Category Archives: Politics

How should Christians approach homosexuality?

Posted by on January 2, 2011 15 comments

I know this topic is somewhat taboo (what can of worms am I opening?!), but I think that it is incredibly relevant (see the recent revokation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and what it has conveyed to the LGBT community). Today, LGBTs are lobbying for more ‘rights,’ acceptance, and recognition. And the ‘freedom’ that America is touting is stuck in a strange tension in resolving this. In light of this, the sexual brokenness ensued by homosexuality (but also sexual brokenness in heterosexuality, which I will not explicitly touch here) must be addressed by Christians, lest our views fall to the cultural norm.

And please note that I want to disclaim any authority on the matter–only (mere) reflection–and am, therefore, petitioning your opinion and discussion. And really, I’m just asking questions to get your thoughts as I have some tentative.

EDIT: many of these considerations use the word ‘homosexual’ and its derivatives applied to implied meanings of the practice of homosexual acts as well as same-sex attraction.

–

First of all, I am not entirely confident in Christianity’s response to homosexuality–I wonder, does it even exist? How have Christians responded to the cultural approval of homosexuality?

Before you answer those questions, I want to ask this: how many people in your church do you know deal with homosexuality?

I know only of one. But wait–isn’t the church a gathering of sinners? Isn’t it a body of those who acknowledge their sins in repentance and hope in Christ’s completed work on the Cross? If so, why aren’t there more people in the church who struggle with homosexuality?

I have a couple of (not exhaustive) proposals for the answer to that last question.

1) People who struggle with homosexuality are universally withdrawn from the church.
2) There exist people who struggle with homosexuality within the church, but are not entirely open with their burdens.

I tend toward the idea of the second–I think that there are Christians who are struggling with homosexuality. Let me pause for clarification here: I think that there are Christians, who acknowledge that they are broken and sinful, burdened with the temptation of homosexuality, but have faith in Christ’s justifying work on the Cross, and are now living in repentance and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. But where are they as we sit in pews among liars, thieves, gossips, and adulterers? Have we really welcomed those who struggle with homosexuality into our church? Or have we scared them into thinking that they are somehow worse than the rest? Have we scared them into thinking that they cannot live in the love of Christ because of their sexual brokenness?

I know not how to phrase it any differently, but I think we have scared those who struggle with homosexuality by not really loving them. And if we’re scaring struggling Christians, how can we reach the entire nation of those struggling with homosexuality outside the church?

Respond as you will, but if I can conclude with my questions in a somewhat ordered matter, you may like following that:

1) How has Christianity responded to homosexuality?
2) How many people in your church do you know struggle with homosexuality?
3) Where are the ‘homosexuals’ in the church?
4) Has Christianity’s response to homosexuality been one of love?
5) How do we respond?

Or even more summarily:

1) How should Christians approach homosexuality?

The Constitution is Not God-Breathed

Posted by on September 30, 2010 3 comments

Disclaimer: This was difficult for me to write, so I apologize if it isn’t as coherent as I hope for it to be. This is exclusively written to Christians, and is meant to point out inconsistencies I have observed that are most likely implied rather than purposeful effects of over-zealous patriotism in the life of a Christian. Also, I apologize for my over-use of italics… :)

Around July 4th of this year, I asked Trey what he thought I should write about next on here, and the answer he gave me was “Patriotism.” So here we go: I think that Patriotism is not a bad thing to have. The problem is, when a Christian’s Patriotism and Love of Christ are indistinguishable in the passion we give them, it misrepresents what Christ is about and belittles the authority of the Bible. I’m not trying to bash Patriotism in and of itself, because there is something to be said for a country having unity among it’s people, but there’s just a problem when Christians don’t acknowledge the fact that they are united to a body that is greater than any physical boundaries. As the great theologian Jon Foreman once said (and yes, Trey, I did just mess with your trademark phrase),

“I pledge allegiance to a country without borders, without politicians.“

1. Americans are not God’s chosen people.
The idea that we have a divine right or anything like that is false. God having a ‘chosen people’ ended when Christ died:

“…for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through Faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:26-29)

Okay, so maybe I lied. God does still have a chosen people, but their ‘chosen-ness’ has nothing to do with who they are or where they live! They are defined simply by the infinite love that they have received from God. They are Christ’s bride and he does not care what they look like. So it does a terrible disservice when “Christian” and “American” are equated. When a Christian identifies themselves as an American with equal or more fervor than they identify themselves with Christ, it looks like America is the land of God and that you must be American to be Christian and that, of course, is not true.

2. Extreme patriotism misrepresents Christ and the purpose of the Church.
Equating American values and Chistianity is dangerous, because Jesus was decidedly counter-cultural. Doing so equates America’s self-centeredness, consumerism, complacency etc. with Jesus’ love, kindness, forgiveness, and tendency to tell people that they needed to repent of their ways. (And that last one refers to Christians more than non-Christians.) Christ did not vie for political power, though I’m sure he could have.* He instead went to the poor and the outcasts himself and loved them. The Church has enough problems as it is**, without being tangled up in the scandals and problems of the American government and political parties. The only scandal the Church needs to be involved in is the scandal of the gospel.

3. The Constitution does not have the same authority as the Bible.
As the title of this post says, the Constitution is not God-breathed. It has as much divine inspiration as any other country’s main document of laws.
There is a definite distinction between what the Constitution says and what the Bible stands for, and when Christians are as enthusiastic about the Constitution as they are about the Bible, it belittles the Bible.

In closing, patriotism is not important; your allegiance to Christ is important.

If you must define yourself with devotion to something, let it be Christ. I promise it will be infinitely more fulfilling. Christ will not fail you.

______________________________________

*Whether this was because he thought political power was not important or that he was trying to stay out of the spotlight until he was supposed to be crucified, or both, I do not know. But, I assume that he wanted to represent himself, and not get involved in a group that would misrepresent him. And that’s not to say he was never involved in a group like that, since, of course, the church misrepresents him all the time, but that’s kind of a different story.

**I’m not saying that that means that Christians shouldn’t be involved in the church. But hopefully that is obvious! Christians are commanded to be involved in the Church, we are the church, the body of Christ. We are not the body of Uncle Sam or something ridiculous like that.

My Thoughts on the Qur’an Burning

Posted by on September 10, 2010 8 comments

So, yeah, everyone knows what I’m talking about I presume. If you don’t, just Google it. There’s enough people talking about it that I thought it was worth formulating a formal opinion on.

I want to make two preliminary things very clear.

  1. I do not agree with Jones’ decision to burn the Qur’an.
  2. I am in no way a softie to the Muslim faith.

Just so we have those two things out of the way. They are both important in understanding my view, and seem to be two polarizing points in the modern argument. I stand not on either polar end.

Okay, that being said, let me say some things I want to say. I believe Islam is evil, just as I believe any false faith or god is evil. I would define evil as being “something that leads one to neglect the ultimate reality, authority, and glory of God,” so therefore I think that it is evil. I don’t feel like I have to justify saying that, or defend myself on that point. If you believe the Bible to the letter, then you understand how a faith that leads people to not turn to the true Yaweh is not a good faith, and leads people to believe something else is the ultimate ends of life and squander their life in pursuit of it, just as someone in America might squander their life in pursuit of money, fame, the American Dream, etc. But while money and power are not at their root in opposition to God, but rather the love of them is (1 Timothy 6:10), you can see how religions/faiths that lead people not to look at Jesus as the Righteous One, the Son of God, and the only way to belief in the One True God, cannot be good. In fact they are the opposite of good. I would call this evil.

I don’t hate people who are Muslims, just as I wouldn’t hate a lost person who is a severe alcoholic, or an adulterer, or a homosexual, or a glutton. All of these sins that lead one to turn form the One True God through Jesus Christ are all results of a fallen and twisted world, from which all Christians were saved from. We WERE ‘grouped,’ if you will, with these. Notice the past tense of were, but it does exist. Those of the Muslim faith are not aliens, they’re not themselves forces of Satan, and most importantly nor are they somehow too far from the grace of God in redemption through Christ. For those that are quick to strike hatred against those who do wrong that have not yet been redeemed by God, you need a good dose of the Gospel, and you might want to ask yourself if you have been saved at all. Just saying.. it’s a question worth asking. If you are, then lower your pride, get your face and heart in the word, and get on your knees. Our hearts should break for these people, and fill with just (as in justice) anger toward iniquity. Their sin is in no way excused, but perhaps in our brokenness we can see their sin condition as being so similar to ours before Christ, and pray that the just, righteous, glorious God would show mercy on them and draw them, through the Holy Spirit, to redemption in Christ. That should be the main thing on our minds… not hatred…and not soft, relativistic, inclusive cushiness that is the other polar opposite.

So yes, love the sinner. But love them not for the fact that their belief is somehow honorable and respectable, but because you see in them a brokenness which is hell-bound without beautiful redemption through Christ. Pray that for them, and pray it hard. Real hard. There is a danger that we will fall into a defensive anger in defense of those of the Muslim faith that borders on religious inclusivism. Inclusivism says you can believe what you want to believe and if you really believe it and love it and are morally good, it can’t be all that bad. Guys, the Muslim does not know God. The Muslim has been deceived. The Muslim is hell-bound without redemption through Christ. We have to understand that. The Muslim, just as one under any other faith that doesn’t celebrate and worship and glory in the lordship and deity and atonement of Jesus, has been deceived by evil. And that should make us angry with a righteous anger toward sin and toward the evil one and his agents. If it doesn’t, then we need to get in the word and on our knees in prayer and pray God would remind us of the exclusive lordship of Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

So how does this relate to the Qur’an? Why don’t I want it to be burned? I mean it’s evil, so how can an outspoken act against the evil be bad? Or…. on the other hand, why don’t I celebrate the Qur’an in defiance of the burning? Why don’t I come to the strong side of the Muslims and defend them fully because they should have a voice just like everyone else?

Actually, I don’t want the Qur’an to be burned because I think it’s stupid. It’s just asking for it. Images of the burning will, as news articles have said, no doubt be bused by Muslim extremists to incite hatred against America that will result in more violence and danger. Violence=no good. So I’m against the Qur’an burning because, practically, it won’t work. Those that think the book is holy text will just get royally ticked off (as well as a whole lot of other people), and those that believe that it’s false won’t be helped because they already believe it’s false. So sure, it’s making a statement, but it’s just stupid. That being said, I still think Christian churches should preach the exclusive claim of the Christian faith and Christ’s exclusive authority and sacrifice as the way to redemption to the true God. Some Christian churches are going to have “inclusive services” where they read the Qur’an to somehow counter what the Florida preacher is doing. (read http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7190534.html) That’s just a load of BS. Seriously. Yes, love the Muslim with a brokenness for the condition of their soul, which is so similar to yours before Christ! But don’t compromise the very essence of what brings God glory! Don’t compromise worship of the True God and of his Son! Come on. Christianity is an exclusive religion, as is Islam. So in a way, I think Islam should be preached against. But blatantly creating signals that are obviously violent is no good. It helps no one, and it ends up hurting everyone. That’s the long and the short of it. Rather, it’s just the long. But I want to make myself descriptively clear.

Wrap-up: Get broken, love the lost, hate what God hates, pray for redemption, don’t be stupid, preach Jesus, deny all other claims, glorify God. Repeat.

Make sense?

-Riley

Trey’s political treatise, part 3

Posted by on January 21, 2010 10 comments

[If you haven't read part 1 and part 2, you might want to do that.]

Now that I’ve tried to debunk both sides, or at least show the weaknesses of both sides, I’ll finally state my own personal views.

As you may have heard me say before, I am a monarchist, in (almost) all seriousness. I think democracy is not a bad form of government, but I would argue that monarchy is not only a more effective form of government, it’s also more Biblical, because like marriage it is a model for how God interacts with the world. I’ve got more reasons to back some of this up, but that’s not what this discussion was supposed to be about, so if you want to debate with me about monarchy, let’s do it another time, or in another place. At any rate, the reason why I said I was a monarchist is because that would lead to the obvious conclusion that I personally think that government ought to be the head, not an arm. However, as I have said before, in the US our government functions as more of an arm. The government is not an autonomous institution separate of the people: in fact, it is the very foundation of our government that this is not the case (“of the people, by the people”). So things get kind of sticky as I try to wade through the options of what I think should be, and what practically can be. My gut reaction to a lot of things the government does (like federal welfare programs, nationalized health care, federal intrusion into education, etc.), is to say “you have no right to do that! That’s the state/local government’s or the Church’s job to do that!”. Which may or may not be true, but whether it’s true or not is beside the point, because (being a monarchist), I don’t think that our government has any right to even exist in the first place. So if I’m going to argue on the basis of “right”, I have to throw out the Constitution*, which would be highly impractical, as it might led to my being burnt at the stake. So since “rights” have been defenestrated, the only way I can form opinions on what policies to support here in this democracy is to base it off what will work best. And thus, I enter into the world of government being an arm. I find this highly unfortunate, but I see little other recourse than to work from within the pragmatic, “secular” perspective on government. Not to say that I won’t try to “govern” by what the Bible lays out as best for society–in fact, with my vote and (albeit limited) activism, I will try to influence the government in such a way that good things happen and bad things don’t. I will support those policies which I think will most decrease abortion, poverty, crime, divorce, etc., and those which will most increase education, health, and the Gospel. I won’t vote necessarily based on representation, because really, politicians don’t represent us at all. They do whatever it takes to get reelected. Call me a cynic, but I find it hard to believe that any significant portion of politicians actually care about what is in the best interest of those they represent.

So here are the economic policies I would support with my pragmatic approach**: I would be FOR federal healthcare legislation, so long as it let the states administer it (and pay for at least most of it), and so long as it didn’t allow state money to be used for abortions. I personally think that state and local governments would be better suited to this kind of legislation, but I understand that there are many states which would never actually pass that kind of bill because the government is controlled by wealthy and middle-class conservatives. So I understand the necessity for making it a national requirement–I just don’t want the federal bureaucracy running it in their typical super-inefficient methods. I am FOR federal welfare programs in hard times, though I think it needs to be done by creating jobs even if they’re somewhat pointless (a la New Deal), rather than just handing out money, because that would foster laziness, which undermines anything good that would’ve otherwise come out of the welfare. In times that are better economically, I would prefer that welfare happen on the state and local level, but again I understand that many states would not do a good job with it, so the national government sometimes has to step in. But I still think that they should let the local governments at least administer it. I am AGAINST the nationalization of dying corporations, though I am FOR the bailout as long as it gets paid back (as it did from the economic sector). I am even FOR raising taxes to pay for all of this stuff, though it’d be nice if politicians would stop lying like they’re going to lower taxes–we all know that it won’t happen, or that if it does it’s probably not a good idea. And you know what, I’m even FOR a graduated income tax, although I think if it’s too steep it will actually do more harm than good because the lavish spending of the rich can create a large number of jobs and help boost the economy. But in theory I’m cool with it. Also, I am FOR upping relief efforts in foreign nations, though obviously not at the expense of our own citizens. In general, one of my biggest pet peeves is the unchecked spending practices by politicians from both parties. They need to learn that YOU CAN’T SPEND MORE THAN YOU EARN!!! THAT’S WHAT DESTOYS ECONOMIES!!! But it’s unlikely that that’ll ever get fixed, due to all that pork-barrel spending. As Mr. Bill says, throw ‘em all out.

Are you happy, Riley? I took a side, and on more issues than I was even required to. Oh, and in case you were wondering, on the abortion issue, I’d probably vote conservative. I find Zach’s logic most compelling, but I can’t agree with him that the liberal economic policies will do enough good to reduce abortions. I’m very suspicious of the federal governments ability to run stuff like healthcare and welfare efficiently enough to accomplish anything significant in the long term. Although I like the ideas in theory.

Oh, yeah, and I was supposed to relate this back to the whole view of man thing. Well, originally, I started asking the question about the view of man because I was trying to find the fundamental difference between Christian liberals and conservatives. Since we agree on a lot of things, I wanted to figure out where the disconnect was. What I had drawn up for the typical view of man from the (secular) liberals and (secular) conservatives showed that both sides had major holes, which would be obvious to a Christian that fell on either end of the spectrum. So that couldn’t quite answer my question. Then as I talked with Riley, I stumbled upon the idea that maybe the fundamental difference was in what each side though the primary function of the government was. And I think it turned out that it was the deciding factor generally. So now I could make up some connection between view of man and what I’m about to say, but I don’t think that’s really necessary, or relevant at this point. I’ll spare you the nonsense. Suffice to say that I think the way government should view man is this: He is fallen and evil by nature, with a tendency to do evil. He does not know what is best for him, but he should. If he breaks the law he should be punished, though given a chance at redemption. If he screws his life up and needs help, he should be given mercy, but not allowed to be lazy and live off the hard work of other good citizens of society. So yeah, that’s it.


*I have to step back for a moment to say that I think there are lots of good things in democracy, and that I think there are ways that it could be good, and used to reform the easily-corrupted elite, or at least hold the damage from their corruption to a minimum. However, I think that a great irony has occurred in the populist movement that transformed the political scene of our country in the 1830′s: by assuming that the common man is the most qualified to govern himself, elections became no longer contests to see who could represent and govern the people more effectively and justly, but rather contests to see who could manipulate the most people to vote for them through rhetoric, propaganda, and good inter-personal skills. So now the elites still rule the nation, except it’s just the best con artists and most ambitious, power-hungry of the elites. Also, to get up on my soapbox, what could possibly make people think that the common man is best qualified to decide on complex policy matters? Why would you rather have hourly workers, office secretaries, and in general ordinary lay people deciding what the best way to pull a country out of an economy is, rather than a large group of well-educated people who have doctorates? I mean, excuse me for sounding pompous, but that’s like saying that parents should consult their four year olds as to how and where they should get their education, and letting them make the decision. Oh wait, people do that too. My bad. /rant
**Honestly, my current plan for deciding who to vote for (when I turn 18, that is) is to find some person smarter, more educated in politics, and more godly than I am, and have him tell me which candidates to vote for. Unless I take the time to do the insane amounts of research and reading and thinking and discussing to figure out what I think are the best economic/social policies, I would rather trust someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. I know this is an unpopular concept these days, because you’re supposed to “think for yourself”, but I think I have good justification for it. I am a mortal, and I am finite. My day only lasts 24 hours, and my weeks only 7 days, and my years only 52 weeks, and my life less than 100 years–in short, my time is limited. So I figure there are much better uses that I can put my time towards, because I have neither a passion nor a concerned interest in government, so I’ll leave the politicking to those more qualified than I. Let me give an analogy: I take geologists at their word when they say that at the center of the earth is a molten core of heat. I have not ever experienced the earth’s core to know that it’s real, nor done all the mathematical calculations by which the scientists arrived at their conclusion. From my limited understanding of science, it makes sense to me, but I’m not going to refuse to believe it until I “think it out for myself”, because I trust that the scientists know what they’re talking about. Perhaps if I decided to undertake such an absurd endeavor, I could prove out for myself through already established facts that at the earths core is freakishly hot lava. But perhaps I would make a mistake due to my inexperience in the field or poor mathematical training, and would come to the conclusion that at the center of the earth is really a land where dinosaurs still live (like in that one movie that came out a couple years ago). So what do I believe? Probably the scientists, because they know better than I do. The same thing applies to government. /rant#2
***How many cool points do I win for my footnotes being almost as long as my actual post itself? Does that make me automatically cool?
****Footnotes for the win.
*****I wonder if one of these days I’ll hit double digits
******Today is the day that the strength of this man failed. Today IS that day. No more footnotes.

*******Oh wait, look, the eagles are coming! The eagles are coming!
********No Sam, I can’t recall the taste of food, or the sound of water, or the touch of grass beneath my feet.

*********This would be so non-legitimate that I can’t bring myself to do it. We’ll stop at nine. And I’m out.

A Much-Needed Re-butter Rebuttal.

Posted by on January 20, 2010 28 comments

Okay, so this is a much needed rebuttal on my end. I want to let all of you know I’ve really appreciated this discussion and the different angles we’ve had from things. I think we’ve all come to a better understanding of each other and of ourselves, and for that I know we are all grateful.

I wanted to clarify some things that I don’t think I made clear in my last post about my views and positions, so I’ll do my best to clarify them here. Some of these points may run together, because they will all tie together somewhat.

Okay, so here goes.

———————————————————-

Concerning Abortion: It’s an Issue of Representation.

Let’s go ahead and get this one out of the way. I understand that Zach and (I assume) Andrew’s approach is to come at the issue practically, which I completely understand and respect. Exempli gratia, whatever way means that practically less abortions will happen in America is the way to go. This is a position that I have come to understand more fully and respect more fully.

My own viewpoint adds an ideological addendum. While I do agree and will consider the practical, government-as-arm approach, another big factor for me is representation. This is where I want to explain myself more fully. In my last, single-issue post, I tried to explain that representation was a big issue for me, id est, if a president publicly and vocally condoned something evil with his platform, and not just silently with his policies, I have a hard time respecting that person and waving their flag. I gave the examples of a president who would be actively and vocally a racist, and that I would know his vocal view would have an affect on his policies. Otherwise, why would he say he was a racist? Furthermore, when I wave that flag, I’m supporting him and, whether I like it or not, making it appear I support his view on that subject. I couldn’t fully side with a president that actively and vocally supported rape, because I would know his vocal view would have an affect on his policies. Otherwise, why would he say he supported it? I then tried to make the connection to abortion issues.

My point is then that abortion is not the only thing I care about, and being pro-life doesn’t mean a pro-life agenda will always be enforced, but that one who makes it a point to be blatantly pro-choice (which at the end of the day either means pro-abortion or pro-ignorance-is-bliss, both of which ignore the severity of the issue and neither of which I would support) will be one who incorporates these into his policies and one who I have trouble waving the banner of. This is in light of a full knowledge that overturning Roe v. Wade is a seeming impossibility right now, and with full knowledge that practically, a pro-choice president might even be able to affect abortion levels for the good. With both of those taken into account, I still will think twice about waving the banner of that president, knowing what they represent.

———————————————————-

Concerning Other Issues: Weigh them in.

So what about the other issues? If I were to support a staunch Republican who opposes healthcare, supports the war, and seems to neglect other issues, aren’t I just pro-death anyways? This is a good question. I will do my best to address it.

Let’s start with the first, yet very sticky issue of innocent death. The opposition to my argument might say “an innocent civilian life lost on the war front is just the same as an innocent life lost in the womb.” I would have to disagree with you on this issue. Now, please don’t pull any Calvinist “we’re all depraved and sinful and deserving of death” stuff on me here, because I know that. But if you can look at a child who hasn’t even had the chance to take her first breath yet; hasn’t even seen the world; hasn’t even had the opportunity to take part in building their own life, and then look at an albeit innocent civilian of another nation, who has made a name for them self, who has established a life, who has battled with the sins of the world and who has (as any other human) lost the battles, who has experienced joy and sorrow and family and love and hatred and breathing and eating, and say that the infant deserves to die more than the innocent civilian, then we have something to talk about. If you call me a hater or one who doesn’t care for the civilian or the innocent adult, then you’re missing my point. And if you say that both the baby and the civilian are both eternally damned for hell without Jesus and so really there is no distinction between the two (which, I’ll give you, on a large, eternal scale the Bible agrees with and so does the Judgment Seat), you’re missing my point. My point is that that baby, curled within the womb, has not even tasted air or food or laughter or the reality of living on its own. To say that it has any reason to deserve to be killed by the powers of this world, I believe is fallacious. We’re not weighing evils. We’re not weighing souls. We’re not weighing innate, depraved value. We’re weighing one death to another death. One killing to another killing. If you must kill one, killing the infant makes little sense to me.

“So, Riley, what about those that do die because of a lack of healthcare? What about those that do die on the war front?” These are truly tragedies that I don’t mean to make light of. “And, Riley, you say that you can’t support someone who condones abortion, but you’ll support someone who opposes national healthcare. What’s up with that?” I’m hopefully getting ready to answer these questions.

So let’s examine the issues, shall we? Let’s look at the candidates. The likely opposition to my position would be “what would you say to a candidate who condones [insert issue] when you won’t support a candidate that condones abortion.” First of all, I would ask them to read the first paragraph of this section on the killing of innocent lives. Second, I would ask them to find me a good, logical reason for a nation’s government to support condoning abortions. Because, here’s the thing. Despite the terrible tragedies that happen because of casualties in war, deaths due to lack of proper healthcare coverage, etc., the political forces behind opposition to national healthcare and support of the war are not forces who desire poor, sick American citizens to not have healthcare, or innocent casualties at war to be lost. Show me a candidate that supports those things. A condoning of a ‘war on terror’ or an opposition to a national healthcare plan are not synonymous with a condoning of killing innocent casualties or harming poor Americans who don’t have healthcare. However, a pr0-choice argument is rarely anything else but a condoning of a mother’s right to choose to murder her child. The opposition to national healthcare is not “no health care at all,” which is what that argument would suggest. Generally the Republican argument is that national healthcare won’t work and will be too corrupted by bureaucracies, too tainted with unfair compromises, too much involving ridiculous deficits, and too damaging to market progress that would help the nation. To defend the Republicans here, the forefront argument has never been “no healthcare,” it’s been “no nationalized healthcare.” To the Republicans, healthcare reform is needed, but not at the cost of state involvement, market progress, fairness, and fiscal budget. So why doesn’t the same principle apply to abortions? Why aren’t abortions better worked out when not handled by the national government? Because, as I have tried to explain, a murder of an unborn child can hardly be justified. There is no overshadowing motive that would inadvertently result in the mass killing of these infants. There is no greater purpose for which these children would be the tragic, but unintended casualties. There is no state solution that would do a better job of outlawing abortions. When one is anti-national-healthcare, one has an option for which he thinks will help people get healthcare better. He has a way for which he will better represent the cause of healthcare and make it happen practically. When one is pro-war-on-terror, he (hopefully) has a greater purpose for which he thinks justice and freedom will be upheld. The casualties are not prescribed, intended, or desired. When one is pro-choice, however, there is no greater purpose. There is no greater option or greater cause. When one is pro-choice, this literally means he does not believe that the killing of unborn children is of great significance. In a war issue, casualties are a (albeit very important) sub-issue. In a healthcare issue, those without healthcare are most always considered to be the ones to be helped. In an abortion issue, there is no sub-issue or some greater cause. In an abortion issue, the issue is “Do you support a mother’s right to kill her child?”

So when one might say “You will be single-issue when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to healthcare, war, poverty, etc.” I would say: I am very concerned with all of these things. But if I do not support nationalized healthcare, I have another plan, perhaps localized, which I think will work better with a candidate who still represents the healthcare cause and knows there is a dire need. And if I support  a war (not talking specifically a certain one), I have reason for which I believe it to be justified and candidates who are pro-freedom and pro-justice, not candidates who are pro-death and pro-civilian-murder. However, if I do not support an anti-abortion cause and rather support a candidate who is pro-choice, I cannot say “this person supports a greater cause: [insert cause] where the death of these children is sometimes the unfortunate, unintended, undesired tragedy.” I have to look at that pro-choice candidate, even if I think he will help my cause, and say “this man supports a mother’s right to kill her cihldren.” A pro-choice candidate has no other cause to hold onto in this area.

——————————————————————-

Single-Issue: A Matter of Importance, not of Exclusivity.

Lastly, I want to explain single-issue. I am not single issue in the sense that I only look to a candidate who will help the anti-abortion cause. It means that I struggle to support a candidate who condones a pro-choice cause. I tried to explain this in the first section of this post, and hope I have conveyed my opinion on the matter. I have many other issues I will consider when I vote. I will consider what will help Americans without healthcare get healthcare, but I will consider the factor of deficit and national corruption. I will consider how to minimize innocent casualties at war, while preserving American freedom and safety here at home and fighting corrupt powers abroad. I will examine the options and decide which candidate will represent the issue and say: “I support the ability of Americans to receive healthcare,” while applying the issue in a practically sound manner, whether it be on a national reform basis or on a more local reform basis. Being single issue means for me that I have a hard time deciding for a candidate who will represent the issue and say: “I support the right of a mother to choose whether to kill or keep her child,” even though he may work practically and inadvertently reduce the abortion count. For me, it’s an issue of representation and practicality. For me, to deny the former denies my ability to truly support him, and to deny the latter denies his ability to make it happen. Both are important to me.

—————————————————————

Conclusion: Reflections on the Aforementioned Statements.

So, I’ve established why abortion is a big issue to me. It denies an unborn infant the ability to experience life outside the womb at all.

I’ve established why not only practicality, but representation as well is a considered issue to me. It enables me to vote with confidence and good conscience, and enables my issue to be represented as wholesome in government.

I’ve established why the issue of abortion is different from the issues of healthcare and the war and the like. It has no greater purpose and no other legal alternative that negates it.

I’ve established what being single-issue means and why it is important. It is a matter of importance, not exclusivity.

———————————————————————-

Hopefully I’ve made myself clear and have been succinct. Feel free to comment and ask questions or for clarifications. I have thoroughly enjoyed these discussions.

May we seek the Spirit in all things, even in that of government.

-Riley

Why I’m Not a Single-Issue Voter

Posted by on January 19, 2010 12 comments

I noticed Andrew’s comment on Riley’s post and this is along the same line…

Let me preface this post (which happens to be my first on Mere Reflections) with a bold note that I am pro-life, and for that very reason, I am not a single issue voter, nor can I ever be. I know that “pro-life” has become rather synonymous with “anti-abortion,” and perhaps the term began that way; but literally, pro-life insinuates much more than an anti-abortionism. If you are pro-life, you are and must be a supporter of the promoting human life.

This must extend beyond simply abortion–abortion is not the only method of taking a life, or more generally, is not the only way to lose a life. Disease, crime, and terrorism are just like abortion in their threat to life.

Disease, whether in the developing or developed world, threatens and takes lives. Malaria is rampant in the tropics, but we have a vaccine. Infectious microbes flourish on the dirty grounds of Africa, but we can prevent that in a VERY simple way by providing shoes.

Walking is often the primary mode of transportation in developing countries. Children can walk for miles to get food, water, shelter and medical help. Wearing shoes literally enables them to walk distances that aren’t possible barefoot.

Wearing shoes prevents feet from getting cuts and sores on unsafe roads and from contaminated soil. Not only are these injuries painful, they also are dangerous when wounds become infected. The leading cause of disease in developing countries is soil-transmitted parasites which penetrate the skin through open sores. Wearing shoes can prevent this and the risk of amputation.

Many times children can’t attend school barefoot because shoes are a required part of their uniform. If they don’t have shoes, they don’t go to school. If they don’t receive an education, they don’t have the opportunity to realize their potential.

There is one simple solution…SHOES.

– tomsshoes.com

…or politically by improving or extending our health care system.

Crime is a pretty obvious threat to lives–murder, rape, human-trafficking, robbery, and drunk or reckless driving all endanger human lives as does abortion, but we can prevent that with improved law enforcement.

Terrorism has taken countless lives around the world.  The attack of the World Trade Center is most notable, but there is also the Oklahoma City bombing and other weekly treacherous bombings worldwide.  Domestically, we can defend against this with buffered intelligence operations, tighter border-security, and a strong military.

But what’s this to say about pro-life? If you are pro-life, then you have no choice but to support disease-prevention, meaning you must also support means of improving health-care and the health-care system. You have no choice but to support crime-prevention. You have no choice but to support our military. Just like you have no choice but to oppose abortion.

Improved health-care means life for the sick. Crime-prevention means life for the innocent. Military support means life for a nation thereby protected against threats and terrorism and supported in times of domestic strife. Opposing abortion means life for the unborn.

How can a pro-life ideology make you a single-issue voter (unless you use “pro-life” interchangeably with “anti-abortion”)?  Shouldn’t we try to influence health care, crime-prevention, and the military the same way that we aim to stop abortion?

Trey’s political treatise, part 2

Posted by on January 18, 2010 6 comments

If you haven’t read part 1, you might want to do that first.

Okay, now to try a different track that might be easier to follow: the function of the government–is it the “arm” of a society, or the “head”.

I’ll elaborate: if social contract theory and popular sovereignty are [mostly] true, then the government is not necessarily an autonomous institution, but rather can only do what society wants. The government becomes the means by which society accomplishes its goals: the keeping of order (through laws), the protection of our homes (through the military), and such. And it doesn’t only accomplish these basic functions of a government, it also can accomplish other widely accepted things, like the education of children (hence public schools), or the improvement of the standard of living (through labor laws, building codes, construction of roads). But it doesn’t stop there: through the arm of government, society can also accomplish other goals, like providing for the poor and weak and old. Thus, we have welfare programs. Under the theory of government as an arm of society, forcing people (especially those who live in excessive luxury) to help provide for the less fortunate is not an ignoble idea at all. In fact, it is that Robin Hood principle that everyone loves except when they’re the rich ones, but it’s even better in this case because it’s all done peacefully and [theoretically] with the consent of the people getting robbed. So all is well. Of course, the problem is still the same, because if society decides that things like abortion and homosexuality are cool, then it would make no sense for the arm of society to punish that which the society approves of. And the same for mass genocide.*

Now on to the “head” theory. If the authority of a government is given directly by God, and the government has the responsibility and the right to look after the people, the functions of the government are fewer. The government is then over the people, and decides what is best and what should happen. The role of the government is not to carry out the wishes of the society, but simply to make sure that the society is orderly and safe, and has the opportunity to succeed (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?). To try another analogy, the government is not student council (which does what the students want, at least in theory), but rather the school administration (which does what they’re supposed to do whether the students like it or not). The head theory gets a little tricky when it’s applied to a democracy, because society does have the ability to influence its head, and if the society doesn’t really like its government it can bring in a new one (kind of). So what ends up happening is often the self-same as what happens under the “arm” theory, because society just keeps changing who’s in government until it finds a head that does what it wants, whether that be providing mandatory public education, or creating welfare programs/universal health care, or condoning abortion. But at least under the “head” theory of government, conservatives can try to argue that the government doesn’t have the right to do those things. This is why I think most Christians are usually conservatives and embrace the theory of government as its own autonomous institution that functions as a head over society to rule as God (via the Bible) instructs.

Does this make sense? Are y’all tracking with me? Because I’m about to move on to explaining how this relates to my original question about the view of man, or least I think I am, but I want to make sure everyone understands what I mean here.

*Then there’s also that pesky little issue of “forcing morality” on people, because as Riley pointed out, forcing the rich to give their money to welfare programs for the poor is the same as forcing people to not have abortions, or to put it in an even more extreme light, like the Prohibition. If society is an arm, then it can do whatever it wants, and there’s no more argument about “unalienable rights”.

Trey’s political treatise, part 1

Posted by on January 18, 2010 5 comments

This is the promised “conclusion” that I’ve reached about economic policy, based on the discussion at the earlier post as well as some other real discussions (as in, not via the internet) with Zach and Riley. Huge disclaimer here that I know little to nothing about politics, and perhaps less about what the Bible says specifically about government (though to Andrews point, I think that would be very little). So we’ll see if I have anything worth saying or not, and if this post resolves any confusion/disagreements, or at least clarifies exactly what the disconnect is. I’m thinking that hopefully this post will bring some resolution to this discussion so that we can all move on past this little political streak we’ve been on. So here we go. I’ve broken this into three parts because it’s really long.

It seemed to me* that most of the disagreement taking place is due to the two “sides” talking past each other. The “liberal” argument is working more on the practical level, thinking mainly about how things will get done, whereas the “conservative”** argument is working more on the abstract, ideological level, thinking mainly about what the government’s role/responsibility is. However, as I discussed this with Riley, I realized that the confusion may actually be rooted deeper than this, that perhaps the disconnect is so foundational as where the sovereignty of rule lies, or to say it a different way, what exactly the nature of government is.

We’ll start with the first track: the issue of sovereignty. Most people (in the US, and from what I can tell in most of the Western world) take for granted the idea of popular sovereignty. If you suggest to someone that perhaps they don’t have the God-given (or nature-given, of whatever atheists say these days) right to have a voice in their government, you’ll probably get crucified as supporting totalitarianism or fascism (what’s the difference, anyways?) and all kinds of oppression and evil. But I’m going to risk it, and suggest that perhaps there is no such “right”, that it is the creation largely of John Locke’s “social contract theory” and whatnot (history check, Andrew?). Further, I’ll go way out on a limb, and say that though everyone says they believe in popular sovereignty, most conservatives don’t really believe it to it’s fullest, or at least don’t take the logic out all the way. Allow me to explain.

If the right to govern lies wholly with the people, then whatever the [majority of the] people want is what needs to happen. So for instance, on a basic level that everyone can agree with: the people decide that society would work a whole lot better if people couldn’t just go around killing each other, because that would not be a safe or orderly society. So they outlaw murder. To take it the next step, the people decide that society would work better if there were some control on the expansion of monopolies, because that destroys local business. So they create anti-trust laws. In the same line of thinking, the people decide that they want the poor cared for, so they create national welfare programs to ensure that it happens. That, I think is where most conservatives get off the popular sovereignty train, and the next step is where I think most Christian liberals get off. The people decide that unborn babies aren’t really humans, so it’s okay to have abortions, so they make it legal; or, the people decide that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, so they make homosexual marriage just as valid as marriage between a man and a woman. And then the next step is where I think perhaps even the wildest liberals get off, because it goes contrary to human nature. The people decide that mass genocide is cool, and so they start killing off all the [fill-in-the-blank]‘s. Now, before anyone freaks out on me to say that I’ve totally distorted the popular sovereignty argument, bear with me for a while, because I’m not saying it’s totally incorrect, I’m just trying to point out that it cannot stand alone, as I will try to also do to the other side.

Conversely, if the right to govern lies in the institution of the government (whether it be a king or a legislature or whatever), then what is right is what needs to happen. And of course, from a Christian perspective the foundation for what is “right” comes from God through the Bible. So to use all the same examples, it can be seen clearly in Scripture that murder is wrong (and that it’s bad for society), so the government outlaws it. Also, it can be seen clearly in Scripture that God hates the oppression of the weak, so the government makes anti-trust laws. Similarly, the Bible is clear that the poor should be cared for, and so the government either encourages its citizens (and the Church especially) to take care of the poor, or in times of dire need starts welfare programs. But then on the issue of abortion and homosexual marriage, the government sees that those things are wrong and thus outlaws them, and punishes those who break the law, as it would in the case of mass genocide. But here are the problems with this theory of government: first of all, i don’t think we have it here, and so it doesn’t really apply to our current discussion on economic/social policy, and secondly, the government doesn’t always take the Bible as its authority, or if it does it often misinterprets it. And then there’s that one problem of taking things out to their logical ends. Because if you sit on this particular merry-go-round for too long, you get into the discussion of other sins like adultery, and lying, and dancing divorce, et cetera. And it’s hard to find a good logical reason to NOT outlaw that stuff, because God clearly hates it and it’s clearly bad for society, so by all means such things should be outlawed by the government. But I don’t think even any Christian conservatives want that, because then you start to look kind of like Puritan New England where things tend to get really legalistic really fast. What I think has ended up happening is that both the liberals and the conservatives have tried to straddle both trains, if you’ll follow that analogy, and have ended up falling off both, though in different directions. In the next post I’ll try to discuss the difference in ideology a slightly different way.

*Notice how masterfully I begin by breaking as many grammar rules as possible in the first clause. Let’s count: unclear pronoun (it) + passive voice (seems) + and first person pronoun (me) = three, which we all know is the number of divinity. Got ‘em.
**From this point on I’m going to drop the quotation marks, but just understand that I’m stereotyping, not trying to say that every conservative believes this, or every liberal believes that. Also, I want to make sure that I establish that these discussions I’m referring to are between real Christians.

Why I Am a Single-Issue Voter

Posted by on January 18, 2010 8 comments

This subject deserved a separate post.

First of all, go read these articles (please do it):

John Piper’s perspective on single-issue voting:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1524_OneIssue_Politics_OneIssue_Marriage_and_the_Humane_Society/

A conservative’s (I think) perspective on single-issue voting:
http://solagravitas.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/abortion-racism-and-single-issue-voting/

A liberal’s perspective on single-issue voting:
http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000931.html

——————————————-

I have to say that these articles have well established my view on single-issue voting. Call me narrow-minded, call me ignorant, call me biased, but let me try to explain.

Not to sound like a broken record with these guys, but as Piper put it, being pro-choice disqualifies a man for office in my opinion. At best, it disqualifies my ability to vocally and publicly support him, even if I did vote for him because I thought it was best.

So why does this issue disqualify a man from office? The second article gives a good comparison. We wouldn’t elect a man to office that was obviously and vocally a racist. Why? Because we know that his agenda would be colored (no pun intended) with racism and racist motives. We wouldn’t elect a man to office that vocally and actively supported rape of teenage girls. We would assume his agenda would be colored with moving this horrendous point of view into action. He would never become elected, because that is ludicrous! We wouldn’t elect a man to office that vocally and actively supported the murder of the innocent. And yet we did.

No matter what other ways an actively pro-choice president can eliminate abortions, no matter what other ways I think it can happen, I cannot elect a president that actively supports murder. I’m going to use a loaded word there, I know, because it’s a real word describing the real process of abortions.

Obama has a lot of other good things on his plate. I’m not a party-lover, I’m not a party-hater. I’m not a rabid candidate basher. I’m also not a racist. I was truly excited and overjoyed to have the first black president enter into office, and I know our country was too. But I wasn’t excited to see the most pro-choice activist in all of Congress enter into the White House (see links about record). Why? Because, just like the other issues I theorized above (racism, rape, murder), I know his agenda will be colored with a pro-choice agenda. I can’t stand for that.

—————————————-

Obama’s pro-choice record isn’t a right-wing fabrication:

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/08/fact_check_obamas_strong_proch.php

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121706.html

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/election-pr/pr_05042008_obamaendorsement.html

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3920

http://www.lifenews.com/nat2927.html

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4448.html (biased, but check the facts. they’re right.)

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/02/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php

http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php

———————————————————-

I don’t want to make generalizations about everyone or sound legalistic, and I don’t want to sound old and crotchety and ignorant, but I’m a single issue voter. I don’t have any other options.

-Riley

Let’s do a survey

Posted by on January 12, 2010 22 comments

So I was thinking about political ideologies, and more specifically their view of man as played out in their policy. I know that sounds vague, but this is what I mean: based off the typical policies of the two major parties in the US, what can we say about how they view man in terms or ability, morality, self-interest, responsibility, etc.?

And so after writing out what I thought pretty fairly described the two sides, I wondered to myself what the Biblical perspective would be. Now, I am usually able to be pretty unbiased/objective in stuff like this so that I would be able to answer the question without considering my own political views, but I thought I would ask other people, who haven’t seen my first two lists and thus don’t know what the “right answer” is, so that I could get some outside help in this little endeavor of mine.

I’ve talked to Riley some about this, and Brian a little I suppose, but I would love to hear your feedback. Please don’t tell me what political party you think is more Biblical, but please do answer the question: what does the Bible say about the nature of man, especially as it relates to how he should be governed? Try your best to be objective, and we’ll compare notes. I’ll summarize my findings when the discussion ends.

Thank you kindly for your feedback.