The election season is almost over. Here are links to two important articles for your consideration. The first is by Dennis Prager, a Jewish radio talk show host. In an article entitled "There Are Two Irreconcilable Americas," he discusses the differences and goals of the left vs. the right, or red vs. blue. It is worth reading as is most of his articles. It can be found at http://townhall.com under 10/14/2008.
The second is by Princeton University professor Robert George. Entitled "Obama's Abortion Extremism," he examines the extend to which many want to take abortion. I often think about how many statesmen, scientists, doctors, philosophers, theologians, and many other people who could have found, created, discovered any number of things will not because of abortion. There is a culture of death that lusts for more death because Judeo-Christian ethics have been removed. Go to http://townhall.com under 10/15/2008 and read this disturbing article.
Pray for our country.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
election
With the political season in hot pursuit, ads and distortions run rampant. People are getting nervious that the candidate they oppose will be elected. There are warnings of dire consequences if such happens. Now we need to get some perspective on this.
1. God rules. He is King. Jesus is Lord. People have made and lived that proclamation under all kinds of governments. Paul and Peter under Nero and the Roman Empire. Polycarp under the Romans refused to deny Jesus and was burned at the stake. Bonhoeffer and Niemoller under the Nazis refused to change their preaching. Many Christians in various parts of the world live under persecution and hostile governments all recognizing that Jesus is Lord.
2. We need to pray - for whoever gets elected. We believe prayer can change things, even the direction that a country might head under a leader.
3. Vote. I know some think this might not be the best thing and that's okay. I understand. But many of us believe that voting is important. Do not listen to the mainstream media, especially on election day, with all the exit polls, etc. In fact, do not listen to the polls at all. some of that can be distorted to the point of causing people not to vote. For all the talk of the 2000 election, what is often forgotten is that the media declared a winner before the polls in western Florida were closed, and caused some to not vote. The polls are open from one time to another - vote and then listen to the media mouthpieces.
4. When all is said and done, Tues Nov. 4 will be followed, Lord willing, by Wed. Nov. 5. Our task is to live under the rule of God, becoming more like Jesus in our lives.
1. God rules. He is King. Jesus is Lord. People have made and lived that proclamation under all kinds of governments. Paul and Peter under Nero and the Roman Empire. Polycarp under the Romans refused to deny Jesus and was burned at the stake. Bonhoeffer and Niemoller under the Nazis refused to change their preaching. Many Christians in various parts of the world live under persecution and hostile governments all recognizing that Jesus is Lord.
2. We need to pray - for whoever gets elected. We believe prayer can change things, even the direction that a country might head under a leader.
3. Vote. I know some think this might not be the best thing and that's okay. I understand. But many of us believe that voting is important. Do not listen to the mainstream media, especially on election day, with all the exit polls, etc. In fact, do not listen to the polls at all. some of that can be distorted to the point of causing people not to vote. For all the talk of the 2000 election, what is often forgotten is that the media declared a winner before the polls in western Florida were closed, and caused some to not vote. The polls are open from one time to another - vote and then listen to the media mouthpieces.
4. When all is said and done, Tues Nov. 4 will be followed, Lord willing, by Wed. Nov. 5. Our task is to live under the rule of God, becoming more like Jesus in our lives.
Monday, June 30, 2008
good speakers
Has speaking well become the new standard for the pulpit or political office. One person commenting on a presidential candidate mentioned that people listen to him because he speaks well. That would be in contrast to the current president who mispronounces words. Another president was called "the great communicator" but his critics complained that he his speech was deceitful. What about the meaning of words? Words mean something or they mean nothing. We could have shades of Orwell's "1984" or "Animal Farm."
But I see churches wanted great communicators for all generations in a congregation. Many of these churches would love to have the Apostle Paul as their preacher, or would they? Paul admits that he was not a trained speaker, that he had difficulty in public speaking, that he wasn't anything to look at because of some physical disability, and add to that are the facts that he stirred up trouble everywhere he went and was arrested several times. I'm sure some congregations would want to stay away from such a person.
I'm all for clear communication if we are saying what needs to be said. But no matter how you look at it, communicating is difficult, even with people who are intimately familiar with one another. Just consider a husband and wife or parents and children. When a preacher speaks, people hear words and translation them out of their own experiences and definitions. As such, some things can be misunderstood and wrong impressions left. That is why we need to sit down and talk with one another and clarify what we are saying.
Sadly, however, some just want to be entertained by find sounding words. The prophet Ezekiel was told by God that the people of his day loved to hear him speak but will not put his words into practice (see Ezekiel 33:30ff). I fear that too many want a good speaker who says nothing or means something different from what the words he uses mean.
Be careful what you wish for.
But I see churches wanted great communicators for all generations in a congregation. Many of these churches would love to have the Apostle Paul as their preacher, or would they? Paul admits that he was not a trained speaker, that he had difficulty in public speaking, that he wasn't anything to look at because of some physical disability, and add to that are the facts that he stirred up trouble everywhere he went and was arrested several times. I'm sure some congregations would want to stay away from such a person.
I'm all for clear communication if we are saying what needs to be said. But no matter how you look at it, communicating is difficult, even with people who are intimately familiar with one another. Just consider a husband and wife or parents and children. When a preacher speaks, people hear words and translation them out of their own experiences and definitions. As such, some things can be misunderstood and wrong impressions left. That is why we need to sit down and talk with one another and clarify what we are saying.
Sadly, however, some just want to be entertained by find sounding words. The prophet Ezekiel was told by God that the people of his day loved to hear him speak but will not put his words into practice (see Ezekiel 33:30ff). I fear that too many want a good speaker who says nothing or means something different from what the words he uses mean.
Be careful what you wish for.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
free speech
Did you know that in Canada there is something called the human rights commission. It is currently proscuting a columnist named Mark Stein because he wrote something that some Islamists took as being against Islam. They have also convicted a preacher for speaking out against homosexuality and find him several thousand dollars, told him to apologize and not to speak against it again.
Nothing like that would happen here, would it? Well, New Mexico has a human rights commission who has tried a photographer for refusing to photograph and commitment ceremony between two homosexuals. Virginia also has a human rights commission who tried a video copier for refusing to copy homosexual material. New Jersey civil rights organization has removed the tax exempt status of a church for refusing to allow a homosexual couple to use their property for a commitment ceremony.
Maybe we shouldn't be concerned but then again. There are those who wish to restrict speech on college campuses by speech codes. Some politicians desire to bring back the "fairness doctrine" so that talk radio, which would include Christian radio, would have to be balance between both sides. Why are they afraid of free speech?
I find that those who make the loudest noise about rights being taken away under the current administration have no problem taking away, or supporting such things as human rights commissions, to stop speech that is politically incorrect. Judges overrule the people who vote for propositions, others make laws in contrast to the Constitution, yet are support by those who claim that our rights are being removed.
This reminds me of George Orwell's two books, "1984" and "Animal Farm." One commend from the latter is that all are equal but some are more equal than others. Or like the character in Alice in Wonderland, words are what he determines them to be. Words mean something or nothing. If nothing, then how can we trust what anyone says.
As Christians, if we call something a sin because the Bible does, will we be fined, tried, told to be quiet, even imprisoned for our beliefs? I think this is something to think about, especially as the next national election is coming up. For fine soundly words we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. Gaining back lost freedom might be more difficult than we think.
Nothing like that would happen here, would it? Well, New Mexico has a human rights commission who has tried a photographer for refusing to photograph and commitment ceremony between two homosexuals. Virginia also has a human rights commission who tried a video copier for refusing to copy homosexual material. New Jersey civil rights organization has removed the tax exempt status of a church for refusing to allow a homosexual couple to use their property for a commitment ceremony.
Maybe we shouldn't be concerned but then again. There are those who wish to restrict speech on college campuses by speech codes. Some politicians desire to bring back the "fairness doctrine" so that talk radio, which would include Christian radio, would have to be balance between both sides. Why are they afraid of free speech?
I find that those who make the loudest noise about rights being taken away under the current administration have no problem taking away, or supporting such things as human rights commissions, to stop speech that is politically incorrect. Judges overrule the people who vote for propositions, others make laws in contrast to the Constitution, yet are support by those who claim that our rights are being removed.
This reminds me of George Orwell's two books, "1984" and "Animal Farm." One commend from the latter is that all are equal but some are more equal than others. Or like the character in Alice in Wonderland, words are what he determines them to be. Words mean something or nothing. If nothing, then how can we trust what anyone says.
As Christians, if we call something a sin because the Bible does, will we be fined, tried, told to be quiet, even imprisoned for our beliefs? I think this is something to think about, especially as the next national election is coming up. For fine soundly words we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. Gaining back lost freedom might be more difficult than we think.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Expelled the Movie
EXPELLED: THE MOVIE
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
Ben Stein is a political commentator, actor, and speech writer for former presidents. He was approached by a couple of producers to become active in this movie. It is about the conflict in the scientific community between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design. People who have spoken about Intelligent Design have been “expelled” from various universities such as Iowa State, George Mason and Baylor, from writing about in newspapers, and from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.
The movie opens with the building of the Berlin Wall in Germany at the beginning of the Cold War. The comparison is that the Communists in East Germany wanted to keep out Western ideas especially of that of freedom. Our nation was founded on the idea of freedom, freedom of speech and as Mr. Stein says, of inquiry. He and his team interview various experts, both atheists and Intelligent Design.
Among the most famous atheist is Richard Dawkins. He is the most arrogant of the group though others see God as myth, and see those who do not accept their views as ignorant. Dawkins admits at the end of the movie that he might believe in some sense of intelligent design, from another source in the universe. One scientist thinks that one legitimate view of the beginning of things was some molecules riding on ice crystals of some kind.
Mr. Stein interviews a number of Intelligent Design advocates some who have been expelled. We find that there are a number who come from various beliefs; they are not all Christian. They state that their view as been misrepresented in both the media and other areas. Included in the interviews are a number of Christian and Jewish scientists who believe in God.
One can see that in this movie both sides are presented as Mr. Stein travels throughout the United States and France, Germany and Britain exploring the conflict. What we learn from the movie is that a wall has been built by the powers that be in the elite scientific community that is attempting to stop all discussion. One lesson learned is that the worldview of the scientist effects his view of science. It appears that because Darwinian evolution is the accepted view, no questioning is allowed. Interestingly enough, it was Darwin who “rocked the boat” as it were when he presented his views back in the 1800s.
Throughout the movie Mr. Stein asks why not have this discussion? One explained it this way. Imagine a wall going through your brain or yard. Only one side of your brain has an acceptable view and the other an unacceptable view. Everything on the acceptable side can be spoken while the other side cannot even be mentioned. Go back to the Berlin Wall.
There is interesting dialogue throughout the movie, explanations on the basic level, and astonishing comments. Ideas have consequences. The last part of the movie explores this and has brought about controversy. One comment that caught my attention was something to the effect that these things always have the same beginning. The eugenics movement in the early part of the 20th Century, based on Darwinian evolution, sought to eliminate those who were inferior, or who were an expense on families or nations. Some fifty thousand Americans were sterilized because of this view. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, held this view. Today it continues with abortion (an unwanted baby who the mother cannot care for), euthanasia (the elimination of the sick and aged), and now infancide (the killing of born babies if not pleasing to parents). Sex selection in some areas of the world has lead to the aborting of baby girls, for in these cultures, baby boys are more valuable. This will lead to unintended consequences down the road.
Finally, Mr. Stein, a Jew, goes to Germany, where the Darwinian philosophy was part of the murder of millions of people, including six million Jews, in the Nazi concentration camps. The two people he interviews state that Darwinism was an very influential on Hitler and various Nazi scientists. For Stein, this was an emotional and moving moment. He asked the author of a book about Hitler and Darwinism what he thought about this. The author stated that Hitler carried his views to the extreme, that he thought Hitler thought that he was moving evolution along. The author also stated that there was no doubt that Hitler was evil.
Mr. Stein concludes by asking what can we do? This movie is a beginning and I would suggest that as many go see it as possible. Keep in mind, it is a documentary. I know that some good books have been written about Intelligent Design, some by believers and some not. Philip Johnson, a lawyer, has lead the charge in this area from a Christian perspective and his books are worth reading. I’m not much into detail science but if an elite group can force experts in various scientific fields to keep quiet, what can happening in other fields? This is all part of what has been called the cultural war.
For more information on this movie you can go to http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
One additional note. Some of the excuses used by those who expelled people from their teaching positions are excuses I have heard as a preacher. I think that we are in danger of building a wall, if we haven’t already, to try to prevent discussions on various topics. Traditional positions are being defended as law and any who question that are considered “outsiders” and some are attempting to “expel” them. I have written more on this in the next bulletin.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
Ben Stein is a political commentator, actor, and speech writer for former presidents. He was approached by a couple of producers to become active in this movie. It is about the conflict in the scientific community between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design. People who have spoken about Intelligent Design have been “expelled” from various universities such as Iowa State, George Mason and Baylor, from writing about in newspapers, and from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.
The movie opens with the building of the Berlin Wall in Germany at the beginning of the Cold War. The comparison is that the Communists in East Germany wanted to keep out Western ideas especially of that of freedom. Our nation was founded on the idea of freedom, freedom of speech and as Mr. Stein says, of inquiry. He and his team interview various experts, both atheists and Intelligent Design.
Among the most famous atheist is Richard Dawkins. He is the most arrogant of the group though others see God as myth, and see those who do not accept their views as ignorant. Dawkins admits at the end of the movie that he might believe in some sense of intelligent design, from another source in the universe. One scientist thinks that one legitimate view of the beginning of things was some molecules riding on ice crystals of some kind.
Mr. Stein interviews a number of Intelligent Design advocates some who have been expelled. We find that there are a number who come from various beliefs; they are not all Christian. They state that their view as been misrepresented in both the media and other areas. Included in the interviews are a number of Christian and Jewish scientists who believe in God.
One can see that in this movie both sides are presented as Mr. Stein travels throughout the United States and France, Germany and Britain exploring the conflict. What we learn from the movie is that a wall has been built by the powers that be in the elite scientific community that is attempting to stop all discussion. One lesson learned is that the worldview of the scientist effects his view of science. It appears that because Darwinian evolution is the accepted view, no questioning is allowed. Interestingly enough, it was Darwin who “rocked the boat” as it were when he presented his views back in the 1800s.
Throughout the movie Mr. Stein asks why not have this discussion? One explained it this way. Imagine a wall going through your brain or yard. Only one side of your brain has an acceptable view and the other an unacceptable view. Everything on the acceptable side can be spoken while the other side cannot even be mentioned. Go back to the Berlin Wall.
There is interesting dialogue throughout the movie, explanations on the basic level, and astonishing comments. Ideas have consequences. The last part of the movie explores this and has brought about controversy. One comment that caught my attention was something to the effect that these things always have the same beginning. The eugenics movement in the early part of the 20th Century, based on Darwinian evolution, sought to eliminate those who were inferior, or who were an expense on families or nations. Some fifty thousand Americans were sterilized because of this view. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, held this view. Today it continues with abortion (an unwanted baby who the mother cannot care for), euthanasia (the elimination of the sick and aged), and now infancide (the killing of born babies if not pleasing to parents). Sex selection in some areas of the world has lead to the aborting of baby girls, for in these cultures, baby boys are more valuable. This will lead to unintended consequences down the road.
Finally, Mr. Stein, a Jew, goes to Germany, where the Darwinian philosophy was part of the murder of millions of people, including six million Jews, in the Nazi concentration camps. The two people he interviews state that Darwinism was an very influential on Hitler and various Nazi scientists. For Stein, this was an emotional and moving moment. He asked the author of a book about Hitler and Darwinism what he thought about this. The author stated that Hitler carried his views to the extreme, that he thought Hitler thought that he was moving evolution along. The author also stated that there was no doubt that Hitler was evil.
Mr. Stein concludes by asking what can we do? This movie is a beginning and I would suggest that as many go see it as possible. Keep in mind, it is a documentary. I know that some good books have been written about Intelligent Design, some by believers and some not. Philip Johnson, a lawyer, has lead the charge in this area from a Christian perspective and his books are worth reading. I’m not much into detail science but if an elite group can force experts in various scientific fields to keep quiet, what can happening in other fields? This is all part of what has been called the cultural war.
For more information on this movie you can go to http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
One additional note. Some of the excuses used by those who expelled people from their teaching positions are excuses I have heard as a preacher. I think that we are in danger of building a wall, if we haven’t already, to try to prevent discussions on various topics. Traditional positions are being defended as law and any who question that are considered “outsiders” and some are attempting to “expel” them. I have written more on this in the next bulletin.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Red Letter Christians
I finished reading Tony Campolo's new book, Red Letter Christians. I like Tony. I have seen and heard him on tape: he is funny and at times challenging. One of the best books that I read on the meaning of various philosophers came from a book of his about thirty years ago. Tony admits at the end of his new book that he is a conservative Christians, but there is no doubt that he is a political liberal.
The purpose of the book is to discuss various issues. He states that he wants to leave Rome (that is, government) and go to Jerusalem (Jesus), as I understood it. While that is a worthy goal, he rarely left Rome. In fact most of his time is spent discussing what politicians and government can do about various social issues.
First, let me say that if you want a good understanding of the religious left, this is a good book to read, especially if you do not listen to talk radio. There are a number of good ideas in the book, some challenging points that he makes, and some points on issues that need to be dealt with. For instance, on the subject of crime, he suggests that those involved in non-violent crime consider repentance, and eventually pay restitution to the victim, something Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship have advocated for years. He does make some good suggestions.
However, he spends too much time telling us that government is the answer to problems, especially where the church can and does a better job. I think that he has bought into the stereotype that conservative Christians are hard-hearted. When we consider who responded to the disasters involved Karina and the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, I think that the religious left needs to take another look at its rhetoric. See also Arthur Brooks book "Who Really Cares?"
The second thing that bothered me was is use or lack thereof of scripture. He tells us that Palestine belongs to both the Jews and Palestinians because both are children of Abraham, using Genesis 15. Both Isaac and Ishmael are sons of Abraham. The only problem is that God chose Isaac, the special son, to develop His plan that led to the cross. One could argue over the politics of the Middle East, but this isn't the best use of scripture.
Another thing he does is to ignore scriptures that do not fit his views. In talking about the death penalty, he stated that he is totally prolife. He opposes the death penalty and sees it as a means to destroy a person created in God's image. He quotes Old Testament texts that he sees as extreme and New Testament texts about forgiveness and loving one's enemy. Justice is foremost in his mind on a number of issues. Two things: one, he mentions people create in God's image but does not refer to Genesis 9:6 at all where God states that anyone who murders should be killed because he shed innocent blood, a person created in God's image. Two, he says nothing about the justice for the victim and his family.
He admits that those nearer to people who are being help can do a better job, yet he complains that the government budget spends too much on other things such as military spending. He really doesn't inact with the role of government from Rom. 13.
I'm glad I read the book. As I said, he made important points about issues we need to be concerned with. However, as typical of many, a selective history is not good for understanding what Christians have done throughout history, though not perfectly.
I am convinced that we really have difficulty separating our religion and politics, and that we are influenced by both. I think Campolo hasn't recognized this, even though he claims to be a conservative. Some of his views are not necessarily in the conservative perspective. As a conservative, however, we need to be careful that our views do not cloud our judgment either.
The purpose of the book is to discuss various issues. He states that he wants to leave Rome (that is, government) and go to Jerusalem (Jesus), as I understood it. While that is a worthy goal, he rarely left Rome. In fact most of his time is spent discussing what politicians and government can do about various social issues.
First, let me say that if you want a good understanding of the religious left, this is a good book to read, especially if you do not listen to talk radio. There are a number of good ideas in the book, some challenging points that he makes, and some points on issues that need to be dealt with. For instance, on the subject of crime, he suggests that those involved in non-violent crime consider repentance, and eventually pay restitution to the victim, something Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship have advocated for years. He does make some good suggestions.
However, he spends too much time telling us that government is the answer to problems, especially where the church can and does a better job. I think that he has bought into the stereotype that conservative Christians are hard-hearted. When we consider who responded to the disasters involved Karina and the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, I think that the religious left needs to take another look at its rhetoric. See also Arthur Brooks book "Who Really Cares?"
The second thing that bothered me was is use or lack thereof of scripture. He tells us that Palestine belongs to both the Jews and Palestinians because both are children of Abraham, using Genesis 15. Both Isaac and Ishmael are sons of Abraham. The only problem is that God chose Isaac, the special son, to develop His plan that led to the cross. One could argue over the politics of the Middle East, but this isn't the best use of scripture.
Another thing he does is to ignore scriptures that do not fit his views. In talking about the death penalty, he stated that he is totally prolife. He opposes the death penalty and sees it as a means to destroy a person created in God's image. He quotes Old Testament texts that he sees as extreme and New Testament texts about forgiveness and loving one's enemy. Justice is foremost in his mind on a number of issues. Two things: one, he mentions people create in God's image but does not refer to Genesis 9:6 at all where God states that anyone who murders should be killed because he shed innocent blood, a person created in God's image. Two, he says nothing about the justice for the victim and his family.
He admits that those nearer to people who are being help can do a better job, yet he complains that the government budget spends too much on other things such as military spending. He really doesn't inact with the role of government from Rom. 13.
I'm glad I read the book. As I said, he made important points about issues we need to be concerned with. However, as typical of many, a selective history is not good for understanding what Christians have done throughout history, though not perfectly.
I am convinced that we really have difficulty separating our religion and politics, and that we are influenced by both. I think Campolo hasn't recognized this, even though he claims to be a conservative. Some of his views are not necessarily in the conservative perspective. As a conservative, however, we need to be careful that our views do not cloud our judgment either.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Review of What's So Great About Christianity
Dinesh D'Souza's new book, What's So Great About Christianity is a good read. He challenges atheists at their strongest attacks with clarity and illustrations that are understandable. He explores the criticisms about Christianity such as the Crusades and Inquisitions and offers a historical perspective we often do not see. He talks about Darwinism and the effects on historical events in the 20Th Century. He looks at Galileo and other scientists and seeks of God in the past, explaining their belief in God.
All in all, it is a good book worth having so as to balance out the arguments often referred to in the media.
All in all, it is a good book worth having so as to balance out the arguments often referred to in the media.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Mixing politics and religion
We have probably all heard of the following: you can't mix politics and religion and we should not talk about either with people.
In today's world, neither is true. Over the next few months, a number of books will be coming out on the subject of Christianity and politics. Interestedly enough, while some of the authors are going to attempt to say that they belong to neither political party, their stands on various issues will reveal that they certainly support one or the other. Politics and religion are intertwined in our society today. Both political parties are seeking the religious vote.
Then we have the religious right and the religious left. One complains about the stands of the other on various issues and the other does the same. Both sides tend to stereotype the other. Dennis Prager warns about what he has observed in the secular realm. The right disagrees with the left and wants to debate, but the left disagrees with the right and sees it as evil, therefore no debate is necessary.
We need to be willing to discuss our differences and recognize that both sides have serious issues and disagreements, but that does not make us enemies.
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out over the election year.
Recently, Biblical scholars have come to recognize that the early church and even Jesus faced political power and issues. John the Baptist was imprisoned by a politician over moral issues. Jesus faced the ruling power of Rome. Paul's preaching used words like lord, salvation, and redemption that were used of Caesar.
I really do not know if we can successfully separate ourselves from politics, nor if we want to. But there is a danger. Depending on government to solve or answer our problems is putting our dependence in the wrong place. I think both the left and right religiously have done this, have been disappointed, and mislead, reading problems the wrong way.
So more comments need to be made and hopefully over the year we can do that.
In today's world, neither is true. Over the next few months, a number of books will be coming out on the subject of Christianity and politics. Interestedly enough, while some of the authors are going to attempt to say that they belong to neither political party, their stands on various issues will reveal that they certainly support one or the other. Politics and religion are intertwined in our society today. Both political parties are seeking the religious vote.
Then we have the religious right and the religious left. One complains about the stands of the other on various issues and the other does the same. Both sides tend to stereotype the other. Dennis Prager warns about what he has observed in the secular realm. The right disagrees with the left and wants to debate, but the left disagrees with the right and sees it as evil, therefore no debate is necessary.
We need to be willing to discuss our differences and recognize that both sides have serious issues and disagreements, but that does not make us enemies.
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out over the election year.
Recently, Biblical scholars have come to recognize that the early church and even Jesus faced political power and issues. John the Baptist was imprisoned by a politician over moral issues. Jesus faced the ruling power of Rome. Paul's preaching used words like lord, salvation, and redemption that were used of Caesar.
I really do not know if we can successfully separate ourselves from politics, nor if we want to. But there is a danger. Depending on government to solve or answer our problems is putting our dependence in the wrong place. I think both the left and right religiously have done this, have been disappointed, and mislead, reading problems the wrong way.
So more comments need to be made and hopefully over the year we can do that.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
election year
This will be an interesting year it being an election year. And more so since many are talking about religion in politics. Over the past few years a number of books have been published criticizing the Christian right, almost to the point of hatred. Dennis Prager states that the right (religious or secular) is mostly willing to disagree with the left and talk about it but that the left sees the right as wrong and therefore evil, and will not discuss anything. While somewhat generalized, it appears to be true.
Then there are the books written by atheists over the last couple of years, likewise criticizing Christianity. There is also books written advocating new texts such as the Gnostics. There are a number of books responding to these being published.
Another group of books coming from both the religious left and right concerns the Christian's role in politics. Among the authors writing are Tony Campolo, Albert Mohlar, D. James Kennedy, Cal Thomas, Os Guinness, and David Klinghoffer. These all should be interesting reads, and more are on the way.
Reading some of these authors past material, I am seeing that it is really difficult to separate one's politics from one's view of Christianity, left or right. They appear to be intertwined. We have often thought that we can divorce religion and politics and have read the Bible in general and the NT in particular in that way. But that view is changing as more Biblical scholars see that the message of Jesus, "the kingdom is near" and of Paul, "Jesus is Lord," were direct challenges to the powers that be. Neither advocated a violent overthrow of either the Herods nor of Rome, but they used terms that could stir up anxiety among the ruling powers.
Paul used terms such as salvation, Lord, and rescue/redemption that the Romans had applied to Caesar, and applied them to Jesus. While some governors could care less about Paul's preaching (The Roman governor of Corinth), others saw it as a threat, especially near the end of the first century.
We will be hearing a lot about this mixture this year. Conservatives leaning in one direction, liberals in another. Hopefully we can talk and learn from each other. I think there are some underlying philosophies that we need to be careful of; for instance that we are created in the image of God and abortion is a challenge to that; that God created the universe and rules, hence global warming might not be all that affected by man. Mars is warming and unless those Martians are getting ready to invade, most think that it comes from activity on the sun rather than on earth. Underlying this is the idea that man can solve all problems without God's help.
I hope to read some of these books on religion and politics and see what can be learned from them. I will admit that I am on the religious right. I have problems with far too much dependence on Caesar (government) for solutions, especially when it is our responsibility. I fear that the desire for the so called social justice issues miss the issues of Biblical justice. Again, the religious left has criticized the religious right for talking too much about abortion - though the most innocent and helpless being is in the womb, created in the image of God. We all should do something to eliminate poverty but is government programs the answer, or are those who are "on the ground" better equipped to handle it.
I look at these and other issues over the year and hopefully learn from them.
Then there are the books written by atheists over the last couple of years, likewise criticizing Christianity. There is also books written advocating new texts such as the Gnostics. There are a number of books responding to these being published.
Another group of books coming from both the religious left and right concerns the Christian's role in politics. Among the authors writing are Tony Campolo, Albert Mohlar, D. James Kennedy, Cal Thomas, Os Guinness, and David Klinghoffer. These all should be interesting reads, and more are on the way.
Reading some of these authors past material, I am seeing that it is really difficult to separate one's politics from one's view of Christianity, left or right. They appear to be intertwined. We have often thought that we can divorce religion and politics and have read the Bible in general and the NT in particular in that way. But that view is changing as more Biblical scholars see that the message of Jesus, "the kingdom is near" and of Paul, "Jesus is Lord," were direct challenges to the powers that be. Neither advocated a violent overthrow of either the Herods nor of Rome, but they used terms that could stir up anxiety among the ruling powers.
Paul used terms such as salvation, Lord, and rescue/redemption that the Romans had applied to Caesar, and applied them to Jesus. While some governors could care less about Paul's preaching (The Roman governor of Corinth), others saw it as a threat, especially near the end of the first century.
We will be hearing a lot about this mixture this year. Conservatives leaning in one direction, liberals in another. Hopefully we can talk and learn from each other. I think there are some underlying philosophies that we need to be careful of; for instance that we are created in the image of God and abortion is a challenge to that; that God created the universe and rules, hence global warming might not be all that affected by man. Mars is warming and unless those Martians are getting ready to invade, most think that it comes from activity on the sun rather than on earth. Underlying this is the idea that man can solve all problems without God's help.
I hope to read some of these books on religion and politics and see what can be learned from them. I will admit that I am on the religious right. I have problems with far too much dependence on Caesar (government) for solutions, especially when it is our responsibility. I fear that the desire for the so called social justice issues miss the issues of Biblical justice. Again, the religious left has criticized the religious right for talking too much about abortion - though the most innocent and helpless being is in the womb, created in the image of God. We all should do something to eliminate poverty but is government programs the answer, or are those who are "on the ground" better equipped to handle it.
I look at these and other issues over the year and hopefully learn from them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)