Christians, separation of church and state is like your veggies- hard to swallow, but GOOD for you!

I noticed and collected a lot of memes with emotional posts on Facebook after the historic SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. The funny thing is, they are posted in proud defiance or opposition, when everyone already knows and agrees that the SCOTUS isn't the supreme being and it can't change God's laws.

 (Like screaming WATER IS WET!! And we're all waiting for the punchline, the point of difference, the reason for the outrage, while crickets chirp.)

That is PRECISELY the beauty of the separation of church and state. BOTH institutions are protected this way. When/ if we have a Christian president who rules strictly from the Bible and not for the general public well being and freedom, that is when Christianity is threatened MOST (unless we install him as supreme leader/dictator, ditch democracy and go totalitarian, only THEN can rule stay in the hands of Christians. ...well if Christians can muscle through coups, constant civil war and instability...) because with every election you could get a brand of Christianity you think is evil, or Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or Muslim and all the laws would change.

As long as we value separation of church and state, our right to worship- or not- the way we want is protected, no matter who the top guy is.

It is often said the church is not a democracy- so, if you want to live in a democracy, why do you want to have a Christian president making laws as though he were ruling the church, making church and state one? It might be convenient and simpler for you (if you are Christian) to live in a land ruled by the Bible and have all sins be legislated against, to jail liars and murderers alike, give the death penalty to gossips and homosexuals alike, but that land is not, and I hope will never be, the United States of America.

The Elephant in the Room

An old months-old post.... I've since written something on values voting that essentially says the same thing.


I used this phrase before, but didn't realize it's double meaning until someone pointed it out. :) So, yes, pun intended (this time).

People who are members of the Lord's body the church of Christ) are going to know more about what I'm talking about, but many things will be relevant to all who think about religion.

It's election time again and Christians are talking (in and out of the church building) about abortion and gay marriage and being a Christian in and out of the voting booth. It doesn't help that we've just passed an amendment to the state constitution here to ban gay marriage, so there's even more... ideas being exchanged, shall we say. There is a long held belief that being a Christian in the voting booth means voting Republican, with the implication that voting Democrat is sinful or nearly so (or agreeing with one or several ideas associated with Democrats means you support abortion and homosexuality and hence think it is not sin). These specifics are never really stated, but hinted at with the vote your values language and "be a Christian in and out of the voting booth" types of things, hence the elephant in the room.

I personally think this logic goes farther than scripture.


Why only these two issues to determine our morals?

Why choose two sins to determine morality by law that most Christians don't struggle with as opposed to more common ones?

Why must we have these things banned in law to be acceptable to God? And why not the other sins- are we ranking them? Have these two, abortion and homosexuality, been politicized? (Think how politically viable banning alcohol and divorce (except in the case of infidelity) and remarriage (except in the case of death and infidelity- for the one party) would be...)

A president governs the country, why not choose him based on qualifications for the job rather than his stance on banning two sins in particular above all others? We aren't electing an elder to the state church, after all.

Should we be more concerned with enacting laws to ban sin or teaching individuals? I ask this because of Jesus' approach, not necessarily as an actual choice. He commanded the gospel to be taught, not Rome to be toppled and replaced by the church or a democracy that enacted laws that banned sin.


A problem I see is that sometimes we speak in terms of putting God first as a nation, but we will be judged individually. There is no national salvation.

Another problem comes from the best of intentions. We are to stand up for Christ and rightly divide the word and not compromise on truth because it comes from a perfect authority. It seems that sometimes this same uncompromising approach seeps into the political beliefs (which involve fallible men and definitely imperfect doctrine) as well- for example, voting Republican= godly; voting Democrat= sin.  I agree that there aren't many paths to heaven; there is one. I don't think we can say the same about politics. There are many different issues and each one you can approach in a godly or ungodly way. Christians are going to disagree on which issues are important for governing and how much government should be in which things.

I imagine there are a ton of smart people who will have an answer for every one of my points, but what I'm saying is let's make sure the line in the sand we draw is scriptural and not political. With all due respect to many good people, I think it goes beyond scripture to say one party is a Godly choice or that you are not putting God first if you choose this or that party or that you will go to hell if you vote for this or that candidate.

Values Voting (?)

Love that code word. Values. You know exactly what people are talking about- banning abortion and gay marriage. And I just heard the other day that Israel is a values issue. What?? Obsequiously supporting and defending with all we have this nation that brutally oppresses/dispossesses another population and calls births of the occupied people a threatening demographic time bomb is a value, something God wants you to do?? Right off a cliff. Crazy.

Anyway, I was doing some more thinking on politics and religion as I always do. I don't think God is for one party/candidate or the other or that a vote will send you to hell, but I always re-think it since this is not a majority opinion where I am- or maybe it is a minority opinion (spoken of in code, like- "be a Christian in and out of the voting booth," "values," etc)  and I believe it to be in opposition to the Bible so it just bothers me that much. But I could be wrong. So I continue my exhausting thought process...

Some frame this as candidate A wants to ban abortion and gay marriage, these are "Biblical issues," therefore candidate A voters are doing God's will; while candidate B wants to let people make their own decision (on these particular Biblical issues), so he is for sin and if you vote for him, you are "approving of such" (Rom 1:32) and deserving of death (spiritual). I think this is a stretch in many ways.  If voting, say, Democrat is a sin because of the assumption above, then why is it ok to spend money in places that sell alcohol or support candidates who have had divorces or candidates who place an entire book of false doctrine ahead of the Bible? Why not say greed and giving is a Biblical issue, so how can you vote Republican when they want to cut aid to the poor, make it easier for the wealthy to make more money, support Paul Ryan who idolizes Ayn Rand, the atheist who preaches selfishness? 

So now both parties are out. Must you embrace everything the party does/says/is? Does voting mean you approve of such or just that you think A or B is the best person for the job? There are more problems with the assumption, but I'll get the that later.

I wonder if there is a difference between those who favor banning sin by law who don't sin and those who don't necessarily support sin being made illegal, yet who also choose not to sin. Is one more righteous, as some would have us believe? Are those who don't necessarily want sin banned by law guilty of the sin even though they believe, do and teach God's will. Is living a faithful life, choosing not to sin, refusing to say God approves of said sins not enough?

Then we go back to Jesus. Is this what he stood for? Did he overthrow Rome and put a government in power that made sins illegal or encourage anyone to do that? Was not the purpose of the old law to bring us to Christ, rather than the opposite or to construct a new law that was like the old one minus the ritual and animal sacrifice? Is the goal to teach people or to keep them from sinning? I guess it is opinion whether you think having laws banning sin teaches or inflames, provokes and hardens hearts. I know I need to spend less time on politics and more on spiritual matters to be more Christ-like, but Christ didn't have a political test you had to pass. Politicizing certain Bible issues and not others is cherry picking, inconsistent, divisive, and hypocritical when political positions are used as a test of faith for someone else-- especially while your own candidate/party's Biblical issues are ignored.

Speaking of inconsistency, conservatives are usually for people choosing, not government. Why should government dictate abortion and gay marriage? Should government be IN religion and NOT in your money- taxes, etc? This seems a bit backwards to me. I'd rather have them in my money and not my religion if I had to choose. The conservative position on wanting the government to dictate on certain moral issues gets a little more absurd when we factor in the current Romney-Ryan ticket. You trust a Mormon, who baptizes the dead without consent (from family, last wishes, etc), whose religion didn't allow African Americans in for a long time, believes in the Book of Mormon rather than the Bible (the former contradicts the latter) to have MORE of a say in your religion or to be the one to get the country morally on track? And Paul Ryan with his Ayn Rand problem- he idolizes her and gives her books out as gifts to his staff. She is an atheist who promotes selfishness, along with the totally free market, no regulation economics. These are the people you want in charge of your values at the government level?

And this is just religion and politics... maybe I'll post the problems with his foreign policy, immigration, health plan double talk, lies he's told about Obama's record, and the rest of why this Republican ticket is about as attractive and comical as McCain- Palin. Except McCain had a shred of integrity. Big difference actually.


And that's it for this edition of  "I'm probably going to wish I'd deleted this"  :)

Romney up in the polls? Really?

I can't believe the lack of questioning of Romney that's going on. There doesn't seem to be a lot of serious campaigning going on in general. It just seems like petty, not very well thought out attacks and no one's aiming to convince or dig deep. Maybe it's still early.

Aside from politics (but of course I won't avoid them...), there are some things that just don't sit right with me with Romney... and the politics in the church thing... again.

Here are my 2008 and 2010 posts about politics and the pulpit in which I've probably expanded on this a bit better than I have here:
http://www.notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2008/07/politics-and-pulpit.html
http://www.notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/02/church-and-state.html

Romney and Trump- a question of integrity?

So it is said Romney was upstaged on his big day when he officially got the Republican nomination by appearing with Trump at a fundraiser that same day. (Why would you do that?)

It is true that Romney quietly affirmed that he believes Obama was born here, but he's willing to accept Trump's big bucks and let him spout his birther and whatever other crazy propaganda without doing a thing to publicly distance himself from this nonsense. Why, besides the money, can't he stand up for what's right- not just that, but known facts? What does this say about Romney who would rather accept the money than set the record straight and get elected on real issues. I guess in business, only the bottom line matters, not how far you bend the rules.

“You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me, and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” he told reporters. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more, and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”

Yikes.

Romney's staffers paid to heckle? Another question of integrity?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/axelrods-anti-romney-message-gets-drowned-out/?nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20120531

There are always hecklers at the opposing side's event, but not usually the actual campaign staffers that the Romney campaign sent (or decided to do on their own?). At least McCain had the decency to respond to an anti-Obama heckler, calling them off (unfortunately he in so doing mistakenly insinuated that Arabs aren't good citizens...but I guess he did his best...). Romney's response to his paid staffers doing this was that Obama supporters heckle him and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. What about taking the high road? Integrity? Not to mention his paid staffers did this, not just supporters who don't represent him. What do they teach in his church- to do unto others as they do unto you (rather than as you would have them do unto you)? Maybe someone should get the appropriate sermons and soundbytes...

The integrity issue is a recurring theme with Romney...as he showed the same bad judgment in rather enjoying support from particular people than standing up for what's right when crazy accusations are leveled: didn't deny the supporter who said Obama should be tried for treason and didn't say anything publicly about Limbaugh's rank porno/prostitute/slut comments about Sandra Fluke.

And then there are the Freudian slips or poor choices of words...or both that he has had to explain: etch-a-sketch, that he likes firing people, that's he' unemployed, $10, 000 bet with Perry over heatlhcare, he follows NASCAR in that he knows some owners, etc...

*** *** *** *** ***

On Facebook, I pondered, "Obama has had to answer for many things he isn't (minor, tangential issues that were overblown); when will Romney have to answer for what he is?"

I mean, if people were worried about how Islam (not relevant to Obama) was going to factor into Obama's policy, why aren't they concerned about The Book of Mormon (which is integral to Romney's beliefs) and how that will affect Romney's worldview/policy? Four years ago, I heard Christians say Romney and Mormons aren't smart enough to be President due to their beliefs. How has that changed I wonder? Can you really buy everything? Romney apparently can.

There has been much talk again already this election year about the abortion and gay marriage issues being THE issues that are the only Biblical considerations and the things that should decide the election. If you vote Democrat, you sin. Or more positively, vote your values, be a Christian in and out of the voting booth. The implications are the same. I have long had an issue with this traditional belief in the church. Are we electing a person to govern or be an elder in the church (or leader of the state church, as I have put it in a sarcastic moment). They are different jobs to fill, with different requirements and goals. And each issue to me (not just 2) involves moral choices. Whatever we do, we are faced with a question of right and wrong, doing it in a way that glorifies God or not. Not to mention whoever makes the case that because Romney is pro-life and anti-gay marriage, he is more godly or will rule in a more godly way despite the fact that he embraces an entire book of false doctrine is going to have a hard time proving that. (some scriptures for the false doctrine Matt 15:9, 1 Tim 4:16, and maybe Col 2:22 as well)

If people are going to use Romans 1:32 to say that Christians who vote Democrat are approving of homosexuality, why are Christians who are Republicans not approving of an entire book of false doctrine (Romney's Book of Mormon, other testament of Jesus Christ)? They often shrug off my point that these 2 issues don't factor into governing much except to appeal to the base and get votes, so saying that book won't factor into governing isn't going to hold water. If we're talking in principle for Democrats, let's do the same for Republicans.

Romneycare

Republicans make a big deal about Obama and socialism and "Obamacare," but why isn't anyone talking about the similarities between Romney's Massachusetts healthcare bill and Obamacare? If they are ok with Romneycare, why not Obamacare? Is it only the federal vs. state thing that people have their panties in a bunch over? If so, why not talk about that instead of clinging to the socialism nonsense?

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

Republican Christians often cite 2 Thessalonians 3:10 - If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat- as their opposition to socialism and hence "Obamcare" and Obama.  I do think they work in socialist countries, so I don't know that that would even apply if we did "turn socialist," which is an irrational, manufactured fear and NOT going to happen anyway. It would be convenient to have direct scriptural proof (which may be why the socialism thing is so popular despite being 100% false), but this just doesn't fit, I'm afraid.

Foreign Policy

He's apparently got a lot of Bush people on tap and given his lack of prowess on the issues, you're going to be electing these characters, too. Beware. Or better, yet, don't do it. Been there. Done that. We are still recovering from it.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

McCain's campaign's assessment of Romney in 2008 was: “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.”

I wonder if his foreign affairs resume has thickened any since 2008? His choice of advisers is troubling and lack of knowledge is worrisome (because he will rely to heavily on said advisers). Better hope there are no foreign policy issues to contend with (or that some won't be invented) in a Romney Presidency...

Powell is worried about Romney's war cabinet and having been in the middle of one of the biggest deceptions or blunders with the Iraq invasion, I trust his judgment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/us-usa-campaign-powell-idUSBRE84M16220120523

Everyone says this whole thing is going to be about the economy, though. That could be a real mistake, people. 


The foreign policy stuff on the false, mostly false and pants on fire sections is pretty scary:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
And in the previous article he says Russia's our biggest threat.


What should we be comparing current times with anyway? Pre-crash bubbles and the false sense of financial security or the 2008 crash Obama inherited? There are so many ways to spin the economic issues- what are we comparing, temporary fixes and immediate results vs long term reform, etc. 


That's scary that people would ditch the foreign policy issue so quickly after Iraq. I still remember how absolutely dumbfounded I was that A) we were actually attacking and B) no one was asking questions (in the post 9/11 atmosphere of revenge in place of justice, dissent is unpatriotic).


Romney's touting his business success and experience as governor as proof he's the best choice. The Obama campaign made a good point that Romney's experience in maximizing profit isn't necessarily going to translate to expertise in running the country. And then there are the fairly reckless promises Romney's already made...


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/romneys-shaky-job-claims/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker

If I'm President, You'll Have a Job After College
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/mitt-romney-jobs_n_1167525.html

Romney promises 6% unemployment,  shockingly in line with the current economic forecast after stating anything over 4% was not worth celebrating (not a promise, but certainly a line, hastily redrawn, much like an etch-a-sketch)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/23/romney-promises-to-bring-unemployment-down-to-6/

It seems there was also a promise of an insane number of jobs Romney would create as president that was blown apart the next day by commentators and compared with Presidents in good times and bad, but I can't find it. Maybe I'm thinking about the unemployment at thing 4% thing...

Religious Intolerance

The Park 51, or more famously, 'Ground Zero Mosque' has brought to light American Christian- Muslim relations. I really thought things should be better, not worse than just after 9/11. Obama's election brought the first hints, but recent events really sealed it.


Religious Intolerance in the US
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-09/religious-intolerance-us

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-09/religious-intolerance-us/transcript

Today's show (Sept 16, 2010), is supposed to have religious leaders talking about Islam in America. I want to check that out as well.

Some interesting points were made about what people said and believed about Catholicism around the time of JFK's election.

From Norman Vincent Peale about Kennedy:

"Faced with the election of a Catholic, our culture is at stake."

"It is inconceivable that a Roman Catholic president would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies with respect to foreign interest, and that the election of a Catholic might even end free speech in America."

People say the same about Muslims today, but in less polite language and in more sweeping and dramatic tones. The end of free speech is pretty dramatic, though. I'll give him that.

Also on the Diane Rehm Show they talked about Catholics being prevented from holding office. I have read elsewhere about colonial times and various denominations would discriminate against the other in this way. On the show, they talked about in Nebraska in the '20s they shut down Lutheran schools because they read the Bible in German and apparently in Philidelphia there was a fight about which part of the Bible you read.

***

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/26/colleague_of_nyc_taxi_driver_stabbed

When I initially heard about this, I was horrified that it was 9/11 or Park 51 backlash. Then I thought, this sounds a bit like post traumatic stress. It did say he was embedded with US troops in Afghanistan, but he was a film student, not a soldier. Not that he can't get PTSD. Some details don't really fit with PTSD as far as I know.

He's got to "bring Abdallah through the checkpoint." That sounds like PTSD. "Consider this a checkpoint" sounds like he knows what he's doing, though, not like he thinks he's in Afghanistan. And afterwards, he claimed he was trying to rob the taxi driver, so that doesn't sound like PTSD. I'm no expert, though. I'm definitely not saying he shouldn't have to pay for seriously wounding the taxi driver either way. He definitely should serve time and get help if needed. I just half wonder if there isn't a PTSD issue or if you could tell if he was faking it.

***

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

http://abcnews.go.com/US/pastor-terry-jones-calls-off-koran-burning-ground-zero-mosque/story?id=11594495

Guy wants to burn Qurans. Guy links it to the Park 51 mosque. Is this terrorism? Hate speech? Is it yelling fire in a crowded theater? Protected speech? Is it right or wise or obligatory for a Christian to do?

This verse was mentioned in support of burning Qurans:

"Act 19:18-20 Many also of them that had believed came, confessing, and declaring their deeds. And not a few of them that practised magical arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed."

My answer:

I don't think this is an example that we should burn every writing that is against God. That's going beyond what is written. An equivalent situation in my mind was if we had a mission in this country or another and converted a whole slew of Muslims to Christianity and they decided they would bring their Qurans, which represents something they once believe true but they now know is false, and burn them. That would have significance to them and perhaps signal to others that they have made a change. Maybe it would give them confidence. Who knows. My point is that the "pastor" in our current situation is in a very different position than the Acts 19 situation. He's burning something he never believed in to make some political point or provoke others or make money for his Dove Institution.

While burning books is certainly legal, I'm not a fan of that type of protest (burning books and flags) for myself. I personally know I could say more on a sign (I have). I seriously doubt his intentions. I don't think it helps the cause of Christ unless former Muslims do this without prompting as something they feel they need/want to do. All this aside from what Obama and Patraeus have said about the potential to harm troops. People have urged the press to censor itself about all types of news in order to not harm the troops or don't criticize the war or Bush or whoever because it will embolden terrorists. Why can't the "pastor" do this as well?

I mentioned reaching out to Muslims and teaching them, but the "pastor" also needs the truth. That's through what lens I want to look at things. Politics and human behavior are endlessly interesting, but we need to be about the business of teaching.

---
Another one I posted elsewhere:

The Quran burning stunt was pretty much either political or due to his problem with Muslims/Arabs.

Scheduling it for 9/11 says he thinks all Muslims are terrorists. It's political.

If it was false teaching he was worried about, he'd be burning the Book of Mormon, writings of John Calvin, other false Christian books and teachings. He'd be burning porn, books and movies that glorify breaking the law and homosexuality including mafia flicks, vampire stuff and such. There is a lot to burn if that were his purpose, but he chose the Quran to single out. Hmmm. I mean, most Christians know and speak it loudly that the Quran is false teaching. Seems like if you want to make a real statement instead of just make Muslims afraid and mad, you'd burn something that Christians accept, but that can cause our ruin. Lottery tickets. Money. iphones. Whatever. A popular one has been books that contain cuss words or sex scenes that kids are required to read in school. Make your congregation wear plain clothes or uniforms to make a point about materialism. There is a ton you could do if you wanted without provoking people and "making a point" that people already know well.

On Friday or Saturday it was said said he called it off and it was linked to Park 51 changing it's location.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/10/pastor-terry-jones-quran-burning

I don't know whether this was an afterthought for Mr. Jones or if this was the original purpose; I found out about it late in the controversy. And we're back. The Great Mosque Debate. He thinks all Muslims are terrorists. It's political. It's not just about calling attention to false teaching. Burning is an act that could go terribly wrong. It seems less in line with the Christian teachings of preaching the gospel to all the world and living peaceably with all men as much as depends on us.

---
Living with Muslims would be refreshing, especially in America. Why can we not appreciate that? They share our value of modesty. More so. They don't drink. There are more Christians who do. Homosexuality and premarital sex would be looked down upon as in the days our parents and grandparents remember fondly. They fast for a whole month and Christians are supposed to fast. The fast helps them think about the less fortunate and they are supposed to give to the poor as well during this time. This is familiar Christian territory as well. Their culture and religion values hospitality highly and they practice it often and enthusiastically. This is something Christians, and Americans for sure, can be lacking. Instead of our hospitality, we're known for being loud mouthed and culturally tone deaf. Christians and Muslims share close to the same belief in women being equal before God yet having different roles than men in worship. Culture in America has largely gotten rid of the value placed on men taking care of women and cherishing them, but this is alive and well in the Arab world.

I'm just saying that they have more in common with us than we Christians are willing to admit. People who have less in common, some denominations, pro- choice people, people into "sexual freedom", people who get drunk every weekend, people caught up in various sins in our community we make peace with (they're Americans, we have to work with them, hate the sin not the sinner, etc) and live with and may even be friends with- we don't go around burning things and provoking them and making fun of them or demanding that it is incumbent on them to make it clear that they mean us no harm and won't indoctrinate our kids, and if they don't it's ok for us to assume this and other horrible things about them.

Christians tend to be pretty hostile to Muslims and that bothers me. I'm not saying we should bend Biblical doctrine or convert to Islam. Absolutely not. But the hostility I just don't understand. Especially if you haven't asked them what they believe and what their opinions on things are. And even then why not disagree and leave it at that like you would your coworker who is of a different Christian denomination or different political party with whom you completely disagree?

Church and State

The previous post on the Blackwater book talking about abortion as a "culture of death" and the whole political Christianity thing with The Family and Blackwater stirred up more (or the same?) thoughts on the topic I continually think about - politics in religion and religion in politics. Church and state.

I always think about the big 2 - abortion and gay marriage and wonder how these got to be political issues. Why not go after a divorce ban- except in the case of death or infidelity? Surely that's of equal moral concern as homosexual marriage? Why choose these 2 and claim them as "Republican values"?

There is a strong sentiment in the Church (less so in the greater religious world) that unless you vote Republican you are not doing everything you can to stop or oppose abortion and gay marriage. I, on the other hand, don’t know that that’s the most effective or best way to oppose it. Let’s say we banned abortion and gay marriage in this country. Would those sinners be any closer to knowing the gospel? Would we as a nation or individually?

I think in our zeal to oppose these things politically, we can lose sight of the real goal.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t preach and listen to sermons against abortion and homosexuality- not at all. I’m only saying I think we go too far when we say or imply that voting Republican (or supporting candidates and laws against these) is the only solution or only way to be faithful.

I know some will think I’m a sentence away from falling away from the church or supporting or condoning abortion and gay marriage, but I just think we need to be careful to preach what the Bible teaches and nothing more or less.

First, we are to spread the gospel, not necessarily to keep people from the physical acts of sin. The latter would be nice, but that alone won't save their soul. Just like we can get caught up in the head count of congregations or the number of baptisms per week rather than making sure we are active and faithful, I think we can get caught up in number of laws passed to gauge how Christian our nation is. Numbers won't tell you the group is faithful and a heap of 'moral legislation' won't tell you how Christian the nation is or how hard we have tried to spread the gospel.

Who is to say that teaching people about the gospel, when life begins and that abortionis murder is less effective than assaulting people with pictures (and gory details) of aborted fetuses and telling them to vote Republican. I agree that a picture can say a thousand words, having seen my share of pictures and videos of blown up and bleeding children and bloody stumps traded back and forth in discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I have reservations and issues with using this as a primary tool of persuasion. I think it appeals too much to emotion and can displace reason and logic. I also feel bad about using someone's child and pain in a campaign (albeit a worthy one) to end the conflict or abortion.

Second, voting for a candidate or party lumps a whole lot of other issues together that could have equal or different spiritual concerns.

Sometimes in the fight against abortion and gay marriage it appears we forget that Christ came teaching individual, not national responsibility and salvation.

Some will think me contrary, confrontational, wanting to sit on the fence, not having a desire to fight for right – I will respectfully disagree.

Politics and the pulpit

2019 edit: Interesting how even at this early stage, how I was putting things together. If abortion was truly murder, then rape and incest wouldn't be exceptions. I didn't quite come round to the full thought put forward in  Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice - that the fact that they allow for those exceptions shows they aren't interested in the zygote so much as the woman's behavior...

Back to 2008...
It’s an election year again and I’m reminded of my unending personal debate. I’m fairly conservative religiously compared to the general population, but fairly liberal otherwise. I grew up listening to my dad, my parents’ friends, and even sermons in church say and imply that the Republican party offers the most Godly platform and positions and candidates and so we Christians should vote that way. The sermons generally wouldn’t say vote Republican explicitly, but you could tell what they were getting at. In my parents’ house, with their friends and to some degree among the Christians I grew up with, liberal was a dirty word- used almost like a slur.

For the Christians, including my parents, that I speak of I have the utmost respect and I agree totally with them on matters of Scripture. I do take issue with when Bible and Christianity mix with politics, though, and I hope if any of them happen to read this that they don’t take offense or think me disrespectful. I’m still trying to muck out my political position exactly. There isn’t really a party that captures my beliefs perfectly, no candidate that I can feel passionate about supporting.

I have a problem with saying candidate or party A is against abortion and gay marriage and the Bible is against them, therefore I must support A. I believe and can provide Scriptural support for their (and my) position that abortion and homosexuality are sin, but I think the fact that you must support candidates that have that position is opinion because it’s not that simple. Let me explain my thought process.

What was and is Jesus’/God’s goal or desire? That all would come to Him, that is, believe and live faithfully. 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 say this quite well. When we look at Jesus’ example, he didn’t want to change (inside or outside the set process of government) the government even though the Romans were quite harsh on Christians and it was far from Godly. His focus was on individual responsibility because that is how we’ll be judged- John 12:48 and Rom 2:6. While I can see some value to having Christian leaders of a country, there are problems, too. One being the issue of having religious influence in government such that laws would be specific to certain denominations or something like that-the slope is slippery and I fear that myself and those who believe like I do wouldn’t be in the majority, so we’d be at their mercy.

One way to accomplish this (Jesus’ desire), some might say, is electing Christian officials to enact Christian laws and ones that don’t violate God’s law. This seems a little backwards to me, though there is some truth to the expression “fake it til you make it”. Another, the opinion I hold for now, is to focus on spreading the gospel individually such that people choose not to have abortions, rather than go the more authoritarian route. I think everything has a moral issue to consider whether it’s the abortion stance, how well he will handle money (money God blessed me with and I am to be a good steward of), or whether he will attack countries at will, killing innocent people for no real reason. The point is, is that how to accomplish God’s desire is opinion. Sin is sin and there is Bible proof for that, but who you elect, whether you are pro separation of church and state or against, and other political issues are open for debate. There has been a movement in the past decade to politicize certain religious issues, which has removed the necessity to think for oneself. Not to say that those who disagree with me aren’t thinking for themselves-far from it-but the propaganda doesn’t help us talk intelligently and freely about these issues.

I also have an issue with the fact that the abortion ban poses some problems. It is murder when used as birth control and even in the case of rape and incest (on which most Republicans will take exceptions BTW), but what about ectopic pregnancy or other instances that I can’t think of where the question is to save the baby or mother or both are in danger? Will an abortion ban account for those, albeit, small number of cases? Should it, Biblically? Since I can’t answer that, I have a hard time with saying ban abortion absolutely and vote for those who will work to ban abortion. Never mind the fact that the so-called family values candidates are willing to murder a baby when the mother was raped. It’s a hard situation for sure. Would I make the right decision? I don’t know. But there is a right decision there and Republicans and Christians who support Republicans as the Godly choice have no problem with murder in those cases (or they must not because they say they can’t support a pro choice candidate because he leaves the door open on murder).

Also invoked in election years is how the country needs to get back to its Christian roots. I don’t think we want state established religion, do we? That’s how we started. If you didn’t attend twice on Sunday there were a set of consequences that involved the gallows at sea. And if you weren’t the “correct” denomination, there were harsh consequences including but not limited to prison. Founding Faith is an interesting book to read on this subject. The Founding Fathers and others of the time (who weren’t part of the state enforced denominations) tended to believe, with some exceptions, that separation of church and state would be good for both in different ways. Now, religious folks often look at separation of church and state as evil, worldly, and trying to take God out of schools, etc.

I hesitate to post this as some will probably think it heresy or worse, but this is a pet peeve of mine-politics from the pulpit- and I don’t always say what I want and don’t always have opportunity to say it, so I’ll write it here and move on. I hope you can do the same. I apologize if anyone reads it and it’s hard to follow or if I don’t explain myself clearly-I did my best with the time I have.

I guess I'll post it. Here goes...