Faith and Politics

•

This was today's reading from "Everyday Prayers" - bringing to mind one of today's political hot topics.

(GSSR - "government sactioned same-sex relationship)

When caught between your faith conviction, and what the government says you should honor/do/buy...what do you do?

We hear "love the sinner, hate the sin."  And when the baker loved the sinners, made friends with them, served them baked good on birthdays and other non-wedding events...opted out of baking for a gay wedding, she got sued.

She was hating the sin, while embracing the sinner.  That didn't work.

Christians will increasingly face this challenge, and will increasingly find ways to comply with the law, while remaining true to their convictions...or will buckle to the state, giving up on living out their faith through their businesses.

The same is true for Christians getting married.

When the state gives you permission to marry, but what they're permitting no longer resembles "marriage" - how do Christians respond?

Do they get a "gender neutral" marriage certificate?  Do they opt out of statism?

"Everyday Prayers:

Though your kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18: 36 NIV), your kingdom has broken into this world and one day will utterly transform this world. Because this is true, Jesus, I need you to free me from both extremes of naive passivity and fear-mongering aggression. Very practically, show me what “obeying God and not men” looks like when the claims of your kingdom clash with the values of this world. How do I submit to the authorities for your sake while primarily only bowing my knee and heart to you as my King? (page 96)

I don't know what this will look like.  Will the state allow people of faith to enter into marriage covenants, outside of the state's approval?

In Michigan, a pastor who officiates at a wedding that does not have the state's approval, commits a misdemeanor.  Do we see "civil disobedience" in view here?  Can we see going outside the state's system as "obeying God rather than man?"

it all remains to be seen.

•

Within a few days, SCOTUS will be delivering decisions on same sex "marriage."

That means that, as Tim Challies said:

once marriage has been redefined away from the union of one man to one woman, it seems almost impossible not to see it also expand to include polygamous relationships

1. Given that Scripture never "moves the definition of marriage" away from polygamy

    Bathsheba was David's WIFE

 

    Rachel was Jacob's WIFE

 

    Gideon had many WIVES

 

    Jehovah had Israel and Judah

2. Given that (as I pointed out a couple of days ago) we must not call "sin" that which God does not call "sin"

3. Given that "where there is no law, there is no sin."

...Christians should NOT be lumping polygamy in with same sex "marriage."

One is called "marriage" and the other is called "abomination."

This is purely from a Biblical view, not touching (yet) politics in today's world.

Does this mean that I think Christian evangelicals should embrace and practice polygamy? No, but I think that if a converted Mormon or Muslim shows up in our churches with plural wives, we should accept their marriages.

• 2 Comments

•

INDIANOLA, Iowa – Texas Gov. Rick Perry clarified his newly transformed position on abortion today, stating that the life of the mother is the only exception in which he’d support abortion.

He's being criticized by liberal bloggers for this "flip flop" - but if any of us are so set in our ways that we cannot shift our views after an interaction with another person who can make a good case for changing...well, ask if the same liberal blogger would have called it a "flip flop" if the flip and flopped in the pro-abortion direction?

I'm going to use words that I have used.

The circumstances of a person's conception does not dictate the worth of their humanity.

Even so, for the woman who finds herself in that circumstance, I can see why she would consider abortion a viable alternative to life.  Personal conviction may not need to dictate public policy.  Sometimes it does, but in the case of rape and/or incest...EGR.

 

•

Two paragraphs that struck me, given some of the conversations I have in various places.

In the past several years this word has begun to be overused, to our detriment. “Hate” is something deep and serious. It is instantly recognizable and intends to wound. But recently people have begun to fling this word around every time someone disagrees with them. “Hate” is now intended to mean anything seen as “intolerant” or “judgmental,” since nowadays the only sin most people believe in is believing in sin. So basically, if you disagree with it, you can call it “hate,” and your opponent, fearing that they might be seen as hateful, will probably stop arguing.

I have conversations with people who support "gay rights" and people who support "abortion rights" - "hate" is one of the first weapons to come out of their arsenal.

It is incredibly important that we argue honestly and with courage. Make no mistake: calling you intolerant, judgmental, or hateful is intended to shut you up. The PC police have been so effective that many people are now afraid they will be discounted, marginalized or shut down if they don’t play by these new tyrannical speech rules.

My reply to this tactic is that the conversation needs to happen, and that conversation will not take place, if one side of it is silenced.

The link to What To Do With “Hate”