relevance to church-state, rather than reduces it to a passage in which Jesus merely affirms the 2nd Commandment and the God-given legitimacy of secular rulers. We do not bring the conflict between religous claims on us and political claims on us to this passage, the Herodians and Pharisees do. And they impose them on Jesus, which was precisely their point. To put him in a no-win situation between God and Rome. His response is to say, in effect, "Y'all are talking about two different worlds here."
One way out of the problem is to completely spiritualize Christ's kingdom -- a popular route, but one I think is wrongheaded (and one I recognize you haven't taken, Duane). Certainly there is a large spiritual component, but there is a this-worldly component, as well. Yes, he said "my kingdom is not of this world," but he also said he came to do many this-worldly things (relating mostly to the social justice issues you raised from the HB). Rather than force all of those passages into little spiritual boxes, as we have tended to do, ISTM we should take a second look at what "of this world" means, recognize how vague it inherently is, how many different meanings it could equally well support (not just the one we automatically assume), and then try to understand which one Jesus intended by reading it in the context of the rest of his life, and not failing to include in that process all those very this-worldly things he said and did.
For example, by "not of this world," Jesus could have been saying there was nothing in this world that looks even remotely like his kingdom. He could be saying the way to enter or advance (or advance in) his kingdom is not through the means ordinarily offered by the world for that purpose -- i.e., humility rather than pride, generosity rather than greed, love for all rather than love just for those like oneself, peacemaking rather than vast imperial armies, accepting being wronged rather than demanding your "props," etc. And those are just 2 possibilities off the top of my head.
Aside from the Caesar passage, I suppose I also don't have to say I think you're misreading the temptations scene. I understand and appreciate your emphasis on Jesus' Jewishness, but, as with the Caesar passage, I don't think that excludes the larger political meaning the passage carries for us today.
And I continue to disagree with you about God's continuing relationship to nations. The passages you quoted from Isaiah don't quite support your argument. No, certainly nobody argues that God had a covenant with Assyria. However, he did have a national covenant with Israel, and he therefore used another nation to punish that nation for its violations of the covenant. His use of Assyria was still born of the fact that God had a national covenant with Israel. A unique and special covenant, btw, regardless of his also being God, in a larger sense, over all people and nations.
Once again, I keep trying to push the idea that the Bible, including the NT, is not clear on the subject and could not possibly be.
That, I completely agree with. That's why my original comment which you responded to was qualified in its language -- "the overall message seems to be..." (emphasis added).
That's why we have people within our own history such as Barton Stone who was completely against such things as voting and was a strict pacifist (which is not very common).
Well, it was quite common in the Stone-Campbell Movement (I assume that's the context you're referring to) in Stone's day. And remained pretty common well into the 20th century.
And lastly (I heard that cheer, btw):
rather than thinking that the Bible teaches us to stay out of politics
Let me make it clear that I'm not arguing that Christians should stay out of politics. I think, as GregS said, that it is our duty to our countrymen, as citizens, to be involved in our democracy -- not because it depends on Christians, but because a democracy needs all its citizens to be involved.
My point is not about whether or not we should be involved, but about how we should be involved, and with what attitude.
Joe said:
Should we remove laws against bestiality from the books since no one's getting hurt?
Yes.
What about polygamy?
Yes. (The only possible constitutionally valid reason that I can think of for outlawing polygamy is the chaos it could throw our inheritance laws into. To my knowledge, that reason hasn't been used. The reasoning used in the 1878 Reynolds decision, however, was constitutionally indefensible, IMO.)
Prostitution?
Maybe.
By allowing homosexual marriage in our society, that would signal an acceptance of the behavior.
An acceptance of the behavior in a secular society ruled by a Constitution we've agreed to live by and which guarantees equal rights to every person under the law, yes.
An acceptance in some religious or ecclesiastical sense, no. Christians all over the country would continue to teach against it.
Loudly, I suspect.
Isn't Christianity strong enough to stand on its own two feet? Isn't Jesus' message attractive enough to draw people to live like him without using the police to force them to?
Whit said:
Can anyone give me an argument how, as a Christian, you could vote to legalize something obviously immoral?
I can give you 3.
One, because Christians are to be true to our word, meet our obligations, and treat other people with the respect we would want to be treated with. As American citizens, we Christians have agreed to abide by the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees equality to everyone under the law. Not just Christians. Not just nice people. Not just moral people. As Christians, we must support anyone whose rights are being violated under the Constitution we all agreed to abide by. It is the right thing to do.
We can have a disagreement over whether or not this group or that group's rights really are being violated, and that's fine. But we should be careful, learn from our history, and be humble.
Second, because you cannot take by force what can only be given voluntarily. Morality lived to avoid the police is morally meaningless. God asks us to live like Christ out of our own desire to do so. It must be voluntary.
Third, my disagreement with Duane notwithstanding, because Jesus could have forced people to live moral lives, and chose instead to go to the cross. He is ultimately our example. Not the Founders (whatever one may believe about what they intended for America vis-a-vis Christianity).
Whit said:
How does this scripture apply? Luke 11:23 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters."
I don't think it does. Likewise, Mk. 9:40 -- "Whoever is not against us is for us."
(Somebody stop me before I post again. I need an intervention.)
Viewed from a purely practical point of view, trying to use the power of state to demand that people live godly lives has been tried and tried and tried. It has never worked. Ever. Not once.
It didn't work in Puritan New England or Anglican Virginia. It didn't work in Calvin's Geneva. It didn't work in Savonarola's Florence. It didn't work in Jan of Leyden's Germany. It didn't work in Catholic Spain or France or Protestant Holland. It didn't even work in Israel with God himself running the show.
It always ends up in both religious decline, and political disaster.
Two courses of actions for Christians flow from this:
a) The Church accepts homosexuality
b) The Church is publicly silenced on the issue under the premise that preaching against homosexuality is now "hate speech" against a protected group of citizens.
Now, Joe. That's just the Chicken Little conservative in you talking. :) Churches continue to freely preach and teach publicly against a vast host of things that are perfectly legal and have been for decades or centuries.
Churches teach against divorce w/o being silenced for hate speech against divorced people.
Churches teach against adultery w/o being silenced for hate speech against adulterers.
Churches teach against fornication w/o being silenced for hate speech against fornicators.
Churches teach against drinking w/o being silenced for hate speech against alcoholics.
Churches teach against pornography w/o being silenced for hate speech against pornographers.
Churches teach against gluttony w/o being silenced for hate speech against obese people.
Churches teach against envy w/o being silenced for hate speech against envious people.
Churches teach against devil worship w/o being silenced for hate speech against Satanists.
Churches teach against rock and roll w/o being silenced for hate speech against rock stars.
Churches teach against other world religions w/o being silenced for hate speech against Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims.
Protestant churches teach against Catholicism w/o being silenced for hate speech against Catholics.
Catholic churches teach against Protestantism w/o being silenced for hate speech against Protestants.
You get the point.
Since we've established that the government can't legislate morality, then we need to get rid of government benevolence as well. Because, really, isn't it a moral issue that we have social security and welfare programs?
Ah. See, now, that's a serious argument.
That's the problem Christians on my side of the political line face. (It's part of a larger problem I call the "Martin Luther King Test," but I won't go into that.) My personal opinion is that welfare programs are fully justified on purely secular grounds. As a conservative, you may not share that view. But we can have a discussion about it in purely secular terms, without either of us making any necessary reference to religious beliefs. In that way, you and I can discuss that issue even if we happened to come from two completely different religious belief systems.
Christians in the Religious Right tend not to function that way. They want Christian policies enacted for Christian reasons, and if they don't get it they pitch a screaming fit. (How they think that behavior brings any of the sinners they're so concerned about any closer to the church, I don't know, but that's another issue.)
Comment #38 (sorry for the blatant gloating DeJon - I'll enjoy the limelight, never to pass my way again).
I really don't have anything to add, other than Juvenal's first answer to Whit's question was the one I would have given had I been near a computer. I might could have come up with the third one given time, but I doubt it.
Oh wait, I do have something to add. Juvenal responded to the questions Joe raised in regard to benevolence, government-style. I would just add that my non-religious-based foundations for legislation attempted to include these... That a government that forces its citizens to pay and play by its rules are required to give its citizens a fair chance. I think that applies here...
I've always admired the framers. They put in place a system that allows Christians to rule without Christianity ruling.
"They did no such thing. Such a position is completely unsupportable on the historical record."
C'mon, man! Almost all of the early state constitutions required a belief in God in order to even run for office. Quotes about morality and God are so numerous in our early history that they have to be intentionally ignored not to appreciate the historical significance.
"An acceptance in some religious or ecclesiastical sense, no. Christians all over the country would continue to teach against it. Loudly, I suspect."
They're not allowed to do that in Canada, already. Legally binding immorality into the culture has placed our neighbors to the North on a slippery slope with potentially dire consequences. The first casualty appears to be the freedom to preach the truth.
"As Christians, we must support anyone whose rights are being violated under the Constitution we all agreed to abide by. It is the right thing to do."
This is your justification for supporting immorality? It is the right thing to do to support something that is so obviously wrong? I'm failing to see the logic here.
You're using one phrase out of a rambling amendment intended to abolish slavery to constitutionally justify making something legal that will almost certainly harm society. What rights are these folks being denied? They already have the freedom to marry ... someone of the opposit sex. To go farther creates a right where none previously existed.
To honest, I'm not all that crazy about legislating "my" morality. I don't really care what someone does in their bedroom. The problem is that these people are not interested in "live and let live". They want to recruit my kids into their lifestyle. They are not interesting in equal protection under the law, they are interested in their protection under the law and everyone else be damned. And so, we fight.
G
Comment #38
Yeah, and I've said so much, I don't have to post another article for, like, a month.
Almost all of the early state constitutions required a belief in God in order to even run for office.
Oh, that. I thought you were talking about the Framers.
Yes, most of the early state constitutions required belief in God to hold office. Lots of practices not entirely consistent with the principles of the Constitution existed long after it was ratified. That fact doesn't miraculously make them constitutional.
Quotes about morality and God are so numerous in our early history that they have to be intentionally ignored not to appreciate the historical significance.
Yes, nearly all the Founders talked a lot about God and morality. Just like nearly all politicians today talk a lot about God and morality. You take them all as sincere? Moreover, if you look closely at those comments about God and morality the Founders made, you'll find most of them are not specifically Christian.
The problem is that these people are not interested in "live and let live". They want to recruit my kids into their lifestyle.
Um, yeeeeeah. You're aware you want to do the same thing to their kids, right?
They are not interesting in equal protection under the law, they are interested in their protection under the law and everyone else be damned.
Again with the irony.
They already have the freedom to marry ... someone of the opposit sex. To go farther creates a right where none previously existed.
And the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, where did that "previously exist" in our Constitution?
I get comment #43, then I have to go to an elders meeting (I'm not just stuffing the ballot box, DeJon).
I want to say something else back to Whitney's question in regard to voting "with God" or "with Satan," mainly because the concept is probably a new one for many, and very, very important.
Let's stick with homosexual marriage as an example. Most definitely the PR folks pit it as God vs. Satan, but try to think of it this way. Joe said he did not support a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage - so since you haven't kicked him out of the house, there must be some justification for an issue not being so cut and dry! :-)
Here's the deal, and I don't think a lot of people remember Civics class too well in this regard: (a) laws are made to be in keeping with the framework of the Constitution; we vote for people generally to enact laws, and from time to time the specific laws themselves, that have to be in keeping with the Constitution; (b) constitutional amendments are enacted to change the constitution (sorry that the definition sounds insulting, but I'm trying to cover all bases).
So back to our example: Let's say one of our states, like for instance, MINE, proposes a law that bans gay marriages. When I vote, my vote could be on simply whether I like it or not, but if I were a responsible citizen, I would vote on whether or not the proposed law is within the framework of the Constitution. I am not voting for or against the practice of homosexuality. I am voting for or against a law that may violate the foundation of our government.
Which brings me to Joe's controversial "no" vote on the constitutional amendment. If the Constitution were amended, then gay marriage is suddenly unconstitutional - fundamentally against the law. That would change everything.
I personally think the amendment is bad news, too, simply because the non-religious agreements we've come to on how to base our system of law would internally conflict. Homosexual partners are not hurting anyone else, and as citizens, deserve equal treatment under our laws. To ban marriage for them is either (a) to do so on purely religious grounds, or (b) to misuse the power of the majority to deny equal treatment of a minority. Both bad.
Anyway, I think all this is worth talking about because the popular spin is that an issue is God vs. Satan. Instead, based on THIS country's foundation of law, that rarely, if ever, is the case.
The problem is that these people are not interested in "live and let live". They want to recruit my kids into their lifestyle.
"Um, yeeeeeah. You're aware you want to do the same thing to their kids, right?"
LOL! That's really pretty funny.
And the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, where did that "previously exist" in our Constitution?
It didn't ... it pre-dated by, well, a few thousand years. In our laws, it preceded the constitution by at least a couple of centuries. William Blackstone discusses marriage (and adultery as a tort) in his commentaries on the law which pre-dates the constitution by a number of years.
Is there historical precedence for homo-sexual marriage?
And how did we end up with polygamy being illegal? Is that actually in the Bible? Maybe Al should write an article on that one.
G
Polygamy? I don't know that I'm qualified. Now prostitution, on the other hand...
Just kidding.
I'm still a bit cracked up by the bestiality discussion and the cow picture. As I was thinking about the legal stuff, it suddenly struck me as funny to think about undercover detectives out trying to bust a serial-bestialiator (or whatever you'd call that person). Would you actually call the goat to the witness stand? ("I mean, I know I was looking sexy that evening, but that does not give him the right...")
Last I checked, there was nothing in our Constitution about adopting Blackstone's commentaries or anybody's thousands of years of practice. You conservatives have got to make up your minds on this whole strict construction thing with regard to constitutional rights. You're making me dizzy.
So, which is it? Are we sticking to just the ones stated, or can we read logically implied others into it (i.e., "create them where they didn't previously exist")?
And how did we end up with polygamy being illegal?
Because we hated the Mormons. (See the Reynolds case I previously mentioned.)
LOL! That's really pretty funny.
Let's try to keep the conversation above the adolescent, shall we?
Al,
I said I wasn't going to post again, but you made me.
Joe and I actually agree on this. We have the same stance, which is why I think he is wonderful and smart (even when we don't agree, he's still so smart it is irritating) and haven't kicked him out.
Should we legislate morality? No. I don't think we should. But when we ARE asked to do just that, do we have an obligation to make decisions that support what we, as Christians, believe? I think so, and will therefore do what I think is right. This is not a matter we must agree one, but I could not, with clean conscience, vote to accept homosexuality as normal. Can't do it. Same with all the other issues you mention.
Just an aside, Greg, I'm all with you about them trying to force their views on us. (Juvenal says, Oh, the irony. Whatever.) When I was in grad school I never said one bad thing about homosexuals--it grosses me out, but I wasn't hateful. I knew a few gay individuals, and was polite, nice, and never degrading. I did not agree, but I was not ugly about it. But you should've heard the ugly, mean, hateful things that were said about people who thought it was wrong. The simple truth (to them) was the we were not allowed to believe it was wrong. They were just fine to say that WE were wrong, they were expressing their right to free speech. We say that they were doing something wrong, and it became "hate." Huh?
Anyway, this argument is getting very, very tedious. Like I said in a previous post: We all have convinced ourselves in our hearts. I don't think anyone is WRONG. Right, Duane?
(I'm sorry, I don't know how to use the HTML tags to emphasize things, so I just make them BIG.)
Joe has good arguments.
Juvenal has good arguments.
So does Greg, and so does Al.
I haven't had much of an argument...mostly questions to stoke the fire. :-)
Lucky for me, you guys stoke the fire just fine on your own.
I think this is a valuable discussion for all of us.
Just don't bring me a petition to sign at Church and I'll be just fine.
And Al, quit gloating. It's annoying. ;)
I think Al's comments about...well, he's cracking me up.
And it is totally adolescent. but FUNNNNNY! Lighten up, Juv. Remember, the medium does not allow us to fully "get" what every person is saying or how they say it.
Keep me laughing. I'm supposed to be working on a paper about Privacy Concerns when providing information to the feds. This is much more interesting...and I'm way behind.
My apologies, Whitney. But, in all sincerity, my patience with the brethren on all these issues has worn thin over the years. By and large, nobody really wants to think hard about these issues -- these fundamental questions about how we as Christians are supposed to live in the world -- they just want to think enough to find a justification for the views they already hold.
So when I finally find an intelligent, adult conversation going on, and real thinking seems to be taking place, then someone makes the conversational equivalent of a farting noise, I get frustrated.
You also said:
Just an aside, Greg, I'm all with you about them trying to force their views on us. (Juvenal says, Oh, the irony. Whatever.)
See, this is basic Golden Rule stuff to me. Absolutely fundamental to what it means to be a Christian. The same way you and Greg get heated up about gay marriage, I get heated up about us forcing our views on others. It's that central to Christianity, as I understand it. And I've come to that view over long years of study and thought. I don't mind if you disagree with me. I could be wrong, after all. But it does bug me when you dismiss my point with a careless "whatever," as if what I'm talking about couldn't be less important or less relevant to you as a Christian.
I don't think anyone is WRONG.
But I do. It is my sincere belief that for us to use the machinery of state to impose our morality on others, that is a much larger immorality than any behavior we might be trying to prevent. And I think the church is doing enormous damage to itself by going down the path it has taken. This isn't idle talk for me.
America hated Mormons because of polygamy
Americans hated the Mormons for a whole host of reasons. If they had not practiced or taught polygamy, they would still have been hated. Perhaps not as fiercely, but still hated.
See, there you go again, assuming you know my tone of voice. So, let's be clear. Currently, the tone of my voice is soft, nice, and gentle (plus, I'm a girl, so it is sweet). I am not trying to incite you or instigate an argument. Honestly. The "whatever" was to your "Oh, the irony" comment. I've heard that so many times before, and it is suggesting that you know exactly how we all react, think, etc. I really do try to be nice to everyone: gays, alcoholics, adulterers (unless it was ever my husband, then I'd be in prison); you know, sinners in general because I AM ONE.
Your "irony" comment can be fairly directed at self-righteous hypocrites, but I don't think you know any of us that well. No offense intended, really. (Ask Al, I'm a nice person.)
I completely understand your case-in-point throughout this discussion. And to some extent, I agree. You make an excellent argument. I really, honestly appreciate all your years of thought and study. Keep in mind, though, that God didn't write the Bible only for scholars, and taking Him at face value is NOT wrong. What you, through your study, are able to do is make us all think harder about things that we never give much consideration.
I just read your last comment, and by all means, if you feel that way, that strongly, then you MUST act accordingly.
I speak to myself in Juvenal's general direction.
I agree with about 30% of your thoughts (disagreeing with 20% and I'm trying to keep through the other 50%)
Here's where I think I agree ... I remember being quite young, and looking forward to Dr. James Dobson's FotF radio addresses. I remember being particularly touched by his recounting of a mission trip to China.
In contrast, the more I hear from Dobson's Focus on the Family these days, the more I want them to just shut up.
See this link for a point of view that ties me in a knot.
Homosexuality is an issue that seems to best draw out my quandry. The "love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin" dilemma is a personal struggle. And it is driven home when I find myself in the company of a member of the GLBT team. I squirm and know I should be loving, but I'm too busy being disgusted.
It is in this scenario that I find parts of this conversation germane.
The "whatever" was to your "Oh, the irony" comment.
Yes, I understood that. But the reason I said it was ironic is because, the things we scream bloody murder about when people do them to Christians, we do exactly the same things to them. That's what I mean when I say this is basic Golden Rule stuff, to me.
How can we complain about other people because they want to recruit our kids into their lifestyle, when that's exactly what we do? And we want to recruit the laws and the public schools to help us do it. How would we feel if the shoe were on the other foot? Golden Rule.
I'm going to shut up now. Glad to have had the conversation, all.
Clarification:
"But the reason I said it was ironic is because, the things we scream bloody murder about when people do them to Christians, we do exactly the same things to them."
IOW, I didn't say it because I was assuming some tone of voice on Greg's part or yours. I was responding to what was said. The content.
How can we complain about other people because they want to recruit our kids into their lifestyle, when that's exactly what we do?
Drawing a moral equivalence between the attempt to recruit my child into having illicit sex and me telling their child about Jesus is ludicrous beyond belief. They are decidedly not equivalent.
And we want to recruit the laws and the public schools to help us do it. How would we feel if the shoe were on the other foot?
The shoe is on the other foot and has been for a while. We haven't even discussed the public schools in this thread, so I'll leave that alone.
This thread has made my mind up about the constitutional amendment on marriage. I used to feel like Joe. No longer. I am for it. Now that I have made my mind up, it's time to contact my congressman (whom I helped get elected) and let him know.
Juvenal is right about one thing ... the constitution doesn't address the issue. It needs to. Let's get it passed, now.
G
Greg, With regards to the Golden Rule, you took the words out of my mouth. Some of them verbatim.
Specifically, "the shoe is on the other foot".
This is how I read the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done to you.
Application: would I have someone lovingly, in a Christlike manner, tell me if they thought I was doing something contradictory to God's will that was going to keep me out of Heaven? You bet I would.
Would I want them to be mean, horrible, hateful about it? No way.
p.s. I'm terribly excited, because Joe finally came home and showed me how to use the HTML tags.
Whitney;
I like your application of the golden rule.
Congratulations on using tags!
G
Whitney: First, the gay marriage legislation was not a vote on accepting homosexuality as normal. It was a vote on whether homosexual partners have the constitutional right to a piece of government paperwork that gives them (primarily economic) benefits that are given other partners. Many see it as a referendum on the long-standing practice of homosexuality. That isn't true, but the propaganda has been effective (e.g. protect the "sanctity" of marriage.
Second, it is very much the Golden Rule's requirement to teach people of the will of God. America allows it. Let's get to it.
But it is also a Golden Rule requirement (from where Juvenal and I stand - and I'm having a hard time understanding how the rest don't stand here, too) - to not want to force Christian morality on unwilling people! God didn't want to force it on us - why would we want to force it on others?
Please listen: Non-disciples are going to do things wrong. They, at times, are going to try to get me and others to try to do wrong things, too. And - most importantly - non-disciples will at times not practice the Golden Rule. It is my choice to practice the Golden Rule, not theirs...
Sorry Whitney/Greg, but your application of the Golden Rule is illogical. You aren't imagining life as that person; you're thinking about YOURSELF in a different person's situation.
A little Golden Rule practice: If you were a non-disciple, how would you want a follower of Jesus to treat you? You would want them to show you the way to Heaven, right? Heck no, you'd want them to stay the crap off your porch!
It is still beyond me how Greg's constitutional amendment is going to convict anyone to follow the example of Christ.
I've got to go to bed. Maybe DeJon's still up...
Sorry for the 2 paragraphs about the Golden Rule application being illogical. My thinking was illogical. It was late, and I was in a bad mood if that helps.
Maybe it did, however, help point out the tendency we all seem to have to still do what "we" want to the other person, instead of truly considering their point of view.
Off to 6 flags!
Sorry Whitney/Greg, but your application of the Golden Rule is illogical. You aren't imagining life as that person; you're thinking about YOURSELF in a different person's situation.
Just so. If you can't put yourself in the shoes of someone completely different from you -- which Greg clearly can't, and Whitney is hesistant to do -- you don't understand the first thing about the Golden Rule. I'm sorry to have to say that, but it's true, and you don't need to be a "scholar" to know it. It's the most basic Christianity there is; kindergarten-level stuff.
If you can't put yourself in the shoes of someone completely different from you -- someone you find morally reprehensible -- I don't know how you even begin to live like Christ. How do you talk to the Samaritan woman at the well? How do you forgive the woman caught in adultery? How do you befriend Zaccheus? How do you touch lepers, eat with tax collectors, or offer salvation to Gentiles like us? How do you make any sense at all of the parables of the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son or the late-arriving vineyard workers? How can you communicate the good news to someone it'd be news to?
If you can't or won't truly imagine yourself in another's shoes, try at least imagining yourself in different shoes. Greg says the shoe is on the other foot. Let's assume he's right. How do you like it? If you think homosexuals or secularists or [insert your cultural boogeymen of choice] are using the laws and the public schools to draw your children into their beliefs, how do you feel about it?
Clearly, you're both angry about it. You resent it and you don't think it's fair or right. And what do you do? Greg, at least, goes on the march to get his rights legally protected. Does this story start to sound eerily familiar?
And how do you think non-Christians feel when we try to do to them what Greg complains they're doing to us -- use the public schools and the laws to make their children like us?
What gives us the right to do unto them what we would not have done unto us? Some (mythical) story about what the Founders wanted? Who are they? Did signing up as Jesus' disciple automatically enroll me as their disciple, too? Did I miss the fine print?
Being a disciple of Jesus is a discipline of sacrifice; of being a stranger in a strange land; a guest here, since my home is elsewhere. Does that sound like someone who's going to be comfortable with the society they live in? Am I to make myself an obnoxious guest by insisting my hosts run their household just as I see fit? Is that what Jesus teaches me?
This is basic Golden Rule stuff. Christianity 101. Are we so much like the original disciples that we've been with Jesus all this time and still have no idea who he is?
Are we so much like the original disciples that we've been with Jesus all this time and still have no idea who he is?
Yes. (And that's not directed toward any commenter here. It's directed at me.)
Perhaps slightly, but only slightly, off-subject is this piece:
http://www.firstverb.com/documents/bleedingwomansermon.doc
Trying again:
http://www.firstverb.com/documents/bleedingwomansermon.doc
If it didn't show up, visit firstverb.com, then type a / followed by "documents" followed by another / followed by "bleedingwomansermon.doc"...
No spaces or quotes, of course.
Al, Six flags? Cool!!! Can I come?
Juvenal, I don't know if you mean to be, but you're incredibly insulting.
You only know of me what you've seen written here. (And I don't know if you know Greg personally or not, but am guessing you do not.) Please don't insult us by explaining the NT to us.
You don't know anything about my compassion for others (not just "nice" people, not just "fellow Christians"), my actions, you really hardly know anything at all about me. That, so far, is the only thing that makes me want to get angry. I have disagreed with many of the comments you've posted on this board in the past months, but I don't assume that you're stupid, ignorant, selfish, etc. (Truth be known, and you can ask Joe, I've said I admire you for your consistency and conviction, even if I don't always agree.)
You can read anger into my other posts as much as you want, which can in effect skew them to make you think you understand me in a totally erroneous way. I haven't been angry. Just interested.
These are things I've never really sat down and thought about before. But you have the audacity to sit there and tell me I'm flat out wrong, when the Bible is clear that we are free to disagree.
By lecturing me on what is Christlike, I feel like you're trying to be judge and jury, which is not really your job. (MY sincerest apologies if I am reading you incorrectly.)
You say:
Are we so much like the original disciples that we've been with Jesus all this time and still have no idea who he is?
As Wed said, yes. It is a journey of humble learning and studying. We all grow and learn at different rates. If any one of us thinks he is better because he is further in the journey...
Do you purport to know Him better than the rest of us? Or just differently? I really, really don't think you're trying to be "holier than though" with this comment, but it really came off that way when I first read it.
I'm just glad to know that Jesus loves us in spite of all our faults, misconceptions, misunderstandings, and sin.
I think this conversation is disentigrating quite rapidly, and we probably need to back off for a while. Have a great day.
P.S. I brought this conversation up at ladies' Bible study this morning...I presented your argument...you should've heard the reaction! And we're on the WEST coast. :-)
Al,
The count was 58 last night when we went to bed...68 (now 69)...are you the BLOG KING or are you the BLOG KING?!
If anyone is interested, Joe is in 2nd place with a measly 38 comments.
Whitney -- All I took you to be angry about was just what I said -- that homosexuals are using the schools and laws to "recruit our children." If you aren't angry about that, my mistake. I don't think it was an unreasonable one, though, given what you'd said about your experiences in college.
You're right. I don't know you beyond this blog. So what else am I supposed to go by? When you state a principle on this blog, can I not assume the rest of your life reflects that principle? (That's a serious question.) All I've responded to is what you've said here. As you say, that's all I know about you. I can't respond to what I don't know.
As for my "presuming" to explain the NT to you, I'm sorry if you find that insulting, but, honestly, I really don't know what I can do about it. I really do think you're misreading it. I really do think you should know better. You're an insider. Aren't I supposed to tell you when I think you're going off course?
More broadly, I know we cling like the devil (just a figure of speech, btw) to the notion that scripture is simple, but we have to face up to the fact that that's a claim scripture never makes for itself. It's something we bring to it because it makes us feel better.
you should've heard the reaction!
Believe me, I have. :)
If any one of us thinks he is better because he is further in the journey...
So someone who's spent a lot of time and effort studying and thinking about something I haven't, they can't, when that subject is brought up, try to teach me without it being . . . what? presumptuous? prideful?
The comment wasn't personal. Just saying it is the attitude of the teacher that is important. (And the attitude of the student, as well.) That's all.
I already gave you the benefit of the doubt. I think your intentions here are honest and sincere. I really do.
These are things I've never really sat down and thought about before. But you have the audacity to sit there and tell me I'm flat out wrong
In all sincerity, Whitney, if you've never sat down and thought about these things before, why would you be surprised to hear someone say the views you've thoughtlessly arrived at are wrong? Especially if it's someone who has sat down and thought about them. Is that "audacious"? I can honestly say that, if our roles were reversed (which, no doubt they would be on issues in your field of expertise), I'd be pleased as punch to learn something from you.
(Sorry. I don't mean to be machine gunning you with these multiple posts. I'm just replying to things as I notice them.)
OK, audacious was a strong word.
My take on this is:
A discussion starts.
I talk.
You talk.
I think.
You think.
I talk.
You talk.
(Well, other people talk, too, but right now it's just you and me...and I should be working.)
My comments weren't made thoughtlessly at all, but thanks for the compliment. Ideas are formulated, rearranged, amended, reformulated, discussed, argued...and so on. It really is a process.
But I stand by my stance that neither of us is WRONG. I don't agree with you. But neither can I say that you are wrong. You disagree. I accept it.
With all due respect, quit trying to pound your point. I get it. I logically understand. I just don't agree. Right now, the more you talk, the more you convince yourself that you're right, and the more you convince me that my position is right for me. My position would be decidedly wrong for you. But I respect your conviction. This conversation has helped me understand your previous posts so much better.
OK, really, I absolutely have to work. The gov't is waiting. Have a nice 4th of July weekend. By the way, you didn't even congratulate my use of tags. :)
My comments weren't made thoughtlessly at all, but thanks for the compliment.
Whitney. I don't know what to say to that. I didn't call your comments thoughtless. You did. In the quote I pasted in right above my comments. Here it is again:
These are things I've never really sat down and thought about before.
First you say you're commenting about things you've never really thought about, then you act like I'm somehow out-of-line for believing you.
I really, sincerely just don't have any idea what you're saying to me. Have you sat down and thought about this stuff before (which you seem to be saying now), or have you not (which is what you explicitly said at 2:13)?
I'm not trying to pound my ideas into your head or anyone else's. I'm trying to understand what you're saying.
I had some other stuff typed in here, trying to explain myself, but I'm sort of tired of trying.
I'm just trying to pad the comments section for Al, here, but I think some things get lost, and have gotten lost, in the debate about homosexual marriage. At Syracuse (a very conservative, politically speaking, school), I've served on a couple of University Diversity committees. I've had access to all of the hate crime information at the university. Seen the pictures, read the reports, etc. The number one hate crime is hands down against homosexuals. Over 50% of the hate crimes were committed against something like 5% of the student/faculty population. Some of these were just verbal abuses, but several were beatings where 20 to 30 people watched while a gay man was beaten. (There were multiple incidences.) So while Christians are worried about what we may or may not be endorsing by an ammendment, there are people who are living in fear and being beaten (when was the last time a Christian was beaten or killed in America for their beliefs? -- innocent question, because I don't know). I believe, and I could be mistaken here, that the suicide rate for homosexual teens is astronomically higher than for any other population. Why? I'm not sure. Maybe because they are scared to death by the preaching they receive everyday telling them how wrong and out of place they are. My point is, Jesus ate with the most obvious of sinners. He went to their houses. He wasn't disgusted by them any more than he was disgusted by his follower's sins. I think this has already been said, but I don't think that voting for or against an ammendment will change anything for the better (if by better, you mean stopping homosexuality). I'd love to see Christians change focus into forming some sort of bond with homosexual community. If we follow Jesus's example, seems like we'd be putting our time into eating supper at the houses of homosexuals, not continually telling them their wrong. That doesn't endorse their activity, necessarily. I have a feeling that many homosexuals can spot a Christian fairly easily and would be pleasantly surprised to actually feel loved by them, rather than just told that they are loved.
These are things I've never really sat down and thought about before.
Before the last week. Not really. But a considerable amount of thought since Al posted. Just like a few others here.
First you say you're commenting about things you've never really thought about, then you act like I'm somehow out-of-line for believing you.
That's not what I meant. I think I took it differently than you said it.
I really, sincerely just don't have any idea what you're saying to me. Have you sat down and thought about this stuff before (which you seem to be saying now), or have you not (which is what you explicitly said at 2:13)?
Before Sunday? No, I really hadn't.
Since Sunday? Yes, and the whole time really thinking and considering what you, Al, Duane, Greg had to say. Formulating comments based on 1) my current and evolving understanding of your logic and 2) my own study and personal thought.
Does that make sense?
You do have to admit, there have been A LOT of words exchanged.
I had some other stuff typed in here, trying to explain myself, but I'm sort of tired of trying.
I understand.
Ah, now I see (said the blind man). Will you do me a favor? Keep thinking about it?
The problem with that argument, Joe, is that the moneychangers were religious Insiders, not Outsiders. They were Jews, God's chosen people. They should have known better and were to be held to a higher standard because they were Insiders.
Moreover, what they were profaning (or desecrating, to use a word that's popular in Congress at the moment) was a religious site for religious Insiders, the temple.
Jesus' actions at the temple that day had nothing to do with cleansing the outside world of evil. It had nothing to do with Outsiders at all.
Funny you bring up this story - it came up in a ladies' class I was teaching the other day (in the way of, "well, Jesus was love, but he had another side, too!" sort of way).
I'll try to do an article on this specifically in the future, but I'll just quickly state that it is worth noting that there were no "temple cleansing" incidents or instructions given in the early church. Not even any "transfigurations" that I remember. Stuff like that seemed to be reserved for the actual Messiah. The disciples seemed to stick with what Jesus told them to do - wash feet, and pick up a cross and follow Jesus in that way...
Okay, I'm cashing it in on this one. I've got to write another article tomorrow.
P.S. Six Flags was great! Cost me $22 to win 3 basketballs and a stuffed animal.
Ok.
"Greg Pooped On" here.
Why do we need an amendment?
Previous to this thread I agreed with Joe that an amendment to the constitution was too frivoluous to be considered. No more.
In order to prevent the chaos that is boiling in the legal system of our neighbors to the North, we are going to have to do something. But not just anything: we're going to have to amend our constitution.
The problem is that the homosexual agenda does not care a whit about marriage. Marriage is mererly their current "red herring" issue. The real issue is that they want to kill the "church". Whether it is my church, your church, the Catholic church, whatever, they want it dead so that they have no one "condemning them". They hate us.
The lawsuits are already on the drawing boards in Canada. I don't want that for my nation.
Why should my church have to sanction homosexual marriage when we actually don't? That's NOW the issue in Canada, now that the homosexuals have won the day on the marriage thing. Now they're beginning to sue if a church does not perform a marriage ceremony, despite Christian objections to it. They (the homosexuals) are not finished, and it has nothing to do with marriage.
I have a wife, and a daughter. Beautiful people. I will not subject them to persecution by homosexuals just because my apathy or inattention to politics allows it.
It's not about marriage. It's not about homosexuality. It's about good versus evil.
The animated contest for liberty will continue until His return.
G
Good news Greg! I know it doesn't seem like it sometimes, but Canada is a different country than ours! We actually have different constitutions!
Thought this would help you sleep better...
:-)
I thought I was finished commenting on this article? BTW, that makes 85 comments now - and yes, Joe, lots of love your way for the kickstart...
It is good news! I'm glad I don't live in Canada or Mexico or *name your country*.
I just feel for those Christians in Canada struggling with questions like "should I allow my church building to be used by those in obvious contradiction to God's Word, just because the law tells me to"? They're angry, and they have a right to be.
I love longhorns. They are cool animalsl. But that is one weird picture ...
G
I figured you would come back with this argument
Perhaps because it's true.
It happened in the outer court of the temple in full view of the assembled Gentiles and Jews.
Who saw it is irrelevant. To whom was it done, and for what purpose? It was a completely insider event.
Outsiders often witness our internal fights. That doesn't make the issues we fight over relevant to them.
Never, not once, in his entire recorded life did Jesus force outsiders to behave morally. Nor did he permit his disciples to use force against them. Never. Not once.
As Duane hinted at in a previous comment, the Jewish rebellion against Rome was afoot during Jesus' ministry. What was the purpose of that political action? To cast off Rome, reclaim Judaea and make it a place once again obedient to God's will.
At every point in his ministry where the people tried or seemed to associate him with that forceful imposition of true religion, Jesus turned away from it. Nor did he permit his disciples, some of whom were sicarii when he called them, to promote it or participate in it in his name.
They're angry, and they have a right to be.
Christians have a right to be angry? Really? That's one I've never heard before.
I don't recall that being exactly what Jesus said about anger in the Sermon on the Mount.
The young churches Paul ministered to faced many kinds of persecution. He told them many things about how to deal with it. I don't recall him ever encouraging any of them to be angry, or even that they had a right to be angry.
Even the book of Revelations, where we get the vision of the church victorious, doesn't counsel its readers to become the avenging characters in its visions. That is left, as you say, until His return.
(Thought I'd pad Al's numbers a bit. Sorta like Brett Favre taking that dive.)
Greg, why do you say homosexuals hate us? I've not seen any anti-church rallies by homosexuals, not to say there haven't been any, but I've see plenty of hate from the Christian side towards homosexuals. Maybe I just live in a different part of the country. I've never, personally, felt hated by any homosexual. I've never been "recruited", whatever that means. And maybe if we'd quit condemning them all the time, they wouldn't be so keen on trying to get us to stop condemning them.
Greg said: I have a wife, and a daughter. Beautiful people. I will not subject them to persecution by homosexuals just because my apathy or inattention to politics allows it.
What about the children and partners of homosexuals? Who are actually being beaten and intimidated everyday (sometimes even killed) -- not on newscasts or in theory or on some slippery slope that may or may not exist if we ammend the constitution -- but in their everyday life?
I don't think there's nearly as much hatred towards Christians by homosexuals as you think. But I could be wrong about that.
Six Flags was great! Cost me $22 to win 3 basketballs and a stuffed animal.
You shoulda scourged 'em. :)
Scrolling back up it occurs to me I might have sounded more flippant than I meant to be when I said to Joe:
I figured you would come back with this argument
Perhaps because it's true.
All I meant was, perhaps the reason my argument was so predictable is that the temple story is about insiders.
I don't think there's nearly as much hatred towards Christians by homosexuals as you think.
I agree. Judging all homosexuals by what the most radical of them do is like judging all civil rights activists by the actions of the Black Panther Party.
Which, btw, a lot of white people did.
I feel like a fan at a basketball game.
Cheering for 100...
Post a Comment
<< Home