Love Wins (It does!)

Today is one of those spiritual days for me. It started early this morning. God called me to prayer. And God just didn't stop calling me into God's presence.

I have to confess something here. Sometimes -oft-times- my heart just gets overwhelmed in prayer. Sometimes it is just love and worship toward God, and other times, my soul is troubled and I don't know how to pray. So, my spirit groans with mutterings to deep for words and I read in Romans that when this  happens, the Holy Spirit of God mixes in (in what feels like perfect harmony) and W/we pray together according to the perfect will of God.

That happened this morning, and at times the Holy Spirit sort of gives me an inkling of what it was all about. Today's was about love, joy, admiration and gratitude to God. It was worship in community, I believe it was just as Jesus promised us it would be.

During that time, my mind focused on loving the gay men God has given me in my life. Some of them call me "Pastor." And that is an huge responsibility, but it isn't a burden.

Those of us who speak for God do well to examine both ourselves and our doctrine. So, I examined my positional change toward advocating for gay marriage, and my own personal decision to perform Christian weddings for every couple that loves, cherishes and respects each other regardless of their sexual identity. Regardless.

So, as my prayer time continued, I thought of those in my life whom I love dearly who posit a different opinion than me. Was I respecting them? (Regardless of the way they treat me?) And just as important to me, did I have anything to learn from them? Should I imagine their conversation with me and then take time to actually LISTEN respectfully to them? To listen before I answered? To listen and pray?

Is it sin? Is it the way God created people? Is it a problem? Or, is it something to celebrate? (I tend to think the latter.)

But how was I loving those who would say "yes" to the first question in the previous paragraph?

I am pastor and everyone needs love. Even though I am do not call it sin, it is irrelevant to the privilege I have of being pastor. I want to be married, I cannot deny anyone else the same right. To me, the commandment to love my neighbor takes precedent over any other theological construct.

That is my answer, still. When I again re-concluded that this is what I firmly believed, I heard, or maybe thought, but I am pretty sure that I heard the Spirit of God say: "Love Wins." I took it to mean that love wins over sin, over what people call sin, over what people say about others about sin, over people who deny sin even exists...

At 10:00, the beginning of Diane Rehm on NPR, the newscaster announced that SCOTUS just announced that it had legalized same sex marriage in all 50 states. Praise God. I sent a text to one of the gay men that I love.

Friday on Diane Rehm is national politics round table. It is always really good. There is a left leaning, a right leaning, and a moderate panelist. The left leaning panelist was praising the President's "4th quarter" accomplishments as well as the ACA, Iran Nuclear negotions, etc.. He said: "he may be one of the most influential Presidents ever..."

I got to thinking about him and since the day was going well, and it was still a day of prayer, I started praying for him and thanking God for him. I thank God for President Obama.

At 11:00, the newscaster said this: "in a few minutes the President will address the nation about the SCOTUS affirmation of same sex marriage, but the first thing that the President did, the reporter said, was tweet this: "yada yada yada about equality... "LOVE WINS."

The Spirit of God is speaking!

Either I am a troll, or we are going to hell in a handbasket

Someone asked me lately if I believe that America is going to hell in a hand-basket because of the election results from November 4, 2014. I realize that at times, my online persona is that of a troll. I feel bad about it. But I am passionate about my faith and the way it informs my politics.

So, I may be a troll all the time, or, I may have a passion.

But I do believe that perhaps we are going to hell in a hand-basket. Or at least, we are setting ourselves up, as a nation for the judgment of God. I believe that many things are said in the name of Christianity are not biblical and do not reflect the teachings of Jesus.

I see a progression since 2008, when the President was elected. And I see it mainly in four areas. There is much, much more for me to comment on. And this is long. But, it is as abridged as I care to make it.

The first tidbit of rhetoric that I perceive will bring the judgment of God on the USA.

1). Marginalizing the poor: Isaiah 58. When believers "point their fingers at the poor," God denies them the blessing of revival.

Let us use Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Pastor John Hagey as examples. The three are powerful spokesmen for the Conservative and Religious right respectively.

I don't believe that it is an exaggeration for me to say that they make it sound as if the reason why our country is in dire trouble is because of the entitlements for the poor. I see them as people who are marginalizing the poor.

And that is just unchristian. It reminds me of what one of our Theologically and Religiously Conservative Brethren ministers said: "I hate the way Rush Limbaugh says what I believe." I overheard him say this while I as a ditto-head. I was offended by his remarks. But then, I started listening to the way Rush Limbaugh made his statements and I realized that I agreed that his speech was causing a divide. Once I began questioning his methods, I also began questioning his conclusions and I realized that he was only exposing one side of the argument. And, he was doing it with satire and ridicule. There wasn't much substance to his logic. I understand enough of logic to realize that his arguments are Ad Hominem: The logical fallacy of attacking the character of your (debating) opponent instead of his or her conclusions. To me. Ad Hominem amounts to a admission of defeat since the argument is no longer based on the merits of the respective side. However, it is one of the primary devices used by those engaged in Political Science.

So, my questions to the right are these: Do you see the marginalization of the poor in right wing rhetoric? And do you see how I can consider it as grossly unchristian rhetoric and as a preacher, feel a strong motivation to confront Christians about this kind of speech? Do you understand that not all, even most of, the poor are not lazy?

(Remember, I see this as a progression) This segues into:

2). Economic policies, Small versus large government, a debate since the inception of the Constitution.

2.a The great recession of 2008:

Following the string of "logic" from the previous point, the political right seemed to yell about the debt -a metaphor for a smaller government- and imply that the real problem with our nation is the staggering amount of debt created by entitlements. At least, that is what was heard, a lot, on FOX news.

I believe that it is an intentional mis-direction of the problem. The great recession was not caused by entitlements. The great recession was caused by deregulation of the banking industry. And, correct me if I am wrong, this might be the hyperbole from the left speaking, but it seems to me that one of the values voters embraced in this last landslide election was "smaller government." I.E. More deregulation. That was the problem. It seems to me that since this whole thing started, the Right has tried to change the story to blaming the poor instead of Wall Street.

(And, a point against my logic, but one I need to concede because it really is the bigger problem: the real problem is Wall Street's control of both the Democrats and Republicans. Both sides are in bed with them and they -as the Bible says- are the real oppressors.)

2.b Policies designed to strengthen the lower and middle classes (as opposed to the wealthy classes):

Let me give my own version of an example of how Keynesian economics works:

For numbers sake only, suppose I make $5,000,000 per year. How much of that can I spend? Let us imagine it is $1,000,000, for the sake of the example. The other $4,000,000 goes into savings and accumulates wealth. It is used for investments to help others and etc, but it isn't turned over in the economy like this second example.

Imagine I make $50,000 per year. How much to I spend? Pretty close to $50,000. All of that money is poured directly back into the economy. The grocer I buy from makes $50,000 and he spends all of his money, the gas station owner makes $50,000 and he spends all of his money. That income has now been taxed 3 times.

Because it isn't spent, the other $4,000,000 the wealthy guy has is not being used to buy gas, groceries, widgets and thing-a-ma-bobs.

(To be fair, I must say that Investments are not evil. Savings do get used to create investments and without it, the grocer, the gas station owner, etc. can't invest in their business in the first place, so I concede it is necessary -but economic policies must be balanced to ensure the survival of the middle class, and as a just, or righteous nation, the policies must also work to address systemic poverty.)

But if the guy making $50,000 per now makes $40,000, his ability to stimulate the economy is lessened, the rich guy, who owns the company that makes the thing-a-ma-bobs and widgets all of a sudden starts selling less. He lays off other (now) $40,000 per year guys, who now aren't buying the widgets and stuff, and more people get laid off and the cycle spirals downward.

Now, real life examples about the actual negative cost of the rhetoric of smaller government in this last election cycle. For example. Indiana has become a small government state. FWCS decided to outsource the janitorial services for all the school buildings. Politicians bragged that they saved the city over $3,000.000. The company that won the contract fired all the janitors and let them re-apply for their jobs. They were fired from $20 to $25 per hour jobs and re-hired at $13 to $15 per. They lost their houses, their cars, their pensions. Did the big businesses profit by this loss? I believe the overall impact to the entire economy was negative.

Governor Pence, small-government administrator, laid off many Highway workers and closed many InDOT "igloos." Then Indiana had a bad winter and there was not money, salt, budget or employees to clear the roads. As a result, many businesses were forced to close, losing revenue. Now I know the grocers sold as much food as they would, but the gas station, the restaurants didn't. Contracts that were dependent on critical time weren't finished. The economy lost. And, the biggest "savings" being wages for the snow-truck drivers, also meant reduced amount of money for people to buy the widgets, thing-a-ma-bobs and etc. Blue collar government jobs stimulate the economy, build vital infrastructure, and since the wages are relatively low, all that money goes right back into the economy. I remember an economics teacher in High School explaining to us that because the money is turned over 3-4 times a year, more is returned in tax revenue than is spent by the government. But, if it is solely kept in banks for investment purposes -building the war chests of the rich- it turns over less and its over economic stimulus is reduced.

Personal small points about this. My son, Tim, works in a "small government" county in Maryland. His contract ensures that he gets a nominal raise every year. The small government county commissioners refuse to honor his contract. My other son, John, has a different, but similar potential problem. When guys like Gov. Walker, of Wisconsin got elected by decrying the pensions of civic employees, civil employees lose. These small government types have publicly stated that they will not stop until they take away my son John's pension. To them -they are on the record as saying this- John is to lose his pension. Two of the people I love more than anything else in this world are actually harmed (Timmy right now, and John if they get to follow through on this rhetoric) by this idea of smaller government. And for what? Again, the payout is recuperated if and when there is a strong middle class.

I understand that people do not feel the economic recovery we have made. That is mainly because wages have stagnated while real costs have gone up. So, the average middle class worker has less buying power. Again, this is a negative cycle because less and less widgets and thing-a-ma-bobs are being produced (rich people lose) and the middle class has less money to buy them (poor people lose). The same has happened to me, but maybe for other reasons. My retirement investments are doing great, better than I projected. But I will have to delay because the height of my earning potential years have grossly stagnated. We are earning 30% less than what we anticipated earning at this age.

How did Gov Walker get elected by the people whose pensions he cut? It seems to me that he did it by creating moral outrage over the quality of benefits that civil employees get. (At least, I heard conservatives decry the pensions that civil employees get). Again, this directly affects two of my children who have entered civil service as careers. Why should they be denied basic retirement benefits? Why do police officers, teachers, fire-fighters and other unionized civil servants vote for those who promise to bust their unions and their collective bargaining rights? That will be showed in my third point. Remember, these are all only my perceptions of the facts. These are my opinions. I welcome yours. I do.

So, my questions to those on the right are these: Do you embrace the implications that the problems with our economy were MAINLY caused by entitlements or by deregulation? What is the biggest driver of our debt, is it entitlements, or wars fought on credit cards? And, if the debt is such an evil, then why put wars on credit cards?

This segues into:

3). Marginalization of the rest of the others:

Blue collar workers vote against themselves because they are outraged by the actions of the others and Conservatives promise to deal with them.

This addresses what I believe to be unchristian values by the religious right. These are those who are marginalized.

3.a. "Illegals." Simply put, Jesus would have us call them neighbor. Leviticus 19:33-34 gives us a spiritual principle of justice. Essentially, God said, "you were aliens once and I protected you, therefore, you must protect others." And then God said: "I AM THE LORD." That statement, I am the LORD is a warning: "I am watching how well you do this." The implication is that God's blessings will be given or withheld based on our obedience to this Spiritual Principle."

3.b. Homosexuals. Romans 1, and Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us that God gave them over to their homosexual lifestyles because of Idolatry and rampant materialism respectively. God created them as a judgment. It is another spiritual principle, If people refuse to follow God, then God takes away our ability to reproduce. When Abimelech took Sarah as wife, all the women in his kingdom could not conceive. Terminal sexual deviations (sexual deviations that do not lead to reproduction -abortion, pornography and etc.) are the judgment, not the reason why we are judged.

(Note, added later. Two good friends called me out on this. Their comments -received via email- are copied to the comment section. Everyone needs to hear what they have said. I have an apology and response to this in the comment section as well. And I am working on a different paradigm for myself that is more generous and loving.)

And yet, the religious pundits cite these deviations as the cause, not the result. They fear-monger about coming judgment. But my whole attitude toward homosexuals changes when I view them as the victims of sin, just like medical conditions are a result of the fall. Therefore, to me, I must ensure that they are as loved and cared for, protected by, both the church and society. I, just like Jesus, love homosexual people. I will never say about them; “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” I embrace them for everything they are because the Bible says that God made them that way. 

I want abortion to stop because I believe in justice for the unborn. But to fight it, I must -I am compelled- to preach against injustice everywhere. Christians cannot be single issue voters. Women, as well as the unborn, must have justice. If I want revival to break out, according to Isaiah 58 then I must "cry loudly and not hold back...."

3.c. Islam. Jesus loves Moslems.

3.d. Palestinians. Jesus loves Palestinians.

3.e. Racism. I am a police Chaplain. I believe in and support the police. If it were up to me, only the police would legally own handguns. They are trained to use them. They take this job to place themselves in the line of fire in order to protect the rest of us. I do not personally know any police who are racists and abuse this trust. If they are out there, they are very few and by far the exception rather than the rule. And our media, a media that makes its living on hyperbole and mass hysteria, sensationalizes the times that it happens and by so doing, they create terrible problems for the 99.99% of honest, dedicated peace officers.

Having said that. And this has nothing to do with the police. I believe that Trayvon Martin would be alive if he were white. I believe that Zimmerman killed him because of racial fear. And the fact of that, to me, proves that racism still exists.

My great change happened when I realized that I was paying to high a biblical price in the war against abortion.

Why do we have to embrace all the values of the Republican party to stop abortion? Does Jesus want us to respond to the border crisis by calling undocumented residents: "Neighbor?" Does the US constitution guarantee civil rights for Homosexuals, Moslems and everyone else who we consider "the other?"

And finally, this segues into:

4). Fear mongering by the right.

"Homosexuals are going to ruin this nation." Nope, biblically, idolatry (in our case, the worship of money) and marginalization of the poor are the reasons why God judges nations.

"Illegals are taking away jobs from us." Undocumented residents are working the jobs that we wont work. They stimulate the economy (years ago, someone paid Rush Limbaugh himself to say this. I heard it back when I was a ditto-head.)

The other emotional capital used to cause this landslide victory, according to pundits, was Ebola and Isis.

One person in the US has died from Ebola. One other person has it. And yet, they were able to frame an argument against the President based on this. It seems to be fear-mongering to me.

ISIS. ISIL is a problem and I wish we had a clearer strategy on it. But, I believe the President's policy of forcing Iraq to deal with it with their troops instead of our troops is what is needed. If we go in and clean them out, they will just come back, either as ISIL or some other form of Al-Qeada. Iraq ignored the Sunni's, they reverted back to the tribalism that has defined them for thousands of years.

I blame Bush. We should not have gone there in the first place. We have to figure out a way to embrace governmental systems that are not our form of Democracy.

But fear-mongering makes it happen.

The H Question, remix

Okay, maybe what I have to say isn’t important enough to restate it. But I just re-read the previous blog, and even I didn’t get it anymore. It was wordy. It could be expanded to a book, or reduced to some principles. When I wrote it, I was full of it. So here goes with the simple attempt:

Our denomination is fighting over the question of Homosexuality in respect to the question, can LGBTQ people be in significant roles of leadership?

And to answer that question, we have to answer a whole slew of other questions: Is LGBTQ practice sin? Does God love the LGBTQ person? Is it fair, or Christ-like, to single out the actions of LGBTQ people over the actions of others? Can we learn anything by the lack of any reference to LGBTQ in the gospels?

And underneath those questions are some classic battles defined by these questions: Does Sin exist, and if so, what is it? Is there absolute truth? Is the Bible authoritative? Is God, or the idea of God, dead? Can Science and Reason answer our questions of morality? Does “not standing against” LGBTQ activity mean we are condoning it? How can we stand FOR “good news, redemption and transformation” while we are standing against a GROUP of people?

I believe the argument about the LGBTQ question is one we shouldn’t be having because it no longer makes a real difference. The point is moot. Yep, I said it. And here is why:

When Nietzsche said “God is dead” he declared that humankind didn’t need the superstitious notions of God anymore. He believed that science and reason could solve the problems of the world. Evangelical, and the more conservative bible-believing theologians reacted strongly to those words. I reacted.

For me, I asked Jesus to come into my heart and save me from my sins. And He did. In ministry, I have seen demons cast out, I have seen the blind receive their sight, I have actually seen the dead raised back to life. One day, I felt this burning sensation at the back of my throat, and afterwards, I started speaking in an angelic tongue. When I pray in that tongue, I see mountains move. I can attest, God is not dead.

So here was Christianity, with its back up against the wall, the Cold War was raging and those “godless commies” threatened our very existence and faith. We had a fight on our hands.

We had to prove that God existed to those who rejected him in favor of Science and Reason ONLY. And one of the biggest arguments used was the fact of sin, the Biblical declarations of it, and the Atoning sacrifice of Christ to free us from the curse of sin.

In order to prove the fact of God, we proved the fact of sin, and Christianity as the sole refuge for sin.

All of those arguments were statements, propositions, designed to win the battle against the statements, propositions, of “science and reason are all we need.” It was a battle of words and ideas. Both sides became further and further entrenched in their propositions.

And then, the vast majority of the culture realized that science and reason did not provide all the answers. Without discarding the value and importance of science and reason, we admitted that we needed some sort of spiritual guidance to help us. We became students of our own history. We realized that just because we could do something, it didn’t mean we should. We question: “Should be have used the A-bomb?”

So, the culture changed and as it turned out, God wasn’t dead after all. Culture admitted that science and reason alone cannot provide moral guidance.

The Church has a chance to get back to the table as a partner in forming culture. We lost our seat when the Church reacted to its loss of significance by creating its own sub-culture. That sub-culture became so entrenched in the arguments that it didn’t notice the world wasn’t listening. Instead of trying harder to influence culture in a way that would make a real difference, it shouted out louder and louder, to itself -against one another, its propositions. The culture reacted with a reinforced view that it had become less and less relevant. They stopped listening.

But then, in spite of us, culture confesses its need for God and yes, what we call sin. Some even call it sin. Some call it brokenness. Some call it “influenced by evil” and some may reduce it to “a lack of evolutionary altruism.” But the overwhelming majority recognizes that we need spiritual as well as scientific guidance.

So here is the solution for us: We need to realize that the LGBTQ question changed along with the culture. The questions are no longer: “is there really such a thing as sin?” “Is LGBTQ sin?” Those questions addressed the proposition: “we no longer need God.”

Today, however, the questions are: “How does God love the LGBTQ Person?” “How does God want us to love the LGBTQ Person?” These questions place the emphasis on God’s loving relationship to humankind instead of the propositions of the culture. It is almost as if we have to change from defending “the fact of God” to defending “the love of God.”

Brethren, can we forgive each other the passions of the past, look beyond who won or lost the argument and get back to being God’s Kingdom ON EARTH and heaven instead of just in heaven? 

Author's note: I don't substitute the word Homosexual or Homosexuality lightly. For some, the substitution may seem as if I am trying to take away the very human face of Homosexual persons. I assure you, I am not. A big part says to me: "leave the entire word(s) in so that people can realize that we are talking about real people, people whom we know and love." But I find that too many other people use the Homosexual and Homosexuality as a derogative. So, when ever you see "H" in this blog and it refers to Homosexuals, try replacing it with "someone else that Jesus gave His life for -just like me."

Author’s note: In finding community with LGBTQ people who have accepted me, a former enemy to their civil rights, I learned to replace what was originally posted as “H people” with LGBTQ. That might explain my previous author’s note!

The H Question:

Homosexuality, the H Question.

Because of the current levels of debate, there is no short answer to this question, especially for preachers.

But, I am going to put my perspective down in bullet points because I think you will get most of it in that framework. And, these are merely my theological, psychological and physiological understandings.

But before that, there are 4 terms I am going to use:

1. Secular Modernity: The world view that only science and reason can answer our questions, religion is a form of naiveté that the age of science and reason will eventually conquer. It includes Secular Humanism and allows for Social Darwinism.
2. Christian Modernity: The World view and apologetics that contrasted and strove for Christ and against Secular Modernity and its attempt to deny the existence of God. On the evangelical side the scripture behind it is Romans 10:14-15 or 2 Timothy 4:3 –both scriptures emphasize the importance of preaching true to the Word.
3. Secular Post-Modernity: The predominant current world view that distrusts the Church, and most dominant faiths (by dominant, I mean “in power” like Islam and Christianity) because of their domination of others. It includes pluralism, neo-pluralism (My term –in my opinion it is actually part of the neo-pagan movement, which is not an “in power” religion, but a resurgence of Druidism. It is called Wicca. For a good look at its history in developing European culture, read the novel “That Hideous Strength” by CS Lewis.) and syncretism. It values relationship above anything else. It sees humanity as a Community  in various degrees, according to the individuals “taste.”
4. Christian Post-Modernism: (My view) A world view that is highly Christocentric, even its description of salvation through Jesus Christ,  but is less interested in taking a stand against Secular Modernity and all its propositions and is more interested in bringing people into a relationship with God, who reconciled us to Him through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The defining scripture is the “gentleness and respect” of 1 Peter 3:15.

It is important to note that the imperative behind Modernity is propositions. The propositions of Secular Modernity and Christian Modernity clubbed each other over the head with their truths as they wrestled for domination in the ideological views of the Western Culture. The problem was, the clubbing each other over the head didn’t work at all, nations continued to fight, the Cold War ensued. Then the Church itself fell into this mindset and began attacking each other in its own subculture and became culturally irrelevant because it stopped doing the Work of Jesus. It was easier to argue than it is to sacrificially serve. Peter said: “Arm yourselves with a willingness to be like Christ.”

In my opinion, this paved the way for Post-Modernity whose imperative is relational over propositional. This world view is not as fractured as the world view of Modernity, but then, it is just beginning (and some say is already dying in favor of Nihilism).

All of that is important for me to explain where I think the debate on the H word is currently at:

• Modernity versus Post–Modernity on the question of Homosexuality. There is a fundamental difference in what the question even means:
  • Modernity, Is there a God?:
    • In modernity, the “propositions of truth” and “taking a stand for the truth” was necessary because Secular Modernity denied the existence of God, the moral judge.
    • In Secular modernity right and wrong, morality, was made up by the consensus of society.
    • Only in Modernity is the question asked: Is Homosexuality a sin?
    • Therefore Homosexuality from Christian modernity is described as sin.
    • Evangelism was propositional instead of relational and the Holy Spirit blessed the propositional preaching. It fit the need for the time.
  • Post Modernity, Who or What fills this spiritual space we all feel? (Notice, the fundamental difference in the question):
    • In Post-Modernity, we are no longer arguing (in apologetic fashion) the existence of God, we are discussing the nature of God.
    • It may be a fundamental understanding of the difference between whether or not God is a God of wrath, or a God of love?
    • The concept of right and wrong, or sin, are in context of “since there is a Spiritual reality what does and doesn’t describe sin, or moral verses immoral actions?”
    • And the question is not so much: “Is homosexuality a sin?” but rather “What does God do and think about the homosexual person?”
    • My answer is three-fold:
      • Jesus loves everyone so much he died for all, including me AND people with same-sex attractions (notice the name change).
      • Sin is either and both (at different times) a result of the fall (brokenness) and deliberate choices for disobedience.
      • Given the stigma and pain involved, I don’t believe that a person would choose a same-sex attraction as an act of rebellion toward God. (In that case, I would describe their “sin” as “brokenness.”) I can imagine a sinful choice to be bi-sexual as an act of rebellion, or a purely hedonistic desire for pleasure. In that case, I would call the action sin. Note: Brokenness is not God’s ideal or desire for humanity, it is a result of the fall.
    • To be clear, in my post-modern understanding of where the Holy Spirit is leading evangelicals like me, in most cases, same-sex attraction does not make one an unbeliever –you understand the difference being either a direct act of rebellion (sin/hedonism) or a result of brokenness (same-sex attraction).
    • Those who have same-sex attractions are loved even more by God, because He knows their hearts.
    • Evangelism is now relational instead of propositional, and the Holy Spirit is blessing those who do relational evangelism, it works according to His plan.
    • (I believe the only people arguing the question of whether or not homosexuality is sin are the people who are still addressing and reacting to evangelism from the mindset of the culture of modernity. But we are now in a culture of post-modernity.)
• Does sin exist?
  • I believe the answer, in both Modernity and Post-Modernity is very similar, with maybe a “lesser state of sin” (brokenness) in Christian Post-Modernism.
  • In the debate over Homosexuality, the real question, and the reason why it is such an inflammatory issue is because it is a culture war between the concept of the inherent evil inside all of us, or the inherent good in all of us.
  • Modernity’s answer to “inherited and corrupt sinful nature” was Secular Humanism. In that concept the more a society progresses, it will have greater ability to address social problems and bring out the good in everyone.
  • However, most of Secular Post-Modernity seems to have accepted this Secular Humanism dogma as a working principle (probably because that question really hasn’t been discussed yet). It is a principle that is contrary to atonement theology.
  • The debate has been going in Western theater.
    • The iconography of science fiction movies seems to support both future scenarios. Contrast Star Trek (Secular Humanism) with Avatar (an inherited corrupt human nature). The narratives are polar opposites. The pre-industrial Native Americans lived in harmony with the world as they do in Avatar and the industrialized society refused to allow their moral compasses to mitigate their use of power. Essentially, if they can do it, then it it must be moral. This is the aspect of Social Darwinism that threw New Testament morality under the bus. Sadly, in Civil Christianity, when Christianity is the “in power” religion, the question of whether we can, or whether we should is asked less often, or asked only in the areas that justify ourselves. (I.E. Slavery, US border policy, the use of Nuclear weapons, the plight of Native Americans…)
    • This is contrasted with Star Trek’s invention of a WARP drive that ushered in an age of human prosperity that seemed to perfect us. Every civilization they visited that was less advanced had worse moral ethics and every civilization that was more advanced had better moral ethics.
    • Of course, Avatar leaves out the Christophanys of ET, Cool Hand Luke, and Braveheart where the protagonist is crucified and comes back to life in one form or another.
    • Star wars has a personal redemption theme without the atonement. Its perspective isn’t Christian, it is actually Wiccan in the way Vader redeems himself.
  • That brings us to atonement theology.
  • We cannot forgo the importance of the cross (the last three days of Jesus’ incarnation) and we cannot forgo the importance of Jesus’ teachings (the first three years of Jesus’ teaching). BOTH are equally important. John 17:4, Jesus prays “I have accomplished the work you sent me to do…” This is before the cross. Jesus, as God’s representative finished the imperative of His teaching. But then, as the representative of Humanity, He became the sacrifice for our sins.
  • Because of the questions: “does God exist?” and “is there such a thing as sin?” Christian Modernity focused mainly on the last 3 days of Christ’s mission on earth.
  • The culture of Post-Modernism sees the inequitable balance in Jesus ministry and begs the question: “Is the Church genuine and authentically following Jesus?” Many rejected Christianity, but not Jesus, or at least the idea of Jesus.
  • So, in Christian Post Modernity, the narrative of atonement hasn’t changed, but the narrative of Jesus’ life on earth as the representative of God, His passion for justice, love, mercy and compassion has been added. Praise God! It is a step away from Civil religion into NT Christianity.
  • Peter Gomes, in his book “The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus” describes, in the eight chapter, what I call the “neo-social justice gospel.” During the height of modernity, Christians were either into social justice (the first 3 years) or saving souls (the last 3 days), but now, Gomes himself holds to the gospel of Jesus that includes social justice and personal salvation.
• So, from this perspective of Post-Modern Christianity, is Homosexuality a sin?
  • Yes and no. (And I am not waffling on the fence).
  • Same sex attraction is not a choice made as an act of rebellion against God, therefore it doesn’t fall into the category of “not loving God with all our heart, and not loving our neighbor as ourselves.” In the case of the deliberate choice to go against heterosexual attraction, then yes it is a sin.
  • What about same-sex attractions? Are they a sin? No –not in the concept of rebellion against God. But it is brokenness. It is less than God’s ideal. But for those who have it, and didn’t want it, it isn’t sin to them. It is similar to my diabetes. I didn’t choose it, but it is less than God’s design. Does that mean that Homosexuals are diseased? Not quite. I wince at the pejorative implication in my metaphor, but I just don’t have a good metaphor except the brokenness of the fall. (Help me, please!) Except maybe in the concept of cancer (which is not a sin). Cancer is excessive production of the wrong kind of cell. Cancer is amoral. But the point is, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, ulcers, skin problems and even obesity are all a result of the fall AND THEY AFFECT BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS ALIKE.
• So, how do we answer the question is homosexuality a sin?
  • To the Secular Modernist and Post-Modernist: “I am a sinner. H, if you want to, you may call it sin. But in this context I will call it part of the universal brokenness. It is no less or no more than my brokenness and sin. I need a Savior. Jesus loves H as much, if not more, than He loves me.” (Because He is specially tuned to the outcast and marginalized in society.)
  • To the Modern and Post-Modern homosexual: Jesus loves you and wants you in His family. He is the one who will walk with you either in, or out, of your lifestyle. It starts with Christ.
  • To the Christian Modernist: “I am going to deal with people who have same sex attractions exactly the way Jesus did, I am going to treat them as a neighbor.” When they press me for a definitive answer on whether or not they are sinners, I will walk away. (Because, in my view, it is the propositions of modernity clubbing one another and that has proven to be ineffective.)
  • To the post-modern Christian: “Open your arms and invite them into the family of God; enjoy their presence in this great adventure!”
  • To the Homosexual Christian Post-modernist: “what can I learn from that will help me on my own journey?”
  • To the Homosexual Secular Modernist: “I am sorry for the way you have been marginalized, I hope you can see in me, the Jesus that loves you and accepts you just the way you are.”
• Taking a Stand –how the propositions of modernity failed (and are still crippling our forward progress). I alluded to this in the introduction:
  • Because Modernity was a propositional argument about the nature, source and even existence of absolute truth (Secular Post Modernity is still wrestling with that), both sides did well in delivering their propositions. And every proposition was a reaction to the other side and the propositions became more and more insular and divisive.
  • Today, the pro-H groups are doing a very good job of making it a relational issue and are moving away from the propositional arguments. They are making people think about whether or not God loves the H.
  • The worse part of this, is that in Christian Modernity, verses all three other categories (Secular Modernity, Christian PO-MO, Secular PO-MO) the propositions became so important they were “an end unto themselves.”
    • The preacher, church, or denomination that had the stronger stand against “equated themselves to be more righteous than others.”
    • So, denominations divided, argued over forms of baptism, tongues, versions of translation, eternal security, and etc. All of this was to prove to God they were faithful.
    • It became a sort of Christian competition, and the secular world laughed, ridiculed and worse, ignored the Church as irrelevant.
    • In fighting Modernity, we fought amongst ourselves in order to prove something to somebody (who?).
    • We fell victim to our own significance and lost our seat at the table in Modern World view.
    • I believe that since the last election, provocateurs have resurged some of that old debate in order to manipulate POLITICS with fear and rhetoric. How sad. The more this goes on, the more we all will be marginalized.
    • I believe this is the biggest reason why youth are leaving the Church.
• What about the fact that Jesus didn’t mention H?
  • The Modernity debate has used that as one of its clubbing points.
  • One side says: “Since Jesus didn’t mention it, is must be okay.”
  • The other side says, “Of course He did: `A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife…’” as a proposition for hetero relations only. And then, of course, there is Sodom and Gomorrah, Romans 1 (a result of judgment, not the cause as Conservative Christian Modernists claim –same with Sodom and Gomorrah, Ezekiel 16:49-50).
    • The argument from Conservative Christian Modernity –that God will judge us for allowing the gay agenda- has it backward.
    • Materialism and Consumerism are the sins, and terminal sexual deviations (which results in the failure of a society to reproduce and survive) is the judgment.
    • And again, I am not saying that H people are under a special and worse curse. They share with everyone in the broken nature of this world. And I believe this: “At the point of our brokenness, the place where we are the most afraid that Jesus would appear, is exactly the place that He loves us the most.” We are saved by grace.
    • So, the “gay agenda” rhetoric published by the religious right is merely the work of provocateurs who exploit our fear in order to raise funds for their “righteous defenses” of God. It isn’t a slippery slope to perdition, it is grain elevator pumping more and more money onto their piles of gold. 
    • When Jesus didn’t mention it, it wasn’t because He was endorsing brokenness. No. Jesus didn’t mention it because it wasn’t important enough to fight over.
    • He was soon to provide the atoning sacrifice to restore the broken to Him.
    • Jesus was and still is about redemption, restoration, healing, and reconciliation between God, man and each other.
  • Then there is the whole imperialism, kingdom to come instead of the Kingdom here and now issue.
    • Post-Modernity distrusts “in power” faiths because of the way they have achieved and maintain control.
    • That is why Nihilism is emerging.
    • Nihilism is a reaction to the abuse of authority. It is: disestablishmentarianism taken to the up to the level of politics and national leadership.
    • Post-modernity perceives (whether or not it is true is still a debate, the perception is real to those who hold it) an historical connection between religion and the abuse of power. I suppose in the Christian context, it began with Constantine and his refusal to allow his sword arm be baptized when he “converted.”
    • He believed that his religion gave him the power to subdue others, after all they were/are merely pagans whose destiny is perdition.
    • I think the controversy right now about the “Ground Zero Mosque”, and the systemic perceptions behind 9/11 –right or wrong- indicate the fallacy of having a civil religion (like American Evangelical Christianity, or the theocratic nature of some of the more radical Muslim countries).
    • How does this relate to the H question?
    • If we are allowed to marginalize the H people, then we can also marginalize and abuse “the other” -anyone who isn’t like us.
    • Post-Modernity wonders if Christian endorsement (from the beginning of the slave trade to the election of President of Obama and beyond…) of racism and the current increasing-in-popularity evil  Christian Identity movement is any different from the reaction to the gay agenda? Without the framework of scripture, it appears to them to be the same imperialistic viewpoints.
    • And here is the worse part about it: Taking a stand against the SIN OF OTHERS to prove your righteousness while you allow suffering, injustice, marginalization of others is a far cry from the righteousness that Jesus described by “taking up your cross and following Him.”
    • “Taking a stand against” is a sacrifice that costs us little in comparison to taking up our cross. In the mega-church hysteria and manipulation for profit by the national Christian media, that “supposed sacrifice” is actually a benefit because it gains the applause of others in the Church and increases the coiffures by creating an enemy out there. In essence it is no different than Goebbels  demonizing the Jewish race in order to garner support for National Socialism.
    • It is not a real sacrifice- not while believers continue a life of over-consumption and going to church to get a commodity instead of  taking up our crosses to follow Christ. Remember, that was the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

So, if you ask me “is H a sin?” My response is “why do you ask?”

That is nor a pejorative response. If  you truly want to know how I think the Holy Spirit is leading the church in its reaction to this debate, then praise God! I applaud your willingness to seek God instead of merely listening to the rhetoric. Search yourself and inform me as well. I don’t have all the answers.

However, if one wants to prove to himself or  herself that I am either less or more biblical or spiritual than them in my ability to take a stand… …well, I won’t say it and I will repent for the temptation to think it, instead I will say in complete sincerity, without mockery: “God bless you.”

Phil Reynolds is an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren. He considers himself Bible Believing and still identifies as an Evangelical, but has distanced himself from the American Evangelical movement because he perceives that it has become a Political entity, manipulated by provocateurs, that has exchanged New Testament Christianity for Western Civil religion.

I have two people who I have to apologize to because I realize that I have left you completely out of my categories. I just don’t know what to do with you yet. One is a good friend and I love her dearly: SQM: “You have taught me more than you can imagine. I deeply respect the sincerity by which you have achieved your world view. I am sorry I haven’t figured out a response to the Christian Post-modern who does not see the atonement as crucial to their faith. So, I ask you to forgive me for leaving you out of my categories. When I figure out how your integrity and sincerity fits into my narrow world-view, I’ll figure out a way to include you in the categories. Again, please forgive me.

And to another man, JWB: “I deeply respect your perspective. I have  learned a lot from you. I see you as moving from Modernity to Post-Modernity in the way that you speak more of the human cost that the H controversy creates than the propositions that kept us all divided. I hope to someday visit with  you and become your friend. I hope you know that I love you. Really. I just want to hug you, and figure out a way to get through this together.”

I mentioned Gomes Book: “The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus?” Gomes, an H person writes of what I call neo-social justice Christian. He decries the lines that separated the liberals from the conservatives in the age of modernity and sees a genuine revival taking place that is both Christocentric and also Just. It is a Kingdom here, and a Kingdom to come, enjoined together.

Technorati Tags: homosexuality,post modernity,modernity,imperiallism,post-modern christianity,pluralism,biblical authority,gay agenda

Can’t we have a conversation?

A facebook friend of mine, the president of the Republican Party Toastmaster club in Dayton Ohio posted on her facebook page and I responded. Not only is she an avid Republican, but like me, she is an avid Christian. On most days, she posts a “scripture of the day” reference that is always a blessing to me. However, one day she posted this on her wall and I responded with another scripture for her to consider. One fellow, a kind hearted individual named Greg showed that some people can have a conversation, but others cannot.

A man named Mark took me to task privately afterwards. So, I posted the initial wall dialogue and then posted his intercourse with me.

When we get to the place where I post the inbox messages, I did a spell check and cleaned up a couple of wrong words on my end (wrong words indicated with a bold, italic text in parenthesis). I started changing the way he spelled democrats, than then realized that he was intentionally leaving out the c.

Text of orignial wall post.

Deborah Mulholand OBAMA WATCH CENTRALPresident makes Top 10 list of corrupt politiciansBelieves he 'can violate privacy rights of Americans' without legal consequence
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120407

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.wnd.com%252Findex.php%253Ffa%253DPAGE.view%2526pageId%253D120407&h=74e46a23c5af73f4ff095fee1d50172b&ref=mf

www.wnd.com

President Obama has been named to a Top 10 list he'd likely be grateful to avoid: Judicial Watch's Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians. The Obama White House believes, said the report from the organization that monitors government for corruption,

Wed at 8:17pm · Comment ·LikeUnlike · View Feedback (12)Hide Feedback (12) · Share

3 people like this.

Phil Reynolds

Scripture for the day: 1 Timothy 2:1-4, the good news is, as believers, we have the power to bless.

Wed at 8:49pm ·

Gregg Nicholl

Romans 1- and "God gave them over . . ." God's wrath of abandonment: a nation turns its back on God and God simply lets them go, reaping the natural consequences of their actions. Better go the 2 Chr. 7:14 route ASAP.

Wed at 10:10pm

Phil Reynolds

So, Romans 1 trumps 1 Tim 2:1-4 as if it isn't scripture? Or, does Romans 1 have to do with a lack of concern for the poor and the idolatry of materialism: Ezekiel 16:48-49? Maybe 2 Chr 7:14 has to do with GOD's people in relationship to Isaiah 58. Maybe that is how revival is won. Maybe the "giving over" from Romans 1 has to do with Leviticus 19:33-34 when God says "I will judge you for calling not calling "illegals" the term Jesus used: "Neighbors."

Wed at 11:12pm ·

Gregg Nicholl

Phil:
I was not responding to your Scripture quote but the text of the article posted by Deborah. I apologize if I have somehow offended you.
Romans Chapter 1, in my opinion, is the locus of control for the malaise we are experiencing in the present age. This is the root cause of our societal problems- a hardness of heart begotten from turning the back on God in a macro or national sense. I wasn't trying to "trump" your Scripture quote. I am not interested in playing "silly church games." Lord knows there have been way too many people who twist Scripture for their own aims. There have been way too many church folk who seek to assert their superiority in the church pecking order through the throwing out of Scripture quotes verbatim and using clever "Christian" catch phrases like bumper stickers for life in order to impress the bretheren And God knows how many people continue to use Scripture to cut the hearts out of their brothers and sisters. I am NOT that way and if I would ever drift into such nonsense, I would trust that someone would correct me, confront me, or hit me over the head with a ballbat. It is indeed sad and it is one of the many reasons that the contemporary American Church has had such a minimal impact upon the greater culture.... See More
Chronicles 7:14 was taken out of context. It specifically applies to ancient Israel. However, it does serve as a good example of what to do in these trying times. Humility and prayer are always good things. Additionally, It shows how God spared a nation that turned its back on Him in the past; a nation that had many years of kings that adopted the evil ways of the other nations. Granted, it was ancient Israel, God's chosen people, however,it shows how He responded in the past to a people that were His own. In New Covenant times, Christians would be considered as God's people. America was founded on Christian principles and (until recently) considered itself a "Christian nation". Hence, the illustration. God is immutable- He never changes.
Once again, Phil, I was not trying to respond to your Scripture quote, but only to the article as posted by Deborah. I am sorry if this has caused any offense to you or anyone else. It was certainly not my intention and, as stated before, I don't play games with the Word of God. I was merely attempting to illustrate a possible causation for the madness that has taken hold in this country. I am sorry and I do apologize for my comments.

Yesterday at 5:38am

Deborah Mulholand

Greg: I'm not sure what your ASAP was all about, but my purpose in posting is that the Obama Administration is pretending to be "Christian" but our dear Prez won't darken the door of a church and hangs out with his Muslim friends and loves reading Harry Potter books to his daughters more than reading from the Bible. Obama says that we're NOT a Christian nation any more. Oh, Really?????????????

Yesterday at 9:18am

Gregg Nicholl

ASAP? (As Soon As Possible?) I don't understand. I explained my initial posting above, along with an apology to all concerned. There was no offense meant. it was just a reaction to continued examples of what happens when a nation turns its back On God as we have done in the past. Corruption permeates every level of government. There is no ... See Moreshame either. Consider Mary Landrieu's comments (D-Louisiana) referencing the amount of money it took to buy her vote on healthcare, "It wasn't 150 million, it was 300 million." This, to me, exmplifies Romans 1. And, as I have repeated, I am sorry for causing offense. It just made sense to me. Thanks. Take care.

Yesterday at 2:05pm

Deborah Mulholand

Greg: I'm still confused about those "Bumper Stickers For Life"! I've always felt they were a proclamation of loyalty to those "least among us" who need our protection. Those who are proudly pro-life, are fellow believers I can trust and call my friends.

30 minutes ago

END of wall posts, now Mark Buse asks me a question in my inbox. At the beginning of the conversation, his picture was visible and there was always a “reply” button. But after his last post, he deleted any access by me to him, his picture disappeared and the reply button did not exist anymore.

I weep for our nation:

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 2:43am Report

' So, Romans 1 trumps 1 Tim 2:1-4 as if it isn't scripture? Or, does Romans 1 have to do with a lack of concern for the poor and the idolatry of materialism: Ezekiel 16:48-49? Maybe 2 Chronicles 7:14 has to do with GOD's people in relationship to Isaiah 58. Maybe that is how revival is won. Maybe the "giving over" from Romans 1 has to do with Leviticus 19:33-34 when God says "I will judge you for calling not calling "illegals" the term Jesus used: "Neighbors." '

So are you furious that the nation doesn't treat invading thieves better? Or is this a statement of judgment against all of the home nations that abused their poor so thoroughly that they came to America to escape conditions that are far worse?

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 10:00am

Mark,
God bless you.
I am a conservative theologian and a pastor. I try not to begin a dialogue with accusations of self-righteous and angry L******* or angry C***********. It kind of makes it hard to have a conversation. What this country needs is a conversation instead of rhetoric. If a kingdom is divided against itself, it cannot stand. It seems to me that the politicians are more interested in politics than in healing our nation. I would love to elaborate further, as long as we can have a conversation.
Having said that, I don't see any evil in the word liberal. Liberal means "generous" and conservative means "to conserve" or to "hang (hand) on to." Of course, the ability to be generous most often begins with wise financial decisions that conserve wealth by eliminating irresponsible spending. When I see the call of God on the life of Abraham (Genesis 12) I read a spiritual principle, that apparently you also agree with (from your response on Deb Mulholland's page), that principle is that God blessed Abraham for the express purpose that he could be a blessing to others. I believe that principle is what you are saying when you say that we need to build up other nations so that people aren't so desperate to flee here. If we can do that, then we can eliminate a brain drain on the resources of those other nations.
I pause at your question "are you furious....?" I hadn't thought about it that way, that I am the one who is furious. Generally, the way to tell who is furious in a conversation has to do with their rhetoric, accusations or use of derogative or prerogative terms about the person they are taking with. Sometimes, I consider that debate tactic -attacking the character of those we disagree with- as an admission of defeat.
But, you are right, I am angry with the way the conversation has become to mean-spirited. I am angry that the name calling isn't going to move us from point a to point b. I believe there are sincere, honest thinkers on either side of the debate. If we, people like you and I, can model a respectful conversation, then perhaps that attitude will spread like leaven in a loaf of bread. It seems to me that our politicians are not interested in healing the land and it is up to us to start a grass roots conversation that will lead the way.
My comment on Deb's post was a reaction to the link. A knee jerk reaction and I am sorry for that. I do not know if you consider yourself a believer in Jesus Christ or not, but I know that Deb makes it clear that she has a deep and abiding faith. She deliberately represents Christianity on her facebook page. And, I was showing her from scripture that Christians are called to bless, and pray for, their government. God made it clear to Daniel and the Babylonian kings that God is the one who sets governments in power. If we represent Christ, then we need to reflect a biblical response over a political/national response.
I mentioned that I am a conservative theologian, and that means that my first allegiance is to the Kingdom of God. I am patriotic and I love the USA. But I am first and foremost a citizen of God's Kingdom and that Kingdom knows no national borders.
So, I believe, and this is just my opinion and faith, I am not asking you to adopt it for yourself. But I believe that although the nations that exploit their poor are reprehensible for their actions, their actions do not preclude us from obeying the scriptures. I believe the command in Leviticus 19:33-34 is a standard by which God will judge a nation as either righteous or evil. I believe that our national/political/financial interests do not take precedence over clear commands in scripture. I believe that our restrictive border policies are in direct violation of God's commandments for a just society and that by ignoring them, we place ourselves in a position to lose the blessing of God. I am not asking you to believe what I believe.
So, yes I am angry. I am also angry that both political parties are beating each other over the head with scriptures and obfuscating the (that) conversation that will heal our land. I am angry that Christianity is suborned by politics on both sides of the issue. And I am on a mission to ask people to have respectful conversations with each other instead of name calling.
I believe in the sincerity and integrity of those who disagree with me and I hope they can believe in the sincerity of my beliefs as well.
Mark, we can change the world.
Phil Reynolds

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 3:54pm Report

We can change the world as faithful witnesses to the Gospel. That includes an honest representation of what we support in the political aspects of life. I cannot believe that anyone can be a 'conservative' from a theological standpoint and in any way approve the legion of evil constituencies and policies that are bundled together in the modern Dem party or its leader, Odrama.
While I hope that every Christian prays for evil actors in politics every day, it is not our job to publicly bless their evil policies or behavior.
For example, I believe that it's quite proper and correct to pray openly for the salvation of BHO, Pelosi, etc, that they might turn from their destructive and damning evil.

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 3:59pm Report

The example of Daniel AND Esther are excellent ones to use in this context. While Daniel was properly respectful toward the despot Nebecudnezzar, he was NOT blindly obedient to his evil policies. In fact, the Lord turned the evil despot to Himself and I believe eventually to salvation because faithful believers did take a defiant stand against overtly EVIL policies and commands. That behavior was repeated by the Apostolic Church and the Lord Himself in their defiance of the evil Jewish leadership of their day. That continued throughout Church history as righteous believers defied wicked leaders and paid with their lives as martyrs.
And did Esther BLESS 'that vile Haman' and did her uncle bow to that vile man as protocol demanded?? Certainly not.

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 4:00pm Report

So I repeat, are you one who votes by proxy for the mass-murder of abortion through the one political party and its truly evil leadership the keeps that form of murder common, profitable, and legal?

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 4:56pm

Mark,
Again, God bless you in the name of Jesus. Can I assume that your statement "being witnesses of the gospel" and knowledge of the OT minor prophets means that you too are a follower of Christ Jesus?
The short answer to your question is: I vote according to the principles revealed to us by God in the book we commonly refer to as "the Bible." I vote the Bible and I take its morals, values and definitions of righteous and just activity as a standard whereby I vote my politics. I believe that the creation of the US constitution is a miracle given to us by the same God of the Christian faith. Although it is not scripture, it seems to have had divine help in its construction. It is a gift from God. I do not vote political party lines. I don't bite "hook, line and sinker" the claims of either political party. And again, I am disgusted at the childish level of rhetoric perpetrated by people who call themselves Christians. It is as if those people are still saying: "Lord, is this the time you are going to restore the kingdom of Israel?" Jesus made it clear, the Kingdom of God is in the hearts of men and women and transcends national borders. It seemed to me that He was frustrated with the fact that the apostles didn't "Get it" when He kept telling them that politics is not the answer to the world, He is.
Now the long answer. I marched in the "right to life march" in January of 1981. It was 18 degrees below zero when we started the march. I came across a Southern Baptist pastor who was a friend of my twin brother. I was studying at Bible College in preparation for pastoral ministry and wanted to make a good impression on every preacher I met since I could gain advice, help, mentoring and insights into my calling by cultivating those relationships. In other words, I was listening instead of speaking. The preacher said something to me near the end of the route. He said: "I wonder where all the black people are? Why aren't they concerned about stopping abortion?"
I found his question odd. I found his question to be racially biased in an unchristian way. I remember thinking "why notice? Why single out this other race as being less since they didn't join our cause?" But, I took his question to heart and investigated the reason why the defeat of abortion was not as important to the African American community AT THE TIME as it was to the Caucasian American community. My investigation lead me to this answer: "While we were wondering where they were during the right to life marches, they were wondering where we were during the civil rights marches." I am sure there are many other reasons, but the consensus of my investigation is that this was the primary reason.
The same passion that the American Evangelical Christian Community of which I am a part of that has fueled our passion against abortion also fuels my passion for human rights in every area. I believe that access to health care is an human rights concern. I believe that compassion toward our neighbors who are at worse called "illegals" and at best called: "undocumented residents" should extend to the words of Jesus and we should call them: "neighbor." Remember, the Pharisee "wishing to justify himself" asked Jesus: "who is my neighbor?" And Jesus launched the story of the good Samaritan. What would Jesus call the undocumented resident? Would He call them anything less than "neighbor?" So, I vote the bible. There is a lot more to being just, caring and loving toward our fellow man than stopping abortion.

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 5:29pm

We have a favorable court, and unless something drastic happens, Obama's presidency will not change that court. I remember my Republican vote for Reagan in order to get a favorable court and he gave us Suiter. The party line vote did not stop it. Abortion will not stop by legislation, it will stop by revival. We need the 2 Chronicles 7:14 promises to come true and it starts by the believers being HUMBLE. This spite filled rhetoric is certainly not reflective of the humble nature of Jesus.
I appreciate you picking up on the Daniel prophesy and strong stands against evil and for righteousness. Remember when Daniel interpreted Nebachanezzar's dream? God is judging the tyrant because of his arrogance and unwillingness to acknowledge God's sovereignty over all nations. So, Daniel tells him to repent and perhaps God will stay His hand of judgment. What does he say repentance looks like? He says, "stop sinning by making sure the poor get justice." Daniel says nothing about his idolatry, his drunken (drunker) party, his huge harem, etc. He tells him this: repentance is making sure human rights are not violated. Haman wanted to violate the human rights of the alien (Jews) living in the land.
John the Baptist says the same thing. He criticizes the people who are coming to get baptized because they want to look righteous, religious and good. He tells them that they have no intention of repenting and that if they don't: "The axe is laid at the trees..." So, some of them hear and are convicted and decide to genuine repentance and they ask John, "What does repentance look like?" John says: "if you have two coats, give one to someone who has none. If you have extra food, share it with the hungry." John said nothing about taking a stand against socialism, big government. As a matter of fact, in today's current political climate, John's answer would probably be criticized because "it smacks of socialism and that is un-American (unamerican)."
Listen, God gave Sodom and Gomorrah over to their perverted pleasures because they "were proud, arrogant, had a lack of concern for the poor and were lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." (Ezekiel 16:48) God judged them twice. The first time, He gave them over to their perversions (proven as a method of judgment by God on a culture in Romans 1) and the second judgment, because they didn't repent when He exposed their materialism was the hellfire and brimstone. God judged Abhimilech when he took Sarah as his wife when Abraham lied. God kept all the women in the land from getting pregnant. Terminal sexual deviations -the lack of a culture to reproduce- is the judgment of God on a culture. Abortion is not the reason we will be judged, it is God's judgment. And the repentance must start in the house of God. The whole 2 Chronicles 7:14 ASAP comment is true. But, the repentance that God calls for is one of justice for everyone. Justice for our "neighbors" who flee to this land in ORDER TO LIVE. Justice for the marginalized cultures who live within our land, justice for those who cannot get healthcare, justice for those who do not have the chance to get a viable education. "With liberty, freedom and Justice FOR ALL"
Final question: Isn't the debate between "big government" vs. "small government" actually a debate between restrained vs unrestrained capitalism? Hasn't this debate gone on since Hamilton and Jefferson dialogued back and forth? Couldn't we have the same civil discourse instead of all this mean-spirited rhetoric?
Mark, you can I can change the world.
Phil

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:34am Report

The debate is between voluntary relationships, including the economic ones, among the people working together Under God, or an authoritarian state worshiped by the people in idolatry, as the Lord condemned roundly at the time of Samuel as a sign that the people had rejected HIM.
In that sense, all statist-minded liberals, who worship the power and fantasy benevolence of an all-consuming state have rejected God's way most thoroughly.
In a sense, you use 'capitalism' as an epithet and curse against the free will that is the Lord's gift.
Generally, I like the way you have discussed Scripture, but you also read a wrong conclusion from Daniel. Remember how in the narrative, Daniel himself sternly lectures Nebecudnezzar's son/successor for failing to turn from evil and acknowledge the Lord as his predecessor/father had done. The Lord had provided that wicked leader a representation of His very hand to write out his condemnation on the wall. In a sense, what many Christians are doing is calling out to our present vile, anti-God leadership that the 'hand-writing is on the wall' and we shall bring down their vile governance using our higher law of the constitution.
Your proposition that we are in rebellion against God-ordained government is dead wrong because we are the ones following the highest God-ordained law for our nation, our Constitution. We are condemning the vile usurpers who trample that Constitution no less than when the evil King Ahab and Queen Jezebel trampled God's Law and murdered God's prophets.
Abortion is not the Lord's Judgment that we have not been socialistic or communistic enough, because those of us who are neither are the ones who are personally generous in helping the poor and needy as the liberals, and especially liberal Dem constituencies are not.
Illegal aliens are not the same as legitimate foreign guests within a nation, who are to be treated as equals. They made a decision, usually an entirely selfish one on which their lives did not depend, to steal access to a nation against God's ordained government for both our nation and their nation of origin. What you are advocating is that it's ok to flaunt the law because you want MORE for your life whether it's legal or not. You turn morality on its head.
So I ask you again, are you voting for the mass-murder of abortion? You claim that Reagan gave us Suiter when he did not. That was Bush41, who was deceived into that mistake. What we get instead from Democrats is a hard-line pro-abortion litmus test for their appointees, and the most vicious attacks on good men like Thomas who made it through their evil torture, and Bork, who did not. Had Democrats not been so vicious, the Federal mandate for abortion would have ended long, long ago.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:38am Report

Notions of "social justice" the modern leftist code-word for economic equalization, can NEVER trump mass-murder, even if it were true that one party was thwarting economic justice---in which case it would be the Dems who are systematically GUILTY of that crime. Their endless abuse of generous business people, their endless demonizing lies against every successful person and venture are an abomination before the Lord who provided those blessings. They are the party of Coveting everything, stealing from others, lying as they claim to be benefactors, and murders of the unborn. No Christian should have anything to do with such systematic evil.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:45am Report

The Lord's kingdom is indeed always coming; let it come through His people rather than in spite of them.
Since we have to make real choices, I choose Conservatives for now since they are far more inclined toward the Lord and His kingdom than the other side.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:52am Report

Luke 22:24-28
24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
This is such a direct REBUKE to those who attempt to RULE over others as false benefactors.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:55am Report

And this passage from Mark 10 (also in Luke)
The Rich Young Man/Ruler
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’d”
20“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
I've never met a poor redistributionist Demorat politician. They are all the worst kind of greedy, hypocritical, self-enriching LIARS while ripping the righteous people of our society as 'extreme'. We have had enough of their evil.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 5:05am Report

I don't believe that our views are reconcilable because your sect seems to have heretically chopped out major sections of the OT and Revelation parts of Scripture to come up with a generalized 'anti-war' philosophy that is premature at best.
Only with the new Heaven and Earth, when evil and death have been destroyed shall there be total peace.
Until then, anti-war means lying down for despotism, a vile repudiation of the role that the Lord has provided for government to protect its citizens.

Phil Reynolds January 1 at 9:46am

Mark, again, God bless you.
After 9/11, I found an Inman (Imman) who was willing to respond to people who might be interested in the Islamic faith. After several discourses I asked him: "What would it take for there to be peace between Israel and the Arabs?"
He answered: "They kill our children, they steal our homes, they bomb our cities. There can never be a peace until we destroy them completely."
I posited back to him: "Consider this scenario, Jesus was hanging on a cross looking at the men who murdered Him and said, `Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing?'" Sooner or later, one side is going to have to be the bigger person and seek a means for peace and a respectful dialogue because during the process, too many innocents will be destroyed.
What is it about Jesus nature, His command to turn the other cheek, His passion for the poor, His statement that a kingdom divided itself cannot stand, His command to bless those who curse us -to bless and curse not-, to treat people the way you want to be treated instead of the way you have been spitefully treated, and His nature conveyed to Peter who tells us to try to convince other people "with gentleness and respect" that so called Christians like you don't see? Do you really think this hard line of stopping everything the other political party does, twisting the Word of God by implying things like undocumented residents are not our neighbors, and obfuscating the truth of God's word by implying the US constitution is more important than God's Holy Word is acting in Christian love?
Mark, if you and I could have a conversation, then there is hope. We could change the world.
Phil

Phil Reynolds January 1 at 12:38pm

God bless you, Mark.
I am using the question of undocumented residents as a metaphor for our "Christian" nation but there are many other issues we could use as well.
You imply that our constitution implies that undocumented residents are "illegals." I am saying that the Bible calls them neighbor. You say, the US constitution is the highest authority in our country. And I agree. However, the Bible is the highest authority for me and if we are going to call ourselves a Christian nation, then we cannot pick and choose those passages that Augustine used to justify Roman imperialism. We need to accept and live by the whole council of scripture.
I have not tried to change your politics in this debate, I have only asked you and others like you, who name Christ as Savior to conduct yourselves in a manner that honors the Savior. I mentioned that I although I am a patriotic US citizen who believes in the good that we can do, I am first and foremost a member and citizen of the Kingdom of God. The apostles asked the question: "Should we obey God or man's laws?" I believe that I have a purpose and that is to help this nation get back into favor with God so that abortion, pornography and other terminal sexual deviations will be removed and the proof of our excessive materialism will stop.
Mark, we need the dialectical discourse to keep ourselves in balance. There is no reason why we as Christians cannot do it in a Christian manner?
Do you agree? Can a conversation help us to heal the land or is the only solution the elimination of one political party over the other? Where would America be if Jefferson AND Hamilton hadn't carried on a respectful discourse and shaped our values? Why can't we do the same?
Mark, We, you and I, can change this world.
Phil

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 2:36pm Report

As I mentioned before, you are so steeped in your heresy and folly that the best I can do for you and others like you is pray for you before you destroy our nation and tens of millions of other people around the world.

End of posts:

I guess a conversation is not possible with some. How sad.