The election of 2006-2008 is finally over! As I have spoken to lots of people the past several days, I've gotten more takes on the outcome that you can imagine. I have an interesting and diverse groups of people in my circle of of contacts, so the opinions are diverse -- AND extremely passionate. Here's my abbreviated take -- since we have already endured the longest Presidential campaign in American history!!!
1) It doesn't matter which candidate you voted for, our hope as believers should never be in an individual, but in God Himself. The Bible tells us that our HOPE IS IN THE LORD ALONE!
2) I fear that the gap in our politics separating believers into POLITICAL CAMPS that get us off the focus of TRUTH. Truth in the political world can not be defined completely as a Republican or Democrat idea. Frankly, no political party has a corner on truth. Only God is our ultimate truth. We need to be watchful to stand for Biblical truth rather than partisan politics.
3) There are some issues that we had better start a dialog on though. There are indeed Biblical stands and teachings on certain issues. As Christ followers, we better know these. Personally, I am convinced that many Christians decided to leave some of these issues at the door, determining to vote on other issues, that while important, may or may not have Biblical truth to back them up. Let's talk respectfully and call one another continually to seeking TRUTH.
4) Personally, I can't get past certain issues that I believe the Bible speaks to:
* Abortion and the right to life -- life for the unborn, the aged, the physically and mentally challenged and yes...the lives of civilians affected by wars.
* Marriage as defined by God as between a man and a woman. This means that homosexuality is a sin and should not be seen in any other way by Christ's Church.
* Ministry to the poor. Those in need among us -- especially those who are poor through no fault of their own should be respected, loved and cared for. The problem is that we look to government and man-made agencies to take care of them. It is the church's responsibility first and foremost. Believers need to determine why we don't' care more for the "least of these" than we do.
5)Let's keep the church clean before we start looking down our long noses at anyone else. Something about a "plank in the eye" I think (Matthew 7:3).
PROVERBS 14:34 - "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people."
November 09, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Amen to all of the above, Brian!
this may sound elementary...but can we definitively say that legally binding marriage contract is an institution "defined by God?"
obviously, the bible has some strong words about homosexuality. but when i read paul's comments in 1 corinthians 7, i hear him essentially saying "if you want to have sex that badly, it's better to get married." good advice, but it doesn't sound like he views marriage as a divine institution in and of itself; it seems that it is a beneficial gift given to some.
for sure, marriage has been blessed as an institution, but i wonder if we're grabbing at straws a bit in defining it in ways that are politically convenient. it just seems a very odd move by the christian right to go after marriage (which, as i was saying, seems to have shaky biblical support), since the heart of the matter--homosexuality--holding ample biblical support, would never stand a chance of being outlawed directly.
this move, to me, is also thoroughly Constantinian; the well-intended, but destructive practice of subjugating the liturgy of the church to the state by seeing the only fulfillment of the former in the expressed public law of the latter.
it seems there are quite a few largely unadressed issues that are REALLY at the heart of saving this institution. for instance, as it stands right now, any given marriage has a 50/50 chance of lasting. i could be wrong, but that has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, and the church, while exerting so much energy on excluding gays, has been either silent or entirely incapable of addressing this issue. until the marriage of the church has its own identity that is far and away from the 50/50 marriage of the state, and if we're going to author "defense of marriage acts", i think we better be sure there's anything left to defend FIRST. and i think it is worth considering how the act of affirming and renewing Christian marriage as embodied through particular practices, will have farther reaching effects than obsessing over what a given government has to say about it.
i'm not sure if that argument was at all cohesive...thoughts?
Post a Comment