Hey neo-cons,
Remember when you said amnesty for undocumented immigrants was out of the question? You said it was because you should not reward breaking the law.
Now you want to bail out these bankers who have feloniously robbed the taxpayers under the guise that if we don't they will drag down even more people with them. It's as if the rich hold all the cards; they're holding us ransom.
But isn't this the same argument you found fallacious by the pro-immigrant side two-years ago? They said if we managed to round up every immigrant in the country and deported them we'd spend a lot of money, but the economy would suffer greatly, people would be out of jobs, and the base cost of food and energy would skyrocket.
Since you're familiar with these arguments you created in the immigration debate, you should then understand the working American's argument against propping up the wealthy as if they were some sort of plutocratic headship like the British Crown.
But if you still don't understand, let's use your argument against redistribution of wealth. You know that one, right? You're using it right now against the Obama tax plan, so it should be fresh in your mind.
Obama offers to cut the taxes for everyone making less than $250,000 per annum, and reinstate the tax rate pre-Bush tax cuts causing the taxes to rise for the top 2%. This $700-billion bail out package is more than the combined yearly income tax for every American making less than $500,000 per annum.
Instead of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, you want to steal from the poor and give it to the rich.
And this is "compassionate conservativism?"
The Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 40:4 says, "Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain." Your plan wants to dig those valleys deeper and pile the dirt on the peaks of the mountains. While you're at it, cut those hills down to make the mountains even more majestic.
I sincerely hope you can understand the cry of the American worker.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Just war versus just abortion
I read Halden's blog titled Moral Equivalence, War and Abortion, and I thought it was quite good. Reading through the comments, though, I had some thoughts I wanted to add to the conversation.
I recommend reading the blog, but if you're short of time or simply don't care what Halden has to say, I'll briefly summarize what I took away from it: Abortion is wrong. War is wrong. Parties on both sides of politics view one of these two violent acts are more morally repugnant than the other. The Christian ought to not be engaged in this partisan political discussion and instead should be speaking into the entire system which produces the "culture of violence."
One of the comments said that the fact that someone could possibly create an idea like "just war" that it truly is a difficult subject about guilt and violence. He suggested that there really isn't a "just abortion" concept as a corollary.
I disagree. I think there certainly is an idea of "just abortion" and both sides of the argument are equally guilty of exploiting this very concept.
On one side you have some who say abortion is necessary, especially in the event the mother's life is threatened. Their opponents will attack them on their belief abortion is ever necessary, but they will use "life of the mother" as a wedge to image the anti-abortionists as crazy. Clearly they have a doctrine that you can kill to protect life, or even the "pursuit of happiness."
On the converse side of this debate you have those who say abortion is wrong even if the mother's life is threatened. This is a less nuanced view, saying the ability to have life demands a right to that life. The mother loses her right to life by becoming pregnant, in the same way they would argue a murderer should face capital punishment for his actions. The "right to life" side actually takes it further by basically saying manslaughter is also worth capital punishment because many pregnancies are accidental.
As it turns out, those on the "right to life" side tend to also support capital punishment and war. They often use the "just war" card to support war even if the war doesn't fit any criteria for a just war. Clearly this isn't the case of everyone on the right to life side, but a vocal majority.
In life of the mother situations, "just abortion" ideas are used in the same way that self-defense supporters argue their case. Pro-abortion advocates also support abortion for economic purposes, or justify them through moral arguments other than "inconvenience."
So it comes to the discussion of guilt and motive. The unborn child is not purposefully trying to damage the career, livelihood or life of its mother. An enemy soldier, on the other hand, is ordered to kill. However, the "collateral damage" of innocents are not intent to kill, nor would they kill.
We have logical hoops and hurdles in order to justify both just war and abortion.
I recommend reading the blog, but if you're short of time or simply don't care what Halden has to say, I'll briefly summarize what I took away from it: Abortion is wrong. War is wrong. Parties on both sides of politics view one of these two violent acts are more morally repugnant than the other. The Christian ought to not be engaged in this partisan political discussion and instead should be speaking into the entire system which produces the "culture of violence."
One of the comments said that the fact that someone could possibly create an idea like "just war" that it truly is a difficult subject about guilt and violence. He suggested that there really isn't a "just abortion" concept as a corollary.
I disagree. I think there certainly is an idea of "just abortion" and both sides of the argument are equally guilty of exploiting this very concept.
On one side you have some who say abortion is necessary, especially in the event the mother's life is threatened. Their opponents will attack them on their belief abortion is ever necessary, but they will use "life of the mother" as a wedge to image the anti-abortionists as crazy. Clearly they have a doctrine that you can kill to protect life, or even the "pursuit of happiness."
On the converse side of this debate you have those who say abortion is wrong even if the mother's life is threatened. This is a less nuanced view, saying the ability to have life demands a right to that life. The mother loses her right to life by becoming pregnant, in the same way they would argue a murderer should face capital punishment for his actions. The "right to life" side actually takes it further by basically saying manslaughter is also worth capital punishment because many pregnancies are accidental.
As it turns out, those on the "right to life" side tend to also support capital punishment and war. They often use the "just war" card to support war even if the war doesn't fit any criteria for a just war. Clearly this isn't the case of everyone on the right to life side, but a vocal majority.
In life of the mother situations, "just abortion" ideas are used in the same way that self-defense supporters argue their case. Pro-abortion advocates also support abortion for economic purposes, or justify them through moral arguments other than "inconvenience."
So it comes to the discussion of guilt and motive. The unborn child is not purposefully trying to damage the career, livelihood or life of its mother. An enemy soldier, on the other hand, is ordered to kill. However, the "collateral damage" of innocents are not intent to kill, nor would they kill.
We have logical hoops and hurdles in order to justify both just war and abortion.
Poverty through the Bible
If you were to spend a year attending the average evangelical congregation in the States for a full year, how many of the weekly sermons would be on the poor and poverty? If we're lucky, the pastor might manage to fit it into another sermon here or there, especially around Thanksgiving time.
But there are over 2000 passages in the Bible on the poor and on poverty. If a pastor were to teach on one of these passages every week, it would take over 30 years to get through the them all (closer to 40 years).
But there are over 2000 passages in the Bible on the poor and on poverty. If a pastor were to teach on one of these passages every week, it would take over 30 years to get through the them all (closer to 40 years).
Saturday, September 27, 2008
God's purpose
We hear a lot about what our personal purpose is. Especially in Evangelical congregations over the past several years we've had a lot of "purpose-driven" activities to learn our purpose.
Rick Warren made this popular with his book. His book begins, "It's not about you." That's true. It's about the "bride of Christ." As the Apostle's Creed calls it, the "catholic church."
But our contemporary Evangelical worldview is very much centered around the individual. God's purpose is for you. He made the world for you. He sent his Son for you. He saved you. All of this is for you.
This is contrary to the Biblical story, which is about God. All things are by Him and for Him. From Him, through Him and to Him.
Israel was His nation, called by His name, set apart for His glory. The new Israel, the Church of the Lamb, is also called for His works, for His adoration, for His pleasure.
I think with a tweak in our language we can learn to better serve God rather than our own self-interests. Christ, as our example, gave up his position of authority, and became the servant of man, identified with man (Son of Man), and died for man. This example is given to us so that we would serve one another.
The greatest commands, according to the Savior, is to love God. The second command is to love your neighbor. These two commands are so intertwined in the example of Jesus that we should be willing and ready to serve God by serving each other.
Paul said we should submit to one another, in godly love.
Rick Warren made this popular with his book. His book begins, "It's not about you." That's true. It's about the "bride of Christ." As the Apostle's Creed calls it, the "catholic church."
But our contemporary Evangelical worldview is very much centered around the individual. God's purpose is for you. He made the world for you. He sent his Son for you. He saved you. All of this is for you.
This is contrary to the Biblical story, which is about God. All things are by Him and for Him. From Him, through Him and to Him.
Israel was His nation, called by His name, set apart for His glory. The new Israel, the Church of the Lamb, is also called for His works, for His adoration, for His pleasure.
I think with a tweak in our language we can learn to better serve God rather than our own self-interests. Christ, as our example, gave up his position of authority, and became the servant of man, identified with man (Son of Man), and died for man. This example is given to us so that we would serve one another.
The greatest commands, according to the Savior, is to love God. The second command is to love your neighbor. These two commands are so intertwined in the example of Jesus that we should be willing and ready to serve God by serving each other.
Paul said we should submit to one another, in godly love.
The forsaken Christ
A while back I posted about the justice of God concerning the crucifixion. The question was, "What kind of justice is it to punish an innocent person and let the guilty free?"
But perhaps we're looking at this wrong. I read Greg Boyd's blog about God withdrawing his grace from mankind who is then overcome by sin. He used an illustration of God holding man up from the gravity of sin, but when he lets go and gravity takes over, man falls into sin and destruction.
While Christ was sinless, he was not pulled down to sin through sin's gravity, but he "became sin for us." It could have been the Father removing his protection from Christ when the powers of the world in their sin, guided by the demonic powers, who then smote Christ (1 Cor. 2:8). This may be hinted at when Christ proclaimed, "Why have you forsaken me?"
Clearly I am not entirely convinced by this answer, and neither is Boyd, but it's an interesting view. (More disclaimer, I disagree quite a bit with Boyd's overall theology, but I appreciate his fervor for the Lord's work.)
What do you think of this explanation?
But perhaps we're looking at this wrong. I read Greg Boyd's blog about God withdrawing his grace from mankind who is then overcome by sin. He used an illustration of God holding man up from the gravity of sin, but when he lets go and gravity takes over, man falls into sin and destruction.
While Christ was sinless, he was not pulled down to sin through sin's gravity, but he "became sin for us." It could have been the Father removing his protection from Christ when the powers of the world in their sin, guided by the demonic powers, who then smote Christ (1 Cor. 2:8). This may be hinted at when Christ proclaimed, "Why have you forsaken me?"
Clearly I am not entirely convinced by this answer, and neither is Boyd, but it's an interesting view. (More disclaimer, I disagree quite a bit with Boyd's overall theology, but I appreciate his fervor for the Lord's work.)
What do you think of this explanation?
Friday, September 26, 2008
The altar of liberty
Continuing from yesterday's subject in the theme of sacrifices, I offer this comparison:
2 Corinthians 3:17
Galatians 5:1
Romans 12:1, 2
President Abraham Lincoln
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Romans 12:1, 2
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
President Abraham Lincoln
I pray that our Heavenly father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of liberty.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The banking crisis
A lot of Republicans have been deflecting the criticism of McCain's comment, "fundamentals of our economy are strong." They have been blaming the people who bought mortgages without the ability to pay. But this is not the cause of this thing. I'm not trying to make this a partisan issue though, I'm trying to find out who really is at fault.
Here is a brief explanation of the problem: The banks have used predatory lending practices to create money out of thin air. Because money is not tangible anymore but simply credit, they spent credit on mortgages. They were bought by investment firms on credit. They were insured by the insurance companies on credit, and then resold over and over again on money market speculation to make more and more money. When the housing prices fell, so did the value of this credit and investors saw these investments were worth nothing.
The biggest problem here is speculation. The same problem that caused oil to go up. Not only did they spend credit, they were spending future credit based on speculation of what their credit would be worth in the future. When the future becomes today and the credit is not worth that much, they are now in debt to themselves.
The other fork is they were giving out loans to create more speculation to earn more money when they shouldn't have. While some conservatives are blaming the people who bought the houses, these people couldn't have bought them if the banks were marketing and selling the idea of getting into a home with no money down. They gave misleading loans with adjustable rates because they got even more greedy. And then they bundled these at-risk into securities and annuities which should have very little risk.
Another aspect I haven't heard anyone talk about yet is the fact that the banks kept loaning to developers to keep building new homes which cause home values across the board to fall because of supply and demand. More homes, less demand, lower prices. They lent money to make money but lost value.
So the problem we're facing now is the bankers had speculated their debt would have so much worth today when it doesn't have any worth at all. This "bail out" is a misnomer, it is really price fixing, or price protection. They want to dump money into the market to make these useless security's value actually worth what was speculated.
This is a problem. Speculating on the money markets is essentially inflation (creating more credit than there is money in the market). The Fed wants to basically print $700-billion out and flood the market. This is inflation again. You don't solve inflation with more inflation. We're going to make the dollar very weak, and the purchasing power of the USD will drop once again. Canada's dollar is going to be worth more than ours!
We don't have to print this money out, we could borrow it. But who will lend us the money? China?
Foreign banks are buying our weakened banks, I say let them continue. If a bank has any future value whatsoever another bank with money should capitalize by buying them up. Barclay's bought Lehman Brothers. Banc of America bought Meryll Lynch. The market will correct itself. The deregulation crowd should stick to their guns on this issue and not socialize debt and privatize profits. But they should concede and fix the market so it works with real dollars and not speculative dollars. The gold standard maybe?
I don't think I have the solutions, please I'm not that full of myself. I'm not an expert on economics. But what I know is it is the fault of Wall Street, and they should suffer for their own mistakes instead of sucking money out of taxpayers to maintain their decadent lifestyles until they can find a new job. When a small business owner makes a bad investment, they live with it, they take the hit and rebuild. We need to let them fail, but we also need to make sure they don't take everyone else down with them.
Here is a brief explanation of the problem: The banks have used predatory lending practices to create money out of thin air. Because money is not tangible anymore but simply credit, they spent credit on mortgages. They were bought by investment firms on credit. They were insured by the insurance companies on credit, and then resold over and over again on money market speculation to make more and more money. When the housing prices fell, so did the value of this credit and investors saw these investments were worth nothing.
The biggest problem here is speculation. The same problem that caused oil to go up. Not only did they spend credit, they were spending future credit based on speculation of what their credit would be worth in the future. When the future becomes today and the credit is not worth that much, they are now in debt to themselves.
The other fork is they were giving out loans to create more speculation to earn more money when they shouldn't have. While some conservatives are blaming the people who bought the houses, these people couldn't have bought them if the banks were marketing and selling the idea of getting into a home with no money down. They gave misleading loans with adjustable rates because they got even more greedy. And then they bundled these at-risk into securities and annuities which should have very little risk.
Another aspect I haven't heard anyone talk about yet is the fact that the banks kept loaning to developers to keep building new homes which cause home values across the board to fall because of supply and demand. More homes, less demand, lower prices. They lent money to make money but lost value.
So the problem we're facing now is the bankers had speculated their debt would have so much worth today when it doesn't have any worth at all. This "bail out" is a misnomer, it is really price fixing, or price protection. They want to dump money into the market to make these useless security's value actually worth what was speculated.
This is a problem. Speculating on the money markets is essentially inflation (creating more credit than there is money in the market). The Fed wants to basically print $700-billion out and flood the market. This is inflation again. You don't solve inflation with more inflation. We're going to make the dollar very weak, and the purchasing power of the USD will drop once again. Canada's dollar is going to be worth more than ours!
We don't have to print this money out, we could borrow it. But who will lend us the money? China?
Foreign banks are buying our weakened banks, I say let them continue. If a bank has any future value whatsoever another bank with money should capitalize by buying them up. Barclay's bought Lehman Brothers. Banc of America bought Meryll Lynch. The market will correct itself. The deregulation crowd should stick to their guns on this issue and not socialize debt and privatize profits. But they should concede and fix the market so it works with real dollars and not speculative dollars. The gold standard maybe?
I don't think I have the solutions, please I'm not that full of myself. I'm not an expert on economics. But what I know is it is the fault of Wall Street, and they should suffer for their own mistakes instead of sucking money out of taxpayers to maintain their decadent lifestyles until they can find a new job. When a small business owner makes a bad investment, they live with it, they take the hit and rebuild. We need to let them fail, but we also need to make sure they don't take everyone else down with them.
Eating meat sacrificed to pagan gods
Our bodies as living sacrifices. Interesting. This is giving our whole being over to Christ, who is Lord. No other king but King Jesus. As we are his (the King's) ambassadors. We're not citizens of this world, but sojourners - pilgrims in this land. We are ambassadors from the Kingdom of God to this place to witness for the Kingdom. We're diplomats from another world.
So what happens when we're called to "serve our country?" We put aside our ambassadorship of the Kingdom and now are representatives of a "nation of unclean lips." We are no longer an example of Christ, but an example of the wrath brought down from the Pentagon.
Our bodies, which are living sacrifices for the Lord, are now sacrifices for "freedom" or "democracy."
So what happens when we're called to "serve our country?" We put aside our ambassadorship of the Kingdom and now are representatives of a "nation of unclean lips." We are no longer an example of Christ, but an example of the wrath brought down from the Pentagon.
Our bodies, which are living sacrifices for the Lord, are now sacrifices for "freedom" or "democracy."
Basically, you can't be a sacrifice on two altars at once.
Monday, September 22, 2008
WallBuilders voter issue guide
You know that congregation I've been posting about (here and here)? Well, we led worship there again last night. This time it was really good. The assistant pastor was teaching through Genesis 13 (Abram and Lot part ways) and he talked about how the Church is divided when it shouldn't be. He brought up Matthew 5:38-48 and Philippians 2:3, suggesting we submit to one another and think of others first instead of stepping up demanding what is ours. He even brought up 1 Corinthians 6:6-8 positing, "Why not rather be wronged?"
Basically it was the opposite of the last three sermons I witnessed there. And God bless them for it. They really are good people there, caring and loving. I just disagree with the way they feel the Church should intersect the world.
But this isn't even what I am getting to, because who am I to revel in the right they did when I could point to a brochure they had sitting in the lobby on their voter registration table? There was the anti-gay propaganda which said, "What the Bible has to say about gay marriage" and proceeded to quote one passage in 1 Corinthians which is more properly translated to pedophilia, and the Genesis passage about Sodom and Gomorrah, but nothing about marriage at all. And then the anti-abortion literature about an upcoming proposition that would require abortion clinics to notify the parents of a minor 48 hours prior to surgery, which I think is great actually. Next then there is a list of party platforms listing gay rights, gun rights and abortion issues only. But I want to get to the last one, the new one I didn't see before.
WallBuilders is a far-right group founded by David Barton, a pseudo-historian (of which I watched many history lesson videos as a child). He espouses an alternative history more suited to fiction writing than reality. He is a active member in the Republican Party of Texas. I feel he has more interest in American heroes and American values than in real Biblical teaching. It is this group who published this brochure. The first thing I noticed is that John McCain's column is in bold while Barack Obama is not. (The color version is red and blue, but any desktop publisher knows when printed black and white the red prints as black and blue as light gray.)
So I picked it up and went through the issues. They're the normal fair, "traditional marriage" appears twice on the list. Homosexual issues (besides marriage) appear thrice (one labeled under "Business Freedom" somehow). Abortion issues twice (apparently gays are twice as bad as the holocaust of abortion). Energy is on there - of course that just means, "Supports expanded drilling for oil."
I thought I would go through it issue by issue because I know it was wrong just by glancing at it. And if there is on thing I hate more than the perversion of political led Christianity, is is Christians lying about issues to get you to vote their party's way. I will write the issue and put the brochure's answer in bold under the candidate's name and then write out the truth.
As you can see, there are plenty of issues of importance without the lies. You're only hurting the cause when you lie like this.
Basically it was the opposite of the last three sermons I witnessed there. And God bless them for it. They really are good people there, caring and loving. I just disagree with the way they feel the Church should intersect the world.
But this isn't even what I am getting to, because who am I to revel in the right they did when I could point to a brochure they had sitting in the lobby on their voter registration table? There was the anti-gay propaganda which said, "What the Bible has to say about gay marriage" and proceeded to quote one passage in 1 Corinthians which is more properly translated to pedophilia, and the Genesis passage about Sodom and Gomorrah, but nothing about marriage at all. And then the anti-abortion literature about an upcoming proposition that would require abortion clinics to notify the parents of a minor 48 hours prior to surgery, which I think is great actually. Next then there is a list of party platforms listing gay rights, gun rights and abortion issues only. But I want to get to the last one, the new one I didn't see before.
WallBuilders is a far-right group founded by David Barton, a pseudo-historian (of which I watched many history lesson videos as a child). He espouses an alternative history more suited to fiction writing than reality. He is a active member in the Republican Party of Texas. I feel he has more interest in American heroes and American values than in real Biblical teaching. It is this group who published this brochure. The first thing I noticed is that John McCain's column is in bold while Barack Obama is not. (The color version is red and blue, but any desktop publisher knows when printed black and white the red prints as black and blue as light gray.)
So I picked it up and went through the issues. They're the normal fair, "traditional marriage" appears twice on the list. Homosexual issues (besides marriage) appear thrice (one labeled under "Business Freedom" somehow). Abortion issues twice (apparently gays are twice as bad as the holocaust of abortion). Energy is on there - of course that just means, "Supports expanded drilling for oil."
I thought I would go through it issue by issue because I know it was wrong just by glancing at it. And if there is on thing I hate more than the perversion of political led Christianity, is is Christians lying about issues to get you to vote their party's way. I will write the issue and put the brochure's answer in bold under the candidate's name and then write out the truth.
| The Issue | John McCain | Barack Obama |
| Traditional Marriage in Federal Law Supports Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) | Yes John McCain voted for the (poorly named) Defense of Marriage Act (a.k.a. DOMA) in 1996. He supports "legal agreements" between gay couples, especially with regards to insurance, but says marriage is different. | No Barack Obama said he opposed DOMA in 1996 and in his 2004 Senate bid claimed would vote to repeal DOMA. He does not support same-sex marriage, but does support civil unions. |
| Cloning Supports Human Cloning | No McCain voted again the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for purposes of human cloning. He claims he is against human cloning. | Yes Obama says he is against human cloning. He did vote no on "Human Cloning Act" in the Illinois state senate. He says this is because he supports therepeudic stem cell research. |
| Opposes Judicial Activism Supports Originalist Supreme Court Justices | Yes The brochure cites the votes for Alito and Roberts for this. This is sort of a misnomer topic because the right wants activist judges to promote their issues - overturning Roe v. Wade for one. Judges don't "legislate from the bench" because they can only preside over cases brought to their bench. | No The brochure cites the votes against Alito and Roberts on this. This issue was levied against Obama because it's an arbitrary way to make him look bad. Who says "originalist" judges aren't activists? Justice Scalia has been shown to be more activist than any other justice, yet he's considered an originalist. |
| Homosexual Education Supports Curriculum that Promotes Homosexuality | No Voted for an amendment that would "prohibit Federal funds for instructional materials, instruction, counseling, or other services on school grounds, from being used for the promotion of homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative" | Yes The brochure cites a Democratic debate where he didn't object to a fairy tale being read in school where the prince marries another prince. This is the extent of it. Now, again, this issue is phrased terribly. It says Obama supports curriculum that promotes homosexuality. In reality, he isn't opposed to it. In contrast, McCain is for preventing curriculum from being brought to schools that might support same-sex relations as normative. |
| Energy Supports Expanded Drilling for Oil | Yes McCain is in the "drill here, drill now" party. He flip-flopped in May from his previous position. He is opposed to drilling in ANWR, something Palin supports. | No Obama has said he would support legislation that would expand offshore drilling. He is opposed to drilling in ANWR. The response given by WallBuilders is a lie. Besides offshore drilling, Obama supports using the millions of acres approved for drilling presently which the oil companies are not using. They can "expand" drilling in these areas any time they want. |
| Human Life Supports Protecting the Lives of Children Who Are Born Alive and Survive a Botched Abortion | Yes McCain supported legislation that would protect infants who are born alive. | No Obama opposed legislation that would require doctors to intervene in the life of a child should it live through an extremely-rare abortion procedure. Obama says he opposed that legislation over language used in the bill, but said he would support the legislation had it been worded differently. (Specifically he wanted the language to refer to a "fetus" not a "child.") |
| Business Freedom Opposes Laws Forcing Business to Favor Homosexuality | Yes Voted against non-discrimination bill. Again, this issue is misdefined as this bill doesn't "force" businessed to "favor" anything. It prevents employment discrimination - hiring and firing only - on the basis of sexual orientation. | No Obama does not support legislation that would "force" businessed to "favor homosexuality." He supports legislation that would prohibit discrimination. Businesses don't have to favor homosexuality (the phrasing indicates a favored possition over heterosexuality). Another unfair issue. |
| Opposes Gay Pride Refused to Support Gay Pride Celebrations | Yes This issue is a farce. John McCain never appeared at a gay pride event, so apparently he's opposed to gay pride. He appeared on Ellen DeGeneres' show and wished her well with her same-sex marriage. | No Barack Obama also never appeared at a gay pride event. His campaign issued a statement in July commenting on Pride Month, and this is the entire basis for this brochure. |
| Iraq War Supports Immediate Removal of Troops from Iraq | No John McCain supports a measured withdrawl as Iraq steps up their ability to manage their own country. | Yes Obama supports a "Responsible, phased withdrawl" over the course of 18 months, depending on conditions. This is in line with Iraq's goals. The Bush administration has started removing troops. This is not "immediate." |
| Youth & Abortion Supports Transporting Minor Girls across State Lines for a Secret Abortion without Parental Knowledge | No McCain was "absent" for legislation to increase funding for enforcement of existing laws. Regardless, it is illegal to transport a minor across state lines for any reason without parental approval. | Yes Obama voted against this legislation. Barack Obama said they had already voted to give $50-million for child protection laws. |
| Gun Rights Opposes an Assault Weapons Ban | Yes McCain has consistently voted against laws that would prohibit specific types of assault rifles. Has a C+ rating from the NRA. | No He has called for a permanent ban on assault rifles. |
| Partial Birth Abortions Opposes Partial Birth Abortions | Yes McCain voted to ban partial birth abortions. The Supreme Court upheld this law. | No Barack Obama supports the procedure only in "life of mother" cases. |
| Traditional Marriage in States Supports State Marriage Amendments in CA and FL | Yes This isn't a Presidential issue because it is obviously up to the states. McCain voted against the Federal amendment saying it was up to the states to decide. McCain's campaign said he supported the amendments in both states. | No Obama's campaign said he opposed the amendments in both states. |
| Parental Rights in Education Supports Parental Choice of Schools in Education | Yes McCain supports tax vouchers for charter schools. | No This is a flat out lie. Barack Obama has long-supported charter schools. His website specifically states this, "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the Federal Charter School Program to support the creation of more successful charter schools." |
As you can see, there are plenty of issues of importance without the lies. You're only hurting the cause when you lie like this.
Tithing time
Imagine what would happen if the Church didn't just tithe their money. Perhaps they wouldn't see their tithe as a buffer between them and actual service.
What would happen if every parishioner tithed their time to the Lord's work? We work 40-hour weeks. Give a tithe of 4 hours in service. Clean up the building grounds, mow the lawn, volunteer at the crisis birth center. Imagine putting just 4 hours a week into something like cutting hair or doing nails at a hospice, singing songs with homeless, or working to help the field laborers earn fair wages.
A congregation of just 100 would have 400 hours of labor at their disposal every week. And a church of 1500 would have a whopping 6000 hours of labor!
Perhaps we should motivate pastors to preach this kind of tithing instead of the money-centered tithe they teach now.
Give gladly out of your needs! Give joyously, not begrudgingly! Rejoice in your deeds!
What would happen if every parishioner tithed their time to the Lord's work? We work 40-hour weeks. Give a tithe of 4 hours in service. Clean up the building grounds, mow the lawn, volunteer at the crisis birth center. Imagine putting just 4 hours a week into something like cutting hair or doing nails at a hospice, singing songs with homeless, or working to help the field laborers earn fair wages.
A congregation of just 100 would have 400 hours of labor at their disposal every week. And a church of 1500 would have a whopping 6000 hours of labor!
Perhaps we should motivate pastors to preach this kind of tithing instead of the money-centered tithe they teach now.
Give gladly out of your needs! Give joyously, not begrudgingly! Rejoice in your deeds!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The sign of Jonah
I was just thinking about Jonah. This is an interesting topic because it is much more complex than what you hear in Sunday School. But I was thinking about what Jesus said about the sign of Jonah he would give.
We can use the story of Jonah as a picture of the salvation story. Jonah is the Church, called out of the world to bear witness to the Kingdom of God. But the Church rebels against God and pursues the interests of the individuals. It is the work of God that brings our death in Christ and our new life in the resurrection of the Son.
Now the Church sits on the hill waiting for the destruction of sinners.
Lord, I am grateful that you are "gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity." May we view the world as the vine you have tended.
We can use the story of Jonah as a picture of the salvation story. Jonah is the Church, called out of the world to bear witness to the Kingdom of God. But the Church rebels against God and pursues the interests of the individuals. It is the work of God that brings our death in Christ and our new life in the resurrection of the Son.
Now the Church sits on the hill waiting for the destruction of sinners.
Lord, I am grateful that you are "gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity." May we view the world as the vine you have tended.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Sermonizing Americanism
This Sunday I was back with the band at the same congregation I wrote about two weeks ago. This time I was determined to worship God regardless.
The sermon title was "Heart of Worship." We even played the song of the same name. Then the sermon started and it was not worship at all. It was not Christian at all. It was Americanism.
The pastor was careful to say it was his "personal opinion" several times, but more than that he said it "wasn't the ramblings of an old man," but the word of God. He concluded saying an important word from the Lord had been spoken.
I applaud his desire to call the Church to action, something I do all the time, but he was calling them to action for this nation, the United States of America, not to the service of the Lord Almighty. He was so misguided. While he claimed to speak the words of the Lord, he was spouting conservative lies, and demonstrably so.
At one point the pastor said, "If you still have any optimism left, I'm not done." I leaned over to my friend and asked, "What does the Bible say about fear?" For the entire sermon was fear mongering. "They're going to come for us!"
Let me briefly explain the sermon now before I go on:
The pastor said this nation was in shambles morally. I absolutely agree. This nation is corrupt, sinful and perverse. But the pastor disagreed as to why it was thus. I think it is because humans are sinful, corrupt and perverse, but he says it's because this nation has "rejected God." We've taken prayer out of school. We've made it difficult to be a Christian.
This is not true at all. America has certainly rejected God, but it is a heart matter, not a legislative one. Prayer wasn't taken out of schools, compulsorily pray was simply forbidden. If it's difficult to be a Christian in this country, I certainly haven't seen that. You couldn't run for public office anywhere except the most liberal cities without claiming to be a Christian.
He went on to say he remembered a time when every American from coast to coast had the same moral fabric. That's a load of crap, to be blunt. I remember a friend's grandfather telling the stories of the homosexual orgies in the 1940s. In World War II, 80% of soldiers that went overseas visited prostitutes. Films were made to warn of venereal disease, and condoms were distributed. In the 1920s you had a time more decadent and immoral as any. The early 1930s had celebrities named John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, and Baby Face Nelson. The founding fathers visited whores, raped their slaves, and any other number of sins. The first colonists were also immoral and opportunistic (save the few Puritans).
He said the 501(c)3 muzzled pastors. I agree. He is one of the few pastors I've heard ever say this. But the reason he is upset is because he wants to be involved in politics. I believe the Church should speak into the world, but shouldn't be tied up in politics which distorts the Gospel.
He pulled out the regular Christmas argument. Christmas is a secular holiday, get over it.
Before long he compared Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden (claiming it was a slip of the tongue). He said Russia was going to turn against us, China has a huge army that can shoot our satellites out of the sky, and Iran is building a nuke and their president wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and then come after us. Obviously "us" is the USA, not the Church who he should be speaking to. Iran also doesn't have a nuke, and they don't have a weapons program. Our own National Intelligence Estimates prove this. The president of Iran has no control of the military. And the USA spends more on its military than every other country in the world combined.
He even said San Fransisco's leaders ("Who never met a pervert they didn't love," he said, as if Christians are not called to love perverts) kicked the military recruitment stations out of their city. "The same troops who are in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world fighting to defend their right to do just that." [Paraphrase] Somehow this is a Christian issue? Our troops are not fighting for our rights. They might think they are, but if our troops were fighting for our rights, they would be at the White House! Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, et al are not a threat to our freedoms.
Islam cannot coexist with other religions, he claims, and they've taken over much of Europe and "have a stronger foothold in America than you even realize." This of course contradicts the reality on the ground. Indonesia has radicals, but the vast majority of Muslims there are living peacefully side-by-side their Hindi, Buddhist, and Christian neighbors. India has the highest population of Muslims in the world, and the Christian persecution comes from the Hindis. It is this myth that all of Islam is the radical Wahhabi, not the mystical Sufi, nor the Sunni or Shiite brands.
The pastor said the nation is going to hell and the Church is sitting inside their buildings apathetic. I absolutely agree! Problem is, he's preaching moralism, not the Gospel. Making people live morally isn't going to save them from destruction.
But in the end, what it comes down to is he failed to preach the Gospel at all. The Gospel is not about freedom of worship, forcing people to live according to some arbitrary moralism, and American's national security.
The Gospel is universal, and can be taken to every part of the world to change lives and redeem creation. You cannot take any of this sermon to a non-American congregation with any relevancy. It's so out of touch with reality to begin with, but when it doesn't deal with real Church life, godliness, salvation or worship, it's rubbish! You can't go to Indonesia and tell their Church they're apathetic because their country isn't ruled by Christian values. They need to stand up for themselves because they aren't wished a "merry Christmas" in December. They ought to protest in the streets because the Ten Commandments aren't in the courthouses.
Or maybe we should go to Calcutta and have the Church there stand up for their rights. But make sure they keep the government from creating any programs that might help the suffering and dying. We don't want any socialism! Instead, make sure the schools in Calcutta have compulsory prayer every day.
I think he should study the Bible more, and newsmax.com less.
The sermon title was "Heart of Worship." We even played the song of the same name. Then the sermon started and it was not worship at all. It was not Christian at all. It was Americanism.
The pastor was careful to say it was his "personal opinion" several times, but more than that he said it "wasn't the ramblings of an old man," but the word of God. He concluded saying an important word from the Lord had been spoken.
I applaud his desire to call the Church to action, something I do all the time, but he was calling them to action for this nation, the United States of America, not to the service of the Lord Almighty. He was so misguided. While he claimed to speak the words of the Lord, he was spouting conservative lies, and demonstrably so.
At one point the pastor said, "If you still have any optimism left, I'm not done." I leaned over to my friend and asked, "What does the Bible say about fear?" For the entire sermon was fear mongering. "They're going to come for us!"
Let me briefly explain the sermon now before I go on:
The pastor said this nation was in shambles morally. I absolutely agree. This nation is corrupt, sinful and perverse. But the pastor disagreed as to why it was thus. I think it is because humans are sinful, corrupt and perverse, but he says it's because this nation has "rejected God." We've taken prayer out of school. We've made it difficult to be a Christian.
This is not true at all. America has certainly rejected God, but it is a heart matter, not a legislative one. Prayer wasn't taken out of schools, compulsorily pray was simply forbidden. If it's difficult to be a Christian in this country, I certainly haven't seen that. You couldn't run for public office anywhere except the most liberal cities without claiming to be a Christian.
He went on to say he remembered a time when every American from coast to coast had the same moral fabric. That's a load of crap, to be blunt. I remember a friend's grandfather telling the stories of the homosexual orgies in the 1940s. In World War II, 80% of soldiers that went overseas visited prostitutes. Films were made to warn of venereal disease, and condoms were distributed. In the 1920s you had a time more decadent and immoral as any. The early 1930s had celebrities named John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, and Baby Face Nelson. The founding fathers visited whores, raped their slaves, and any other number of sins. The first colonists were also immoral and opportunistic (save the few Puritans).
He said the 501(c)3 muzzled pastors. I agree. He is one of the few pastors I've heard ever say this. But the reason he is upset is because he wants to be involved in politics. I believe the Church should speak into the world, but shouldn't be tied up in politics which distorts the Gospel.
He pulled out the regular Christmas argument. Christmas is a secular holiday, get over it.
Before long he compared Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden (claiming it was a slip of the tongue). He said Russia was going to turn against us, China has a huge army that can shoot our satellites out of the sky, and Iran is building a nuke and their president wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and then come after us. Obviously "us" is the USA, not the Church who he should be speaking to. Iran also doesn't have a nuke, and they don't have a weapons program. Our own National Intelligence Estimates prove this. The president of Iran has no control of the military. And the USA spends more on its military than every other country in the world combined.
He even said San Fransisco's leaders ("Who never met a pervert they didn't love," he said, as if Christians are not called to love perverts) kicked the military recruitment stations out of their city. "The same troops who are in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world fighting to defend their right to do just that." [Paraphrase] Somehow this is a Christian issue? Our troops are not fighting for our rights. They might think they are, but if our troops were fighting for our rights, they would be at the White House! Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, et al are not a threat to our freedoms.
Islam cannot coexist with other religions, he claims, and they've taken over much of Europe and "have a stronger foothold in America than you even realize." This of course contradicts the reality on the ground. Indonesia has radicals, but the vast majority of Muslims there are living peacefully side-by-side their Hindi, Buddhist, and Christian neighbors. India has the highest population of Muslims in the world, and the Christian persecution comes from the Hindis. It is this myth that all of Islam is the radical Wahhabi, not the mystical Sufi, nor the Sunni or Shiite brands.
The pastor said the nation is going to hell and the Church is sitting inside their buildings apathetic. I absolutely agree! Problem is, he's preaching moralism, not the Gospel. Making people live morally isn't going to save them from destruction.
But in the end, what it comes down to is he failed to preach the Gospel at all. The Gospel is not about freedom of worship, forcing people to live according to some arbitrary moralism, and American's national security.
The Gospel is universal, and can be taken to every part of the world to change lives and redeem creation. You cannot take any of this sermon to a non-American congregation with any relevancy. It's so out of touch with reality to begin with, but when it doesn't deal with real Church life, godliness, salvation or worship, it's rubbish! You can't go to Indonesia and tell their Church they're apathetic because their country isn't ruled by Christian values. They need to stand up for themselves because they aren't wished a "merry Christmas" in December. They ought to protest in the streets because the Ten Commandments aren't in the courthouses.
Or maybe we should go to Calcutta and have the Church there stand up for their rights. But make sure they keep the government from creating any programs that might help the suffering and dying. We don't want any socialism! Instead, make sure the schools in Calcutta have compulsory prayer every day.
I think he should study the Bible more, and newsmax.com less.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
For your consideration, forgiveness
Mark 11:25 But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
 |
| From Blogger Pictures |
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Class warfare
Any time someone talks about taking on big business for the benefit of the working class, you always hear indictments of "class warfare" (as if that was a bad thing). But this is always a one-way street. The working class has no power, and their "class warfare" is mostly words.
But the capitalist class has been engaging in class warfare for hundreds of years. It's not just words, it ruins lives, families and communities.
If voting for labor rights is class warfare, than what is predatory lending? High interest credit cards? Reduction in wages, benefits and pensions? The wage gap between laborer and executive? Hiring of illegal immigrants? Big business pushing small business out of the market?
Make no mistake, class warfare is upon us on a daily basis. The real question is, how long will the laborer take it?
Yesterday we celebrated a national holiday that stems from the work of anarchists. It's not Walmart's favorite holiday for sure because it is a celebration of the right of laborers to organize. The tradition of the syndicationalists of the early 20th Century should be sought after in this global economy. Do your homework.
But the capitalist class has been engaging in class warfare for hundreds of years. It's not just words, it ruins lives, families and communities.
If voting for labor rights is class warfare, than what is predatory lending? High interest credit cards? Reduction in wages, benefits and pensions? The wage gap between laborer and executive? Hiring of illegal immigrants? Big business pushing small business out of the market?
Make no mistake, class warfare is upon us on a daily basis. The real question is, how long will the laborer take it?
Yesterday we celebrated a national holiday that stems from the work of anarchists. It's not Walmart's favorite holiday for sure because it is a celebration of the right of laborers to organize. The tradition of the syndicationalists of the early 20th Century should be sought after in this global economy. Do your homework.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Jesus was definitely a Republican
I was pretty angry yesterday. Not angry at anybody, just angry at the institutions we have in the USA that cause situations like this.
My band was asked to play at a congregation here in the valley, which included three services in the morning and one in the evening. The first three services were identical (mostly) and the evening service was a "Bible study" (Chuck Smith style).
I really enjoyed the morning service. It was about working through trials together, supporting each other in the hard times. The pastor didn't try to explain why bad things happened, just that God is with us in them, He is our only comfort, and we need to actually care for the needs of others.
But then he gets towards the end of the sermon and takes a turn towards the political. He was consciously aware of what he was doing here, even saying, "I need to be careful because I cannot endorse any candidate up here." But then he proceeds to say, "With this upcoming election it looked like either way we went we were equally doomed, but then Friday one of the candidates selected a spirit-filled, born again woman from the Assemblies of God." He went on to mention her by name, Sarah Palin. If that's not an endorsement I don't know what is.
Now I'm not sure why it matters that she's pentecostal (the congregation isn't pentecostal at all). All the candidates are Christians. Obama specifically says he takes his Bible with him everywhere and reads it daily. Apparently it doesn't matter if you're a professing Christian when you're in politics, you're going to hell and taking the world along with you if you disagree on policy issues.
I don't mean to get political myself here, but the pastor's point was that people were already making comments about how they can't accept a VP who rolls around the floor speaking in tongues. I hadn't known she was AoG until he brought it up. This means she truly is the worst possible running mate for John McCain who has attacked Obama on experience (Palin has all of 20-months in the Governorship), celebrity (Palin was a pagent contestant and TV personality, as well as posing for Vogue magazine), and his affiliation with a black liberationist pastor (AoG believes tongues are a sign of salvation, and those without this "gift of the spirit" are not saved).
But the political talk of the pastor didn't stop here, he went on to say he believes California Proposition 8 will pass with a huge majority, even though polls now show opposition to the bill holds a strong majority. This proposition amends the California state Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He went on to say the Church would be under attack for its support of this bill, and that is a sign of persecution.
The rest of this post will be focused on this issue because in the evening service the assistant pastor (who was sermonizing) said that "experts" predeict Christian persecution in between two and four years if Prop-8 fails. (This assistant pastor also talked about the antichrist describing him as someone who is "eloquent, charasmatic, able to attract a lot of people to himself" who talks about "hope and change" as well as "peace and unity," obvious allusions to Barack Obama.)
Even if you do believe the Bible defines marriage (which it doesn't), what does it matter how society around you defines it? Follow your convictions and marry a woman, and only one. Do it. That's your perogative. But how does someone else marrying someone you wouldn't affect your walk with God? It doesn't. In this state we might talk about gays marrying, in other countries polygamy is alright. It doesn't matter because the world is fallen and sinful, and we shouldn't expect them to live to the standards you would hold for yourself.
This isn't relativism, it's not saying it's OK for other people to do what they will, it's simply doing what you know is right. Teach others what you think is right, like my pastor does. But don't make it the entire work of the Church in California to force their will on everyone else. If there's a bill to vote on, vote on it how you will, but don't make it into the very purpose the Church wa splaced here on Earth.
And this thought that the Church will be persecuted because gays marry, that's ludacris. For example, Massachucets has had gay marriage for over a year. Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Netherlands and Spain all allow gay marriage. But you know where Christians are persecuted? In countries where homosexuality is illegal (not just marriages). Egypt, Libya, India, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and other countries like that all have severe penalties for homosexuality, including life inprisonment (India) and death (Saudi Arabia).
The conclusion is the Church can exist and operate, including all commands of abstaination and dilligent service, in a world full of sinful beings. In fact it is our purpose on this world to be among the sinners. Christ said he came for the sinners, not the righteous.
But the biggest hindrance to the Church is the United States of America. Within her borders is apathy and a nationalistic religion (the Assemblies of God actually states their "loyalty to the government of the United States" in their constitution and by-laws) which is perverted. When Christians (such as Focus on the Family (when they're not focusing on families)) says America was founded not on Christian principals but "on Christ himself," they are giving this nation a spirituality it does not possess. It is now a part of the Church in many minds. It is not just a Christian nation, it is an arm of the Church, or even a foundation upon which many demoninations are built. And internationally the USA harms the Church by supporting Israel's occupation, occupying Iraq, and generally being seen as continuing the Crusades. When the USA hinders the work of missionaries in South America, South Asia and other parts of the world.
At any rate, this congregation also had a voter registration table in their foyer, and I checked the forms expecting the Republican boxes to be pre-checked, and they weren't. The final lesson I learned yesterday was love. Love for these fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord. Love for my neighbor, surely I can forgive my neighbors. Love for my enemies, for they were created by God and formed in the womb a unique creation.
But I sure wish the Church would rather put their focus on eradicating nuclear weapons (1 is 1 too many, so 30,000 is infinitely sinful), fighting slavery (slavery is at it's highest point in history now), fighting poverty, making sure wages are being paid fairly, helping single mothers and their children survive, and reducing the number of abortions in practical means (not vitriolic, election year campaigns).
My band was asked to play at a congregation here in the valley, which included three services in the morning and one in the evening. The first three services were identical (mostly) and the evening service was a "Bible study" (Chuck Smith style).
I really enjoyed the morning service. It was about working through trials together, supporting each other in the hard times. The pastor didn't try to explain why bad things happened, just that God is with us in them, He is our only comfort, and we need to actually care for the needs of others.
But then he gets towards the end of the sermon and takes a turn towards the political. He was consciously aware of what he was doing here, even saying, "I need to be careful because I cannot endorse any candidate up here." But then he proceeds to say, "With this upcoming election it looked like either way we went we were equally doomed, but then Friday one of the candidates selected a spirit-filled, born again woman from the Assemblies of God." He went on to mention her by name, Sarah Palin. If that's not an endorsement I don't know what is.
Now I'm not sure why it matters that she's pentecostal (the congregation isn't pentecostal at all). All the candidates are Christians. Obama specifically says he takes his Bible with him everywhere and reads it daily. Apparently it doesn't matter if you're a professing Christian when you're in politics, you're going to hell and taking the world along with you if you disagree on policy issues.
I don't mean to get political myself here, but the pastor's point was that people were already making comments about how they can't accept a VP who rolls around the floor speaking in tongues. I hadn't known she was AoG until he brought it up. This means she truly is the worst possible running mate for John McCain who has attacked Obama on experience (Palin has all of 20-months in the Governorship), celebrity (Palin was a pagent contestant and TV personality, as well as posing for Vogue magazine), and his affiliation with a black liberationist pastor (AoG believes tongues are a sign of salvation, and those without this "gift of the spirit" are not saved).
But the political talk of the pastor didn't stop here, he went on to say he believes California Proposition 8 will pass with a huge majority, even though polls now show opposition to the bill holds a strong majority. This proposition amends the California state Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He went on to say the Church would be under attack for its support of this bill, and that is a sign of persecution.
The rest of this post will be focused on this issue because in the evening service the assistant pastor (who was sermonizing) said that "experts" predeict Christian persecution in between two and four years if Prop-8 fails. (This assistant pastor also talked about the antichrist describing him as someone who is "eloquent, charasmatic, able to attract a lot of people to himself" who talks about "hope and change" as well as "peace and unity," obvious allusions to Barack Obama.)
Even if you do believe the Bible defines marriage (which it doesn't), what does it matter how society around you defines it? Follow your convictions and marry a woman, and only one. Do it. That's your perogative. But how does someone else marrying someone you wouldn't affect your walk with God? It doesn't. In this state we might talk about gays marrying, in other countries polygamy is alright. It doesn't matter because the world is fallen and sinful, and we shouldn't expect them to live to the standards you would hold for yourself.
This isn't relativism, it's not saying it's OK for other people to do what they will, it's simply doing what you know is right. Teach others what you think is right, like my pastor does. But don't make it the entire work of the Church in California to force their will on everyone else. If there's a bill to vote on, vote on it how you will, but don't make it into the very purpose the Church wa splaced here on Earth.
And this thought that the Church will be persecuted because gays marry, that's ludacris. For example, Massachucets has had gay marriage for over a year. Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Netherlands and Spain all allow gay marriage. But you know where Christians are persecuted? In countries where homosexuality is illegal (not just marriages). Egypt, Libya, India, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and other countries like that all have severe penalties for homosexuality, including life inprisonment (India) and death (Saudi Arabia).
The conclusion is the Church can exist and operate, including all commands of abstaination and dilligent service, in a world full of sinful beings. In fact it is our purpose on this world to be among the sinners. Christ said he came for the sinners, not the righteous.
But the biggest hindrance to the Church is the United States of America. Within her borders is apathy and a nationalistic religion (the Assemblies of God actually states their "loyalty to the government of the United States" in their constitution and by-laws) which is perverted. When Christians (such as Focus on the Family (when they're not focusing on families)) says America was founded not on Christian principals but "on Christ himself," they are giving this nation a spirituality it does not possess. It is now a part of the Church in many minds. It is not just a Christian nation, it is an arm of the Church, or even a foundation upon which many demoninations are built. And internationally the USA harms the Church by supporting Israel's occupation, occupying Iraq, and generally being seen as continuing the Crusades. When the USA hinders the work of missionaries in South America, South Asia and other parts of the world.
At any rate, this congregation also had a voter registration table in their foyer, and I checked the forms expecting the Republican boxes to be pre-checked, and they weren't. The final lesson I learned yesterday was love. Love for these fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord. Love for my neighbor, surely I can forgive my neighbors. Love for my enemies, for they were created by God and formed in the womb a unique creation.
But I sure wish the Church would rather put their focus on eradicating nuclear weapons (1 is 1 too many, so 30,000 is infinitely sinful), fighting slavery (slavery is at it's highest point in history now), fighting poverty, making sure wages are being paid fairly, helping single mothers and their children survive, and reducing the number of abortions in practical means (not vitriolic, election year campaigns).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)