Part 2- The Political...
In thinking about living peaceably with all men, I can't help but think of politics. Should you or shouldn't you talk about it. I have a different take on some political issues from a lot of folks I agree with completely on scripture, so should I especially keep my mouth shut on politics? I am constantly asking myself if I have a valid question or if I’m just going to be considered as one trying to stir up trouble and controversy with my hair-brained rationalization (or constantly re-examining to come to some kind of conclusion, however you want to look at it).
If someone tells you you’re sinning for voting a particular way, do you take that suffering patiently and don’t say anything or do you talk about it to try and understand the issue? Is talking about these differences divisiveness or is this a desire to find out the truth? Or is not talking about them the Biblical thing to do since talking about them could cause arguments and division? Am I trying to serve myself and rationalize my position or am I wrong and need to change?
I would argue that you can’t ignore these things, whether you verbally discuss them or not.
The political debates are always under the surface. There is kind of an atmosphere in the church of don’t ask, don’t tell with regards to one’s political persuasion. I have always wondered if this is to keep the peace or are people afraid of being accused of voting the wrong way. You always hear the little jokes or digs at liberals (or conservatives, though this isn’t my experience) from the pulpit or afterwards. Behind the jokes, though, are certain beliefs that I think need to be talked about out in the open, rather than left to the imagination and beating around the bush. Just the way a southern preacher drawls out the word liberal can be accusatory rather than descriptive. If you mean taking liberties with scriptures, this is against God, certainly, but being liberal politically shouldn't be cause for derision.
I don't like don’t ask, don’t tell. It is either sinful to vote democrat or it isn’t. If it is, something needs to happen- take those steps to try and bring the person back. If it isn’t, the implications of sin, the beating around the bush need to stop. Perhaps I am wrong to demand this. Perhaps I should keep quiet so as not to offend anyone. I certainly don’t want to offend. But I also want to find the truth.
I think about these things all the time. Things like- are you sinning if you don’t necessarily think one must support a law banning a particular sin (abortion, gay marriage) in order to not be “approving those who practice them” (Rom 1:28-32)? Are you ranking sin (or if laws banning sin are good, wouldn't it be "knowing to do good and not doing it" as in James?) if you are for laws against two sins, but aren't for laws banning others? Are those who say voting democrat is sinful like those who preached you must be circumcised to be a Christian? Are those who say voting democrat isn't a sin just letting their politics get in the way of being a Christian (i.e. they aren't a Christian in the voting booth)? I personally don't think this issue is as cut and dried as: vote democrat=sin; vote Republican or for candidate that is for abortion and gay marriage= obedience to God. Probably why I think about it so much. That or I'm just a divisive person who loves conflict. And a communist liberal to boot. Ouch. (Kidding!)
Is it divisive to bring these things up and discuss them? I always thought it preferable to talk about it so that you can get it out in the open and get over it, rather than keeping it under the surface, ready to boil over. I like getting everyone’s input and discussing why you think your position is supported by scripture and the other isn’t or discussing what is exactly covered by scripture and what is your own judgment or opinion. Are we binding things that the Bible doesn't? Are we too permissive where the Bible isn't? We have to ask ourselves both questions. Too often, depending on your politics or experience, we only ask ourselves one of these questions and overcompensate- in a car, this will make you wreck.
I also see how this could be seen as divisive since everyone has rather passionate opinions about politics and this is one of those subjects that is considered impolite to talk about. I wonder if it is better to not talk about it in the interest of unity if you know people disagree with you politically and think your positions are not scripturally sound. Is that really unity, though? On the surface, maybe. How do you know unless you talk about it?
Maybe it is the way in which we talk about it that makes the difference? I think we have to assess whether we just want to rationalize, prove ourselves right and get people on “our side” or if we are looking for the truth. If both people are looking for the truth, then we have something in common already and we should be able to be in harmony even if we don’t agree.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Romans 12:18
Part 1
One of my favorite verses and one that provokes much thought. I've been thinking about it lately in various contexts. Peace within one's self, peace among believers, peace in the Middle East, etc.
What immediately comes to mind is the run up to Iraq and various discussions in and out of the church building that I listened to- support for and (not so much) against- Biblical and opinion. Bush’s rush to war in the face of very convincing and grave doubts about the immediacy or even the threat of Saddam Hussein made this verse stand out to me then. I know the political/national scene doesn’t really apply, here, but sometimes we can act impulsively like that as individuals. We say I’ve tried all I feel like trying. I’m not going to take the hit. I can say I’ve tried to live peaceably, but this guy makes me mad and I’m not going to take it anymore. We rationalize and say, well it does say “if it is possible…” I think we need to look more closely at the second clause, not stop at the first to get the real and complete meaning- as much as it depends on us. A lot of times we give another meaning to “if it is possible.” We instead often mean by possible, “it’s probably not possible (or I don’t want to).”
Sunday’s lesson from James actually fit right in to me thinking about this lately, which was cool.
So many good points. Taming the tongue (or pen or FB status as the case may be) fits in quite nicely to how to live peaceably with all men:
Self-seeking wisdom and then the wisdom to seek by which we can sow peace:
It’s a tough balance. We have to stand up for the truth and balance that righteous judgment (with which we are supposed to judge) with being gentle and willing to yield. Obviously we aren’t to yield so as to be unscriptural. Jesus is the perfect example (of course) of this balance.
Another point of the lesson fit into my consideration of how to live peaceably. Sometimes you have to take a hit and not always assert your right to say and do this or that. In fact, you should strive to “take it patiently” instead of reviling and threatening in return. This is definitely not an American value, so we may have to fight against our schooling, here.
And it’s always good to know what to do rather than just what not to do…
The context of “live peaceably with all men” also gives us insight into the meaning of that phrase and some goals, too.
One of my favorite verses and one that provokes much thought. I've been thinking about it lately in various contexts. Peace within one's self, peace among believers, peace in the Middle East, etc.
“If it is possible, as much as it depends on you, live peaceably with all men.”
What immediately comes to mind is the run up to Iraq and various discussions in and out of the church building that I listened to- support for and (not so much) against- Biblical and opinion. Bush’s rush to war in the face of very convincing and grave doubts about the immediacy or even the threat of Saddam Hussein made this verse stand out to me then. I know the political/national scene doesn’t really apply, here, but sometimes we can act impulsively like that as individuals. We say I’ve tried all I feel like trying. I’m not going to take the hit. I can say I’ve tried to live peaceably, but this guy makes me mad and I’m not going to take it anymore. We rationalize and say, well it does say “if it is possible…” I think we need to look more closely at the second clause, not stop at the first to get the real and complete meaning- as much as it depends on us. A lot of times we give another meaning to “if it is possible.” We instead often mean by possible, “it’s probably not possible (or I don’t want to).”
Sunday’s lesson from James actually fit right in to me thinking about this lately, which was cool.
So many good points. Taming the tongue (or pen or FB status as the case may be) fits in quite nicely to how to live peaceably with all men:
James 3:8 But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so.
Self-seeking wisdom and then the wisdom to seek by which we can sow peace:
15 This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. 16 For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 18 Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.by those who make peace.
It’s a tough balance. We have to stand up for the truth and balance that righteous judgment (with which we are supposed to judge) with being gentle and willing to yield. Obviously we aren’t to yield so as to be unscriptural. Jesus is the perfect example (of course) of this balance.
Another point of the lesson fit into my consideration of how to live peaceably. Sometimes you have to take a hit and not always assert your right to say and do this or that. In fact, you should strive to “take it patiently” instead of reviling and threatening in return. This is definitely not an American value, so we may have to fight against our schooling, here.
1 Peter 2: 18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 “ Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; 23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;
And it’s always good to know what to do rather than just what not to do…
Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.
The context of “live peaceably with all men” also gives us insight into the meaning of that phrase and some goals, too.
Romans 12: 9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. 10 Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; 11 not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; 12 rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; 13 distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”[a] says the Lord. 20 Therefore
“ If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”[b]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Stuff Conspiracy Theories Are Made Of
Both of these have probably been the subject of exaggeration, urban legend and frantic mass email forwarding. Both bother me.
The first is really a near miss. There were some other issues involved and the issue was resolved favorably. I'd still put it in this category.
The second is for real, for real. Big Brother- and not the TV show. Unbelievable, really. But true. It involves anti-war protesters, so I doubt anyone's going to care much, except to poke fun or rant about how much they "whine".
***
Religious Freedom?
This was referenced in a (rather conservative) religious publication I get and I heard it in the news, so I decided to look into it more. It was disconcerting to say the least if it was as it sounded at first…
Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522637,00.html?test=latestnews
While googling, I found the snopes.com entry. It doesn’t dispute this (listed as partially true), but does provide extra details regarding a car of a visitor of a neighbor being dinged by a study attendee and makes note of the results- they are allowed to hold studies. The study leader paid for it, but maybe the neighbor and his friend still held a grudge? Anyway, it appears it wasn’t necessarily as all about religion as Fox News painted it. Not that it’s not worrisome to entertain the thought of police crackdowns on religious practice in this country. I just don’t think it was happening this time.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/biblestudy.asp
It is not clear to me whether this land use and religious assembly law has more to do with religion or number of people. If it has purely to do with having 10 people for a weekly event at a home that grows to 1000 and being able to circumvent the freedom of religion claim that could be used to circumvent fire codes and a ton of other safety and logistical nightmares such a group converging on one home creates, then the law makes sense. But if it is unnecessarily restrictive for religious groups compared to other groups (given that other groups can’t cite freedom of religion), then we need to take a look at it. Other groups could cite freedom to assemble… I don’t know.
An apology from the county. I looked for it on Fox, since that was my first source, but I don’t know that they bothered to cover the result of the situation. Apologies are boring, I guess.
http://www.10news.com/news/19650728/detail.html
It also sounds like the "pastor" was the source of confusion about where the controversy is- parking or religion.
In this article, he talks about the parking and thinks it sparked an official complaint: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/30/1n30bible00100-county-wont-force-permit-bible-stud/
This source is a reference from the snopes site.
In a response to truthorfiction.com, he said parking was definitely not the issue- it was definitely religious freedom.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/Pastor-Dave-San-Diego-Permit.htm
Maybe his Fox experience convinced him it was more of a freedom of religion thing or maybe he just had time to think about it and reconsidered. It seems he changed his story either way, though.
It's definitely got legs with email, though! We'll be seeing this freedom of religion scare, minus the resolution where they are allowed to have the Bible studies without paying fines and minus the apology, for years to come.
The letters collected via email are here:
San Diego County Officials told pastor that he can not hold a Bible study in his home without a permit -Truth! but Decision Reversed!
San Diego County officials barred a couple from holding Bible study sessions in their home without a “major land use” permit.
*** *** *** *** ***
Government infiltrating and spying on anti-war groups
I hate to post so many Democracy Now links, but they do such a great job of summarizing the issues and asking questions and getting guests you won’t see on the big networks.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/28/broadcast_exclusive_declassified_docs_reveal_military
Basically, this ex-military guy informs on innocent civilian protest and activist groups by infiltrating the group and asking police for info on specific groups-Students for a Democratic Society and Port Militarization Resistance. The reason for the spying, as I understand it, is not because they have done anything illegal or are putting people in danger, but they speak out against various government actions.
This is a WA site; I think it happened there.
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/8882/34/
I don’t know anything about this site. I don’t know who is responsible for it, but it’s probably not the military or John himself.
http://www.johntowery.com/
This side is rightly complaining of possible rights and law violations, but there is something wrong with someone owning your name in this way… ☺
*** *** *** *** ***
The first is really a near miss. There were some other issues involved and the issue was resolved favorably. I'd still put it in this category.
The second is for real, for real. Big Brother- and not the TV show. Unbelievable, really. But true. It involves anti-war protesters, so I doubt anyone's going to care much, except to poke fun or rant about how much they "whine".
***
Religious Freedom?
This was referenced in a (rather conservative) religious publication I get and I heard it in the news, so I decided to look into it more. It was disconcerting to say the least if it was as it sounded at first…
Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522637,00.html?test=latestnews
While googling, I found the snopes.com entry. It doesn’t dispute this (listed as partially true), but does provide extra details regarding a car of a visitor of a neighbor being dinged by a study attendee and makes note of the results- they are allowed to hold studies. The study leader paid for it, but maybe the neighbor and his friend still held a grudge? Anyway, it appears it wasn’t necessarily as all about religion as Fox News painted it. Not that it’s not worrisome to entertain the thought of police crackdowns on religious practice in this country. I just don’t think it was happening this time.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/biblestudy.asp
It is not clear to me whether this land use and religious assembly law has more to do with religion or number of people. If it has purely to do with having 10 people for a weekly event at a home that grows to 1000 and being able to circumvent the freedom of religion claim that could be used to circumvent fire codes and a ton of other safety and logistical nightmares such a group converging on one home creates, then the law makes sense. But if it is unnecessarily restrictive for religious groups compared to other groups (given that other groups can’t cite freedom of religion), then we need to take a look at it. Other groups could cite freedom to assemble… I don’t know.
An apology from the county. I looked for it on Fox, since that was my first source, but I don’t know that they bothered to cover the result of the situation. Apologies are boring, I guess.
http://www.10news.com/news/19650728/detail.html
It also sounds like the "pastor" was the source of confusion about where the controversy is- parking or religion.
In this article, he talks about the parking and thinks it sparked an official complaint: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/30/1n30bible00100-county-wont-force-permit-bible-stud/
This source is a reference from the snopes site.
In a response to truthorfiction.com, he said parking was definitely not the issue- it was definitely religious freedom.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/Pastor-Dave-San-Diego-Permit.htm
Maybe his Fox experience convinced him it was more of a freedom of religion thing or maybe he just had time to think about it and reconsidered. It seems he changed his story either way, though.
It's definitely got legs with email, though! We'll be seeing this freedom of religion scare, minus the resolution where they are allowed to have the Bible studies without paying fines and minus the apology, for years to come.
The letters collected via email are here:
San Diego County Officials told pastor that he can not hold a Bible study in his home without a permit -Truth! but Decision Reversed!
San Diego County officials barred a couple from holding Bible study sessions in their home without a “major land use” permit.
*** *** *** *** ***
Government infiltrating and spying on anti-war groups
I hate to post so many Democracy Now links, but they do such a great job of summarizing the issues and asking questions and getting guests you won’t see on the big networks.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/28/broadcast_exclusive_declassified_docs_reveal_military
Basically, this ex-military guy informs on innocent civilian protest and activist groups by infiltrating the group and asking police for info on specific groups-Students for a Democratic Society and Port Militarization Resistance. The reason for the spying, as I understand it, is not because they have done anything illegal or are putting people in danger, but they speak out against various government actions.
This is a WA site; I think it happened there.
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/8882/34/
I don’t know anything about this site. I don’t know who is responsible for it, but it’s probably not the military or John himself.
http://www.johntowery.com/
This side is rightly complaining of possible rights and law violations, but there is something wrong with someone owning your name in this way… ☺
*** *** *** *** ***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)