dNote: As always, what is presented here is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree and comment politely. I encourage ]olite debate. I will probably contradict myself at some time in the future. So will you. That's what thinking people do - always growing, always thinking, always trying to find a better way. This is where I am today.
Recently I got into an ugly debate with an old friend. We had found each other on facebook after several years of not talking. I highly respect this person and still consider him a friend in spite of the fact that because of our difference of opinion he "unfriended" and blocked me on facebook.
Our 'discussion' centered on 2 things, abortion rights and Islam. At the end I posed the question "why the hate? Why the fear? Why so much spite?" His response was "I don't hate the people, just the sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin."
But, in my opinion, his comments didn't really reflect that position. In fact he said he was unfriending me because I "chose the way of death" and couldn't tolerate my "non-Christlike position". If he could really "love the sinner and hate the sin" and he saw me as a "sinner", then why didn't he approach the discussion with more love and less fear?
And that's the topic for today. "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Is this something that we, as people, can really do? Is it really a 'Biblical' position? Is this really the way to "win people to Christ"?
Let's start by defining sin. The dictionary definition is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. But what does that mean? In simplest terms, there is "right" and there is "wrong". In a religious context, God (or gods or prophets etc. etc.) decided what is "wrong" and doing a "wrong" thing is a sin. Maybe that's a little over-simplified, but I hope you get the idea.
My friend and I are Christians. He happens to also have very conservative views on most things. My views on many of the same issues are what many would define as liberal. But at least on paper we both agree that in our belief system God has told us what He considers sin to be in the Bible.
But in actuality, it's not that neat. There are as many interpretations of what the Bible says as there are people. In one sense, that's good because when people read it and talk about it and talk about how they each see it, then everyone learns and grows and we get closer to the truth of what it says and means. But in another sense, it leads to thousands of different interpretations of what God said, and in the case of sin, those interpretations give us thousands of different ideas about what 'sin' is. Some say X-Y-Z is 'sin' but others say X-Y-Z is OK, but A-B-C is sin. Another group says it's all sin as well as D thru W.
In other words, sin is whatever people say it is. And that's part of the problem. Group A hates group B because they think what B does is sinful. Group B hates group A because "they started it" and "their intolerance is sin". And on and on and on.
And bear in mind that I am still talking about those of us that believe in the Bible. To bring current events into it, some conservatives believe the enacting of Obamacare is a sin, while other think NOT enacting Obamacare is a sin. Same-sex marriage is sin, no it's not. Abortion is sin, not allowing choice is a sin. On and on back and forth.
Sin, or rather which acts are in fact sin, cannot be agreed upon. There are things that we all agree are obviously sin: theft and murder for example, but even then we argue about what acts should be defined as theft and when is an act of killing 'murder'.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. But we're all hating the different things. So that's part of the problem.
And then there's the hating part. What does it mean to 'hate' sin? Is it just a feeling or is it something you actively do? Is it just a passionate disliking? Or is there an act of hating? I hate creamed spinach (who doesn't?) Do I just hate it by feeling hate? Or do I hate it by trying to remove it from the planet? Do I hate it by telling everyone I know how evil it is and encouraging them to join my cause and spread the word about the evils of creamed spinach?
We can't agree on what sin is and we can't agree on how to hate it. So what about the rest of it?
What is a sinner, then? Obviously it is a person that commits a sin, right? In my opinion it should be that simple, but again, it's not. Some think that a person doesn't have to actually commit the sin to be a sinner. There is legal precedent for this. In many places a "conspiracy to commit" a crime is, in itself, a crime.You don't have to actually do the thing, you just have to have planned it. But some go further, claiming that if you allow sin to exist, then that too is sin. That is kind of what my friend accused me of when our discussion turned to abortion rights. By allowing abortions to be performed I was as guilty of the sin as someone who actually does it or has it done to them.
So we can't agree on what a sinner is either.Which when you factor in the fact that we can't agree on what sin is it gets infinitely more complicated.
Which leaves love. What is love? What does it mean to love? Like hate, is it just a feeling or is it an act?
We could get into a very long, lengthy, philosophical discussion about what 'love' is. I won't go into that here, it would just be too much to inflict upon you at this time. Needless to say, yet again, that love is not something we can agree on either.
I think the only word we can agree on in the statement "love the sinner, hate the sin" is the word "the".
Now let's get to the nitty gritty. If we believe the Bible, and the Christ it presents, then the question now is "what would Jesus do?" or more precisely, what DID He do? How did Jesus "Love the sinner and hate the sin" or did He do that at all?
The obvious example is the adulterous woman. The story is in the book of John, chapter 8. A woman is found committing adultery (why not the man, too? I don't know, it's not explained). The men bring her before Jesus and remind Him that the law says she is to be stoned. Jesus famously says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". One by one the men leave and soon it's just her and Jesus. "Has no one condemned you?" He asks. "No one", she replied. "Then neither do I" said Jesus, and then said "Go and sin no more".
So here is Jesus, loving the sinner by sparing her life, yet hating the sin by telling her "go and sin no more".
OK. Sure. Nice. Spiffy.
But how else did Jesus react to sin during His time here on Earth? What other stories do the gospel writers give us about Jesus and his dealings with people and their sin?
Matthew 23 gives us one example. Jesus it talking about the "scribes and pharisees". These were groups (think 'denominations') within Judaism in that day and age. They believed the best way to keep the Law of Moses was to build a 'hedge' around it. To create more laws to keep you from getting too close to breaking the "real" law. But then there were laws around those because they felt their laws were as important as what was handed down from Moses and so then there were more... and more.
"Woe to you" Jesus says. Over and over "Woe to you" and further He calls them "serpents" and a "brood of vipers". No where in this monologue does Jesus draw a distinction between their 'sin' and their persons. In the end he asks rhetorically "how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" In other words, "you're already doomed".
When it came to the pharisees, their existence was a sin. There was no love for the sinner and hate for the sin. Just hate.(Maybe that's a strong word when referring to Jesus, but I feel it's accurate.)
What else have we got?
John chapter 2 tells of the clearing of the temple court. (Also in Mark chapter 11). John, the writer, tells us that Jesus made a "whip of cords" and overturned the tables in the temple court where people were selling animals and things to be used in temple worship - something Jesus saw as wrong since the temple should be a "house of prayer". If he was loving the sinner and hating the sin, why would he threaten to whip people?
On the plus side, Jesus accepted tax collectors (those working for the Roman government), prostitutes, and others that religious leaders saw as 'sinners', often talking and eating with them. So in that sense he was "loving the sinner".
So here we are. At best it's favoritism. The scribes and pharisees are doomed, but everyone else can be forgiven. At worst there is no separation of the sin from the person. Hate for one is hate for the other.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that over all the Bible teaches that there is a differentiation between people and their actions. People are accountable for their actions, but it's possible to forgive the person while punishing their actions.
But I think that as humans, as real world people, that is nearly impossible. And especially as Christians many see a person's condition, their state of being, as sin. Homosexuality is one example. Many interpret the Bible to mean that homosexuality is a choice and anyone that makes that choice is a sinner. But what of someone that is attracted to the same sex, but has never acted on that attraction? What of the man that is attracted to men but has chosen to live a sexless life and has never been in a relationship? Is he still a 'sinner'? Many would say 'yes'. He is guilty of sin by just existing.
The same for others that live in places where Islam is the dominate religion. People that aren't really believers, but practice the traditions of Islam because that is what their local culture does are as guilty of the sin of "being Islamic" as those who are devout believers. And rather than reaching out to the person with love, we condemn all because they are "evil" and "Satanic".
Our language is the same way. Someone who lies IS a "liar". Someone who steals IS a "theif". One who murders IS a "murderer". It's how we, who use the English language, think. It's how we talk. We don't differentiate the sin from the sinner. And while it is possible to do that, it's HARD. When someone lies to you, you don't immediately trust them again. When someone hurts someone you love, you want them to hurt. It's not impossible to separate the sin from the sinner, but it's against our nature. It's against our gut instinct, and as a result there is hate and fear directed not at sin, but at people. And even many who claim that they are indeed hating the sin but not the sinner don't do the love part and just practice hate.
So what are we to do?
One simple thing: love. Just love. However you define it as long as there is no condition or caveat. Love. Feel it, do it, speak it, write it, sing it, teach it, preach it.... whatever. Just love. Let God decide what is sin and what isn't. Love yourself enough to deal with the sin in your own life, but stop the hate. And with it the fear. Well, Mr. Allen, you may ask, what about someone who has an addiction? Should I just leave them there? No. But I would venture to say that sin and addiction are 2 different things. Addiction to things like alcohol and drugs are a medical as well as a spiritual condition and yes love the person enough to help them. But not because you hate what they do. You do, but don't act in hate, act in love.
Act in love. Perform love. Do everything out of love.
Love the sinner. The end.
So ends my rant. Hope you enjoyed it.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Biblical Reasons Why Christians Should Vote
Over the course of the last 3 days or so, I have heard from at least 3 different sources - Christian/Church sources - the opinion that Christians shouldn't vote or be involved in the political process in any form.
In this article I want to flesh out their Biblical arguments and also answer them Biblically to demonstrate why, as Christians, it is important not just to vote but to be very involved in our American political system.
First of all, let me state that one of the sources is close to me and I am in no way intentionally showing any disrespect for this source or the other things that come from it. I am simply expressing my opinion which happens to be in opposition to this source on this topic. We as Christians do not have to agree on everything except one thing:" ...God gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life..."
So let's dive in. The sources will remain anonymous out of respect and I will address their arguments as a whole, but their talking points were all pretty much the same and can be found on the web by searching for "Why Christians Shouldn't Vote", the sites you will find present my sources in pretty much the same way.
The crux of this opinion is two-fold. First, Christians are not of this "earthly kingdom" and we should not put our trust in earthly leaders. The second, that God has ordained all earthly authority and therefore voting or not voting makes no difference because God places those who have authority in those positions.
We'll unpack the first: Christians are not of this world, our citizenship is in heaven.
This argument comes from this verse (and others like it). Here, Jesus is talking about his followers:
They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. - John 17:16
And also:
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ - Philippians 3:20
A tangent to this argument comes from Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
And also 2 Timothy 2:3-4
Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.
In other words, since our citizenship is not of this world, we are to fight the fight of the Kingdom of God and not worry about earthly battles, such as politics. We should speak only of Christ, sharing the gospel with everyone and not waste any energy on earthly pursuits.
Part 2 of the 'Christians should be apolitical' argument come from Romans 13:1-2:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
And 1 Peter 2:13-14:
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
A tangent to this argument is that "Paul, an educated man, would have knows about democracy, yet he never mentioned it" and "Jesus never taught about democracy so why should we participate in one?"
And the question "What would Jesus do?" Some might say "Jesus wouldn't vote, why should we?"
There are other arguments against voting and participating in politics that you may here:
There are other things God chooses, your parents, the country you live in, whether or not you are saved, whether there is gravity... so be thankful that He chooses your leaders too.
The final argument I will discuss: "people's lives aren't changed by law, only by the gospel".
Further points to consider:
All verses are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise specified.
In this article I want to flesh out their Biblical arguments and also answer them Biblically to demonstrate why, as Christians, it is important not just to vote but to be very involved in our American political system.
First of all, let me state that one of the sources is close to me and I am in no way intentionally showing any disrespect for this source or the other things that come from it. I am simply expressing my opinion which happens to be in opposition to this source on this topic. We as Christians do not have to agree on everything except one thing:" ...God gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life..."
So let's dive in. The sources will remain anonymous out of respect and I will address their arguments as a whole, but their talking points were all pretty much the same and can be found on the web by searching for "Why Christians Shouldn't Vote", the sites you will find present my sources in pretty much the same way.
The crux of this opinion is two-fold. First, Christians are not of this "earthly kingdom" and we should not put our trust in earthly leaders. The second, that God has ordained all earthly authority and therefore voting or not voting makes no difference because God places those who have authority in those positions.
We'll unpack the first: Christians are not of this world, our citizenship is in heaven.
This argument comes from this verse (and others like it). Here, Jesus is talking about his followers:
They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. - John 17:16
And also:
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ - Philippians 3:20
And they are right. When we became Christians, we became part of the Kingdom of Heaven. That is our real home. We are no longer of this world.
Paul, in his letters such as the letter to the Philippians quoted above, tells us that our citizenship is in heaven. But when he needed to, he exercised his rights as a Roman citizen as well.
But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” - Acts 22:25
But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.” - Acts 16:27
What does that tell us about what Paul believed? Some might argue that in those cases he was scared and lost faith for a moment and chickened out. Well, maybe. But considering he used the opportunities to preach the Gospel, I don't think so. I think he understood, as we do, that while our citizenship is in Heaven, we have to live on this earth and should use every opportunity to do good.
A tangent to this argument comes from Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
And also 2 Timothy 2:3-4
Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.
In other words, since our citizenship is not of this world, we are to fight the fight of the Kingdom of God and not worry about earthly battles, such as politics. We should speak only of Christ, sharing the gospel with everyone and not waste any energy on earthly pursuits.
And yes, as Christians we are to always fight the good fight and always aim to make disciples of all people. But does that mean we spend every waking moment doing just that?
The reality is we live in a world where we have to work to provide for ourselves and our families. If we as Christians were to just walk away from our earthly responsibilities, the results would be disastrous. Furthermore, should we give up TV and radio and movies and books and art and do nothing but preach Christ? I don't think so.
Paul understood that people had to work to meet their earthly needs.
[Paul] found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, 3 and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. - Acts 18:2-3
Paul also talks about living in a secular world and dealing with unbelieving neighbors:
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. - I Corinthians 10:31
In this context I am reminded of the words often attributed to Francis of Assisi (though the exact source is not known):
"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
My opinion is that THIS is how you preach the Gospel always and fight the good fight. Not always with your words, but with your example. In our day to day life of working and shopping and Internetting and so on we are always to be the highest example of Christ even when we cannot use words.
How does this apply to voting and the political process? Well, first of all, I do feel that during the political season, that Christians should be above the ugliness of the process. Talk about it, express your opinion in polite company, certainly, but avoid malice and slander. Stick to facts.
And then vote according to what you feel is the best example of Christ. The Bible tells us that we are salt and light in this world, we are a city on a hill. Our vote, as with every other aspect of our life should preach the gospel.
Part 2 of the 'Christians should be apolitical' argument come from Romans 13:1-2:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
And 1 Peter 2:13-14:
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
And again, yes, this is true. And good. And right. But while the stations of authority are given by God, does that mean the men in those stations are chosen by God? Are we to obey no matter what?
I don't think so. Peter in Acts 5:28-29 gives us an example:
“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he [the high priest] said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!"
Also, the early believers prayed in Acts 4:26:
‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed
If they believed that the kings were God's authority, why would they be worried about them setting themselves against God?
The examples of Paul exercising his Roman citizenship given above apply here as well. If he were subject to the authority over him, why would he appeal to a higher authority?
The question of the early church presents itself here. There was much persecution. How did the church survive if the believers did not resist authority? If they had simply given in to the men that were seeking to kill them, they would have been wiped out. If those men were appointed by God, why would they want to wipe out the church?
Also if authority is from God to the man and not the station, why do we have examples of men choosing men to fill the stations ordained by God?
Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. - Acts 6:3-5
And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. - Acts 14:23
Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.’ - Deuteronomy 1:13
Another point: The book of Revelation. There are too many references to cite here, but over and over again we are told the nations and the kings of the world will be destroyed. If God ordained those nations and kings, why do they have to be destroyed? The only explanation is that the men in the stations are not following God.
A tangent to this argument is that "Paul, an educated man, would have knows about democracy, yet he never mentioned it" and "Jesus never taught about democracy so why should we participate in one?"
And yes, democracy had existed prior to the time of Christ. And Paul, being highly educated, may have known of this form of government. The Roman Republic had only just dissolved recently, probably within the lifetime of Paul's parents or grandparents. However, at the time of his writings and ministry, no one he reached lived in a democracy. Rome, at the time, was run by the emperor. If anyone he had written to had be lived in a democratic society, he probably would have written about it.
It's also important to note that democracy as it existed prior to Paul's time and even during Paul's time in other parts of the world, was very different from our American republic. In most cases, only citizens could vote. To be a citizen you had to be a land owner. As a land owner you were also a farmer, a business man. So, in essence, only businesses could vote. Even within them there was a hierarchy of a ruling class and a subordinate classes, with the hierarchy having a larger vote than the lower classes.
And the question "What would Jesus do?" Some might say "Jesus wouldn't vote, why should we?"
Well, honestly, it's hard to know what Jesus would do since the gospels don't record any situation similar to casting a vote to hire a leader. This is a red-herring argument.
There are other arguments against voting and participating in politics that you may here:
There are other things God chooses, your parents, the country you live in, whether or not you are saved, whether there is gravity... so be thankful that He chooses your leaders too.
Well, OK, but then why doesn't God choose other things good for me, like only giving me a taste for vegetables, clean water from my city, immunity to all disease? How does God pick and choose some thing and not others? And how does he determine which He chooses and which I choose?Another is "has government ever changed the world for the better? Why would you want to participate in that?"
This one is funny in light of the previous argument that God gives all authority. If all authority, government, is from God, and government hasn't changed the world for the better, then we're blaming God for the government?
And besides, there is the Emancipation Proclimation, Women's right to vote, freedom of speech and religion, traffic laws that keep people from dying... I would say there is much that the government has done that has made the world better. More than has harmed the world.
The final argument I will discuss: "people's lives aren't changed by law, only by the gospel".
And this is very true. People's lives are not changed by law. However, they are maintained and protected by the law. Yes, only the gospel can save a man's soul, but earthly law, when followed and exercised (as Paul did exercising his Roman citizenship) can protect a man's earthly life allowing him to continue doing much good.
So should Christians participate in politics or not? I believe my points above demonstrate that, if your heart so convicts you in your Christian walk, YES, PLEASE VOTE! It is one way to act as the salt and light in this world, in one small way it is preaching as you practice.
Further points to consider:
1. Voting publicly recognizes that we submit to the authority of the political system in our nation as established by God. Romans 13:1-7. (This expands on our argument from earlier. If God has established a democracy, then he means us to participate in it.)
2. Voting recognizes the equality of all people and their right to speak and be heard. James 2:1.
3. Voting is one way that we can obey God’s command to seek the good of those around us and our nation as a whole. Philippians 2:3.
4. Voting shows that we care deeply about who our leaders are as we are urged to offer prayer and intercession on their behalf. 1 Timothy 2:1, 2 . (Again, if God placed the people in the stations of authority, why do we need to pray for them?)
5. Voting is a simple yet significant way we can do something about politics in our nation. ‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, Edmund Burke. Psalms 34:14.
6. Voting makes a difference in the same way a grain of salt makes a difference, and that is how we are to influence our society for good. Matthew 5:13. (Another way of stating my salt and light argument...)
7. Voting is a privilege not to be taken for granted. Those of us who reap the benefits of living in a democracy should play a part in upholding democracy.
8. Not voting is a form of voting, as it will influence the outcome. We need to take responsibility for our actions, as well as our lack of actions. I Peter 1:13.
9. Voting is part of our stewardship to use all the resources we have been given in ways that honor God; to waste a vote is to squander a gift.
10. Voting is Biblical. Jesus commands us to fulfill our responsibility to the civil authority. Matthew 22:21. (Render unto Ceasar... our government asks us to vote, so shouldn't we render unto them our vote?)
All verses are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise specified.
Did I hear that right?
Ok, I know the election is over and everyone is tired of talking about politics and just wants to get on with fixing what's wrong with America.
(Wasn't it President Clinton who said "There is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is RIGHT with America."? Love him or hate him, that's a good quote.)
But I heard a sermon yesterday that has me really confused and upset and I'm hoping my Christian friends (and non-Christian friends, if you have an opinion!) can help me figure this out.
Basically, the message of the sermon is that while Christians are free to vote, there's really no point because:
A) [Pilate said] “... Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him,“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above...." John 19:10-11 (ESV)
Which means all authority comes from God, He has chose who should be in power, so our vote means nothing.
B) (Earlier in the conversation) Jesus [said] “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” John 18:36 (ESV)
Which means if we are followers of Christ, He is our King, and our kingdom is not of this world, so there's no point in voting because we are not truly citizens here.
Now I wish I had taken notes during this sermon, because the preacher did make some excellent points that I have blogged about before, such as:
Christian ≠ Republican and vice versa
Churches that are out there handing out flyers and such to "get the vote out" and then disappear for another 4 years are doing it wrong.
Christians need to worry less about what is being taught in public schools and more about what we are teaching at home. (ie. Why fight for Intellegent Design to be taught in biology class if you never talk about it at home - and may not know enough about it to do so anyway.)
and, one of my mantras
You can't, and shouldn't try to legislate morality. To change the law, you must first change the hearts of people. (For example, to end abortion, you don't just outlaw it, you reach the heart of every woman until the option of abortion is no longer and option to them.)
So he made some good points, but I just can't get my head around this not voting thing. I know many Christian groups are like that, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, our founding fathers were very well versed in Scripture and many were believers. They knew what they were doing when they laid down the Constitution and made the United States a republic.
In a republic the authority belongs to the PEOPLE. In the Gettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln described democracy in his closing lines:
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.”
So, my conclusion is, all authority is given by God, but in a democracy, that authority is given to the people. The President, Congress, and all authority in the US ultimately answers to the people. However, just because that authority is given does not mean that it is endorsed. Those in authority have the ability to really screw things up. In the case of the United States, we the people are free to really mess things up by not voting or voting the wrong way.
Am I making sense? Do you think I'm on the right track here? What do you think?
(Wasn't it President Clinton who said "There is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is RIGHT with America."? Love him or hate him, that's a good quote.)
But I heard a sermon yesterday that has me really confused and upset and I'm hoping my Christian friends (and non-Christian friends, if you have an opinion!) can help me figure this out.
Basically, the message of the sermon is that while Christians are free to vote, there's really no point because:
A) [Pilate said] “... Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him,“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above...." John 19:10-11 (ESV)
Which means all authority comes from God, He has chose who should be in power, so our vote means nothing.
B) (Earlier in the conversation) Jesus [said] “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” John 18:36 (ESV)
Which means if we are followers of Christ, He is our King, and our kingdom is not of this world, so there's no point in voting because we are not truly citizens here.
Now I wish I had taken notes during this sermon, because the preacher did make some excellent points that I have blogged about before, such as:
Christian ≠ Republican and vice versa
Churches that are out there handing out flyers and such to "get the vote out" and then disappear for another 4 years are doing it wrong.
Christians need to worry less about what is being taught in public schools and more about what we are teaching at home. (ie. Why fight for Intellegent Design to be taught in biology class if you never talk about it at home - and may not know enough about it to do so anyway.)
and, one of my mantras
You can't, and shouldn't try to legislate morality. To change the law, you must first change the hearts of people. (For example, to end abortion, you don't just outlaw it, you reach the heart of every woman until the option of abortion is no longer and option to them.)
So he made some good points, but I just can't get my head around this not voting thing. I know many Christian groups are like that, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, our founding fathers were very well versed in Scripture and many were believers. They knew what they were doing when they laid down the Constitution and made the United States a republic.
In a republic the authority belongs to the PEOPLE. In the Gettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln described democracy in his closing lines:
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.”
So, my conclusion is, all authority is given by God, but in a democracy, that authority is given to the people. The President, Congress, and all authority in the US ultimately answers to the people. However, just because that authority is given does not mean that it is endorsed. Those in authority have the ability to really screw things up. In the case of the United States, we the people are free to really mess things up by not voting or voting the wrong way.
Am I making sense? Do you think I'm on the right track here? What do you think?
Codex Sinaiticus - Home
My Bible studying friends might find this interesting.
Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The fact that they have digitized it to make it accessible to the layman is... well it's awesome.
This is still a work in progress, so it's only got samples available. But it is free. Free is good.
Debate, don't divide.
An observation on things that divide the church but shouldn't.
I think most church leaders would agree with the statement "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity" (attributed Augustine circa 500 AD - I wasn't able to confirm that.) But the issue then is "what are the essentials?" Every denomination, every church, every group, has their own ideas as to what the essentials are and will tell you, basically, "I believe in unity, as long as everyone agrees with me."
Recently I got in to what I thought would be a friendly debate with an old friend regarding Bible translations (KJV-only v. 'modern' translations). While I thought this would be a scholarly discussion, and it started out that way, it soon became pretty heated and got so far as a question of faith and salvation.
With the utmost respect for my friend and the KJV, his position was that using only the KJV was an essential. I respectfully disagreed and believe that while the Bible shows us what the essentials are, and as such is essential in itself, there is no perfect English translation and a good student will use many different translations. I knew there was no way one of us would "convert" the other, but the friendly part of the debate broke down as passion for our respective positions took over.
My point here is that if we are ever going to achieve Christian unity, we need to find some common ground that we can all agree on. Then, once we have that, then we can debate the other issues.
The early church made such an attempt with the Nicene Creed. In 325 AD, this is what the leaders of the church came up with:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Seems pretty straight forward, right? But even though they may agree with what the creed says, there are many churches that throw it out - because it is a "creed". And even churches that would agree with what it says disagree on what some parts of the creed mean, like "baptism".
Why do we keep finding excuses to divide instead of looking for ways to unify? The "denominational tradition" I belong to (we're the denomination that doesn't like to be called a denomination) has probably set the worst example over the last 200 years or so. Large groups have divided into smaller groups, smaller groups have divided into polarized factions, and even individual churches have split over the dumbest things that really have no bearing on who God is or what He has done for us. If we can't get along on Earth, how are we going to live together forever in Heaven? (Well, some would say, only "we" are going to Heaven, because "they" don't agree with "us". *sigh*)
Can we at least agree on one thing? Just one? Jesus died for us to give us life, and he rose to give us hope. Let's start there and figure out the rest as we go along, OK?
I think most church leaders would agree with the statement "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity" (attributed Augustine circa 500 AD - I wasn't able to confirm that.) But the issue then is "what are the essentials?" Every denomination, every church, every group, has their own ideas as to what the essentials are and will tell you, basically, "I believe in unity, as long as everyone agrees with me."
Recently I got in to what I thought would be a friendly debate with an old friend regarding Bible translations (KJV-only v. 'modern' translations). While I thought this would be a scholarly discussion, and it started out that way, it soon became pretty heated and got so far as a question of faith and salvation.
With the utmost respect for my friend and the KJV, his position was that using only the KJV was an essential. I respectfully disagreed and believe that while the Bible shows us what the essentials are, and as such is essential in itself, there is no perfect English translation and a good student will use many different translations. I knew there was no way one of us would "convert" the other, but the friendly part of the debate broke down as passion for our respective positions took over.
My point here is that if we are ever going to achieve Christian unity, we need to find some common ground that we can all agree on. Then, once we have that, then we can debate the other issues.
The early church made such an attempt with the Nicene Creed. In 325 AD, this is what the leaders of the church came up with:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Seems pretty straight forward, right? But even though they may agree with what the creed says, there are many churches that throw it out - because it is a "creed". And even churches that would agree with what it says disagree on what some parts of the creed mean, like "baptism".
Why do we keep finding excuses to divide instead of looking for ways to unify? The "denominational tradition" I belong to (we're the denomination that doesn't like to be called a denomination) has probably set the worst example over the last 200 years or so. Large groups have divided into smaller groups, smaller groups have divided into polarized factions, and even individual churches have split over the dumbest things that really have no bearing on who God is or what He has done for us. If we can't get along on Earth, how are we going to live together forever in Heaven? (Well, some would say, only "we" are going to Heaven, because "they" don't agree with "us". *sigh*)
Can we at least agree on one thing? Just one? Jesus died for us to give us life, and he rose to give us hope. Let's start there and figure out the rest as we go along, OK?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)