The tough-talking Doug Giles lays it out in his latest column, “A Christian Can Be a Christian or a Liberal, But He Can’t Be Both.” Giles, a graduate of Knox Theological Seminary writes:
For the “Christian” to lean politically to the left means that he must blow off huge chunks of the Bible and replace the scripture with the make-believe notions of postmodernism’s malleable “Christ.” Only after torturing the scripture can the Christian then fit liberalism into his supposed relationship with God.For the Christian who believes that unfeigned faith in Christ should correspond with Jesus’ high view of scripture, it is…now…impossible to believe in God and be an adherent to postmodern liberalism….
The Democratic Party’s liberalism has degenerated over the last 40-50 years in regard to its view of Christianity and Christian rights. This party, which formerly embraced and protected our nation’s great Christian heritage and teachings, no longer does so. Thus, today the Christian is between a rock and a hard place: he can either be a Christian or a liberal, but he cannot be both.
A liberal-supporting Christian causes me no small amount of frustration and confusion. I used to assume that Christians thought biblically about issues (naive?). I quickly figured out I was mistaken. Many Christians make decisions based on a secular worldview, and they shouldn’t. What does it mean to “think biblically?” More on this later.
Update: First day back and the wolves have gathered around my door already! You bloggers out there trying to get my attention, please check out the rules of this blog. From my Comment Policy: Trackbacks leading to offensive posts where I’m the subject will be deleted.
Update II (10/26): Now that word of this post is bound to travel the length of the blogosphere, let me state for the record that only God knows a person’s heart. Doug Giles isn’t arguing that there are no Christians who are liberals; he contends that liberal ideology itself is anti-Christian to the core and should not be supported by one purporting to be a Christian. I concur. Since naysayers and contrarians will use any excuse to castigate, this update is for the reasonable people in the audience.
Update III: For the edification of our new visitors and friends, I’ll link to my Jesus Was A Liberal post.
Update IV (10/27): Liberals seem to be a little confused about why I delete trackbacks leading to insulting posts where I’m the subject. I thought it was self-explanatory but apparently not. I don’t think I know any human being who’s willing to put up with and pay for gratuitous offenses on his/her own bandwidth. If you know such a person, please arrange an introduction. Being linked and insulted by a black liberal has put me on the radar screen of white liberals, who are equally vacuous. I’m waiting for the “House Nigga” slur, because I know it’s coming…
Thus the commandment “Hate the sin, love the sinner”. We do no favors by being tolerant. Anything that detracts from the good serves the bad. In order to be devoted to God one must be willing to “hate sin”. It is our Christian duty to pick up the banner and stand tall, as a beacon of light in the darkness.
I read a quote from Nelson Mandela yesterday:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. There’s nothing enlightening about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
We should all be brilliant.
Comment by cooper — 10.25.04 @ 1:13 pm
On one level I agree with this guy, but then there are very serious Christians I know who align themselves with the Democratic party because of their belief in government sponsored charity (welfare, foreign aid/debt relief, etc), even though they disagree with the party’s pro-choice platform. For this reason I can’t bring myself to go as far as he does when he says “you either have to be a Christian OR a liberal.”
Comment by Jenna — 10.25.04 @ 1:25 pm
Jenna, do you really believe that we could not be a society that would take care of people if it weren’t for the government?
That is the point of this train of thought. If we would begin to truly be the Christians we say we are, there would be no poor among us.
Comment by cooper — 10.25.04 @ 1:30 pm
There will always be poor people among us, for various reasons, including the fact that some are able to work but won’t. That may be a difficult concept for some to understand, but such people exist. Not all “the poor” are equally poor, know what I mean? I’m not too jazzed about feeding and clothing a grown man who doesn’t want to work.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.25.04 @ 1:35 pm
Like most things in life, however, the Bible is open to interpretation.
Some people interpret God’s free will for man to mean, for example, that abortion should remain legal.
I don’t see it that way, and neither do you, but not everyone reads the Word the way we do.
Comment by Julie Anne Fidler — 10.25.04 @ 1:38 pm
Poor can be interpreted so many ways. I am not for hand-outs to people who will not work. That’s what the government does.
However, if we would begin to grasp the heart of what the Savior tried to teach us many lives would change.
Comment by cooper — 10.25.04 @ 1:47 pm
“Like most things in life, however, the Bible is open to interpretation.”
Well, yes. But one must ask whether any given passage is being properly interpreted. Scripture must interpret Scripture; that is, it must be interpreted according to context. If a person cherry-picks a verse or passage of Scripture and doesn’t consider its meaning in accordance with other Scripture passages, with history, and with the character of God (as revealed in Scripture), one can read any number of erroneous meanings into it. As Hank Hanagraaf often says, “a text taken out of context becomes a pretext”.
Your example regarding abortion is a good example of this. The Bible regards unborn children as real children (for just one example, see Luke 1:41), and also regards murder as sin. Sin is, ultimately, the result of humanity’s exercise of his free will to go against the will of God. Therefore, the mere fact that the choice to abort is the exercise of free will does not justify it.
I realize that you weren’t personally making that argument, Julie Anne. I’m just making the point that our postmodern culture’s tendencies notwithstanding, not all interpretations of a text are valid.
Comment by AWG — 10.25.04 @ 2:08 pm
La Shawn,
GLAD YOU’RE BACK! I agree that Christians who support liberal causes or hold liberal viewpoints can be maddeningly frustrating. As Mr. Giles so succinctly put it, to hold to liberal values one “must blow off huge chunks of the Bible” and its teachings.
I fail to see how one can claim to be a Christian, yet cling to concepts that sharply delineate from what the Bible espouses. I find that a lot of Christians are Christian in name only, but live their lives and make decisions without giving a thought to the faith they claim to follow.
Comment by Montie — 10.25.04 @ 2:34 pm
There are values on the left that I can agree with peace-making being one and the importance of charity and service being another. That said the lefts world-view has become increasingly non-christian and post-modern. If there is a Creator of the Universe who made space and time, wouldn’t Truth have to be founded in his being? If so then application of truth may be relative, but fundamental truth must be absolute.
Comment by Jeff the Baptist — 10.25.04 @ 2:38 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Giles. Many people, including some who profess Christ, tend to believe that politicis and faith do not mix, I contend that your politics are guided by your faith. Thinking from a biblical world view means, to me, that every thought, opinion, view, idea, etc., comes from a foundational and contextual understanding of God’s word. A good example woud be a professing Christian who chooses to believe in evolution as well.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 10.25.04 @ 2:50 pm
To complete my example(browser crashed), someone who does hold to evolutionary thinking does not have a biblical world view.
“Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. ”
I disagree, our deepest fear lies in the fact that if you are not reconciled with God then you will have to give account for yourself on judgement day. To have our sins exposed before all to see and to be judged, that is mans deepest fear. This is why there is continual effort by this world to justify that which is wrong and evil, i.e. abortion, homosexuality, adultery etc.
In other words, to be held accountable and suffer the consequences for our sins, that is our deepest fear.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 10.25.04 @ 2:54 pm
La Shawn, that’s a great article. He makes some excellent points, many of which, I have thought about for quite some time now. I believe you are correct. Some born again Christians do not think biblically about social and political issues. Those who do most likely reject the far left radical social agenda that promotes a worldview that is contrary to what the Bible teaches.
On the other hand, those claiming to be Christian yet hitch their wagons to the rot of today’s radical social liberalism are most likely CINOs (Christians in Name Only). I have never encountered a truly saved person who supports the party of abortion, atheism, and homosexuality. That’s just the way it is.
Comment by Tom B. — 10.25.04 @ 2:58 pm
Being a member of a predominately black, baptist church, I can’t really agree that you can’t be a Christian and a Liberal. What I do believe is that if you’re a Christian and a Liberal, you are not truly applying God’s Word to all areas of your life. I hear fellow church members talking about how the President hasn’t “done anything” for the “black community”. Let’s just say for a minute that this is true: My answer is SO WHAT? Why are you looking to the government to do anything for you? God supplies all of our needs, right? Why do we look to the government to do it? I say because God is fine and dandy for Sunday morning when you’re shouting, but on Monday, you wanna see a check from the government. Mmmhmm.
If more Christians had faith in the God we talk about, I say the president would win by a landslide.
Comment by Rikki — 10.25.04 @ 4:09 pm
“I used to assume that Christians thought biblically about issues (naive?). I quickly figured out I was mistaken.”
That is true, and I see people on both sides guilty of not thinking biblically about issues all the time. In fact, there is so much misapplication of scripture in the right that it is even more dangerous than most left-leaning Christian viewpoints.
Comment by TheBloke...IntheOuter — 10.25.04 @ 4:22 pm
I disagree with the bandying about of the term liberal, and I would love to hear how this is apparently universally understood by everyone but me. I have always thought that being conservative was just as un-christian as anything else, especially since I see a large number of conservative Christians who are the most judgemental, uncompromising, and the least grace-full people I have ever known.
I describe myself as a liberal, and by that I mean that I believe that the least among us are the most likely to be Christ. We are ALL children of God, indeed. I am liberal, not because I “support party of abortion, atheism, and homosexuality,” but I do not know that these things are the most important issues that define who I am either as a citizen or a Christian.
For instance, the most caring and loving Christian I have ever known was a homosexual. He felt that he was a child of God, and that God did not make a mistake when He made him. I don’t understand, and I don’t care to understand, because there are so much more important issues for me as a Christian to deal with than my condemnation of those who are different from myself.
I have a feeling that this is going to elicit some opposition, so I ought to stop typing while I can.
Comment by dmellnik — 10.25.04 @ 4:29 pm
Thank you. I have “Christian” friends who vote Democratic. I just don’t see how someone who has ever read the Bible can vote for pro-abortion candidates. It’s wrong and frankly illustrates the highest form of hypocrisy. Good post, La Shawn!
Comment by DeoDuce — 10.25.04 @ 4:38 pm
Substitute some other words for a moment and consider the impact of such a statement: “The most caring and loving Christian I have ever known was a liar (or gossip, adulterer, back-biter, etc).” I believe that provides some necessary perspective.
Liars, gossips, adulterers, and back-biters clearly have not internalized (or have chosen to ignore) many of the non-salvation related messages of the Bible, in my opinion. Such people may be Christians in that they have accepted Christ as their Savior, but they are not “walking in the Spirit” as a wise friend of mine would say.
Comment by Tom B. — 10.25.04 @ 5:15 pm
drnellnik,
I appreciate the kindness and love that you are willing to exhibit to others,and you are right that there are those conservatives who are mean an judgemental. Yet,nonetheless, our day and times is rife with immorality. Winking at issues such as abortion,homosexuality and out of control behavior only shows cause for justification to those who participate in such activities. Don’t agree, turn on any afternoon pop culture show and see the effects.
The Christians’ moral view is shaped by God’s Word and not by the times. It seems as if you are willing to ignore the behavior as oppose to objecting to it. I will be the first to admit that there are those sinners who exhibit greater love and compassion than any saint, but it doesn’t begin about redemption in the eyes of God,”for our righteousness is as flithy rags..”
I believe that neither party has a claim to God, yet the Democrats and liberals hold less of a “bargaining chip” in the area of holiness.
On the topic of homosexuality, this is something that is abhorrent in the sight of God. It mocks the purpose of God for Man. The woman was created as a partner(helpmeet)to Man. Historians have done studies which have shown that every great empires’ collaspe was preceded by a moral decline; one of those declining values was the increase in homosexuality. So you tell me, which is more IMPORTANT to you, just excepting rappant homosexuality or objecting to such? God objects to it.
Comment by Dominic — 10.25.04 @ 5:43 pm
I think he reduces the arguments too much. I have to believe that the issues are a little more complex than he makes them, as I do have some friends that are Christians (and I will let God judge if that is in name only, but they appear to sincerely love Him) and who choose to vote Democrat sometimes. They look at other issues which they also consider life issues, the death penalty and war, as well as social issues such as welfare, debt relief, and even the care of the environment and they sometimes choose to vote Democrat. Now, I may disagree with their conclusions about whom to vote for, but I do not doubt their love for the Lord, I will let God be the judge of that.
Comment by Kris — 10.25.04 @ 5:58 pm
I think this is a great post and a great discussion topic. I would add that many Christians are ignorant and/or inconsistent. Some are also quite immature. Therefore, I do believe that there are plenty of liberal Christians. On the flip side, there is plenty of humanism in today’s conservatism and too often Christians accept conservative dogma as equivalent to Christian principles when this simply is not the case.
Comment by Tim — 10.25.04 @ 6:32 pm
It’s an easy mistake to make, to think that “all christians” think about things from a biblical standpoint. Far too many haven’t bothered to do much in the way of reading their Bible.
We have friends who have had no end of problem from others at our church. Granted, they’re part of the “wierd” crowd, but so are my wife and I. They have a tendency to take things more personally than we do, though. The couple, at one time, led the youth group. Parents had serious problems with what they were teaching. It wasn’t bad stuff, but it wasn’t coming from a strong foundation of biblical knowledge.
I told the husband that I’d have NEVER put him into that position. I like him, and everything, but that position requires several attributes. One of those attributes is a sound foundation in biblical knowledge. With that sound foundation, the lessons will form from it. Advice to the kids will form from it, and most importantly, criticism from parents can be met with it.
He admitted that I was right. He didn’t spend time studying his Bible. He didn’t have that solid foundation.
He’s not alone.
Comment by Lockjaw the Ogre — 10.25.04 @ 7:14 pm
For me the most disappointing fact is that many people separate their political positions from their Christian beliefs. A female relative of mine believes the Bible and socially is very conservative but will vote for any politician that promises her, at election time, $5/mo. more on her Social Security check. What drives me crazy is that she never keeps track to see whether the promise is kept.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 10.25.04 @ 7:34 pm
I had this discussion with a Christian friend of mine, a very strong bible-beleiving Christian who walks in the spirit. He is also a liberal.
He had posted a link to an organization called Sojourners (www.sojo.net) on his blog, and I vehemently disagreed with their “manifesto” which was clearly anti-Bush (check it out if you want, but it will make you mad), but I’m just not ready to say that you can’t be a Christian and a liberal.
My friend John is living proof that it’s not true.
Comment by Sami — 10.25.04 @ 7:44 pm
It’s so funny that everyone who claims to be religious also claims to know everything. People need to stop being so arrogant as to attempt to speak for God.
Comment by Justin — 10.25.04 @ 8:03 pm
Giles’ points seem a little weak and require something of a stretch to get to his ultimate point. Makes for good soundbites and rousing conversation pieces, but that’s about it.
I’m always struck by the fact that we will quickly point out sexual sins, but we generally act like sins of the heart, which Jesus himself called out with much more frequency, we let walk. We’ll talk about the homosexual, the adulturer, and the fornicator with the quickness. The greedy? I don’t hear too much about him. And I’m talking about from capital-C Christians, now. Personally, I think there’s some sort of taxonomy of sins on which people base the “biblicality” of their political selves. So if you think A, B, and C are worse than X, Y, and Z you vote one way. If you think X, Y, and Z are worse, you vote the other. Meanwhile, biblically, A,B,C,X,Y, and Z are all sins.
Comment by avery — 10.25.04 @ 8:31 pm
The liberal Christian (sounds like an oxymoron to me) is not living their so called “Christian” beliefs set forth in the Bible if they vote for those legislating ungodly policy (I. E. abortion). That is the very definition of a hypocrite. The Bible verse does not read “and the government shall supply all your needs according to their riches in Washington by the IRS.” It reads “And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.(Philippians 4: 19)”
Comment by Lee — 10.25.04 @ 9:15 pm
I think you will find this interesting. I checked the facts and sadly this is all true.
http://superchango.com/stuff/The_United_States_of_Mammon-memo.pdf
At the risk of sounding “fanatical”, the Book Of Rev is really starting to scare me. I feel as if we are following the Devil.
Thanks and God Bless America!
Amber
Comment by Amber — 10.25.04 @ 9:47 pm
Liberal Christians — An Oxymoron?
La Shawn is back, and she’s got an interesting post up titled: “A Christian or a Liberal?”. It’s a response to Doug Giles’ article A Christian Can Be a Christian or a Liberal, But He Can’t Be Both. Mr. Giles’…
Trackback by One Stack Mind — 10.25.04 @ 11:49 pm
I live in the Seattle area, and the mainline denominational churches are overwhelmingly liberal in political orientation (my own United Methodist church being a prime example). These churches are also overwhelmingly declining in membership and attendance. I’ve had several (many?) discussions on social issues with my pastor, and have come to the conclusion that many people in our area let their politics inform and guide their faith. My experience of the more evangelical churches in the area leads me to believe that they let their faith inform and guide their politics.
Is it possible to be Christian and liberal? I’d say ultimately that’s not for us to judge (though I have my suspicions…)
Comment by Bob Klimek — 10.26.04 @ 12:03 am
Good post La Shawn. Doug Giles is one of my favorites and he doesn’t pull any punches. That is a breath of fresh air in this climate of rancid relativism
Comment by Andy — 10.26.04 @ 1:22 am
There was one sentence in your post I could agree with La Shawn: “Many Christians make decisions based on a secular worldview, and they shouldn’t.” Christians of the Right are just as prone to this as Christians of the Left.
As for the rest — I despair. Why is that my conservative brethren can’t accept that there are Christians who read their Bibles with as much seriousness and diligence as they do, and yet reach different conclusions about what it means?
Comment by Richard Hall — 10.26.04 @ 3:48 am
Richard - I am thankful for small things. The fact that you agree with any part of my post is good enough for me. I should be much clearer when I write since my blog is attracting more readers and I’m under heavier scrutiny. I surely didn’t mean to imply that conservatives have cornered the market on biblical decision-making.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.26.04 @ 5:40 am
Forgive me, La Shawn, but that’s precisely what Doug Giles is saying, and if you quote him with approval you’re giving tacit agreement. At least, that’s how I see it.
Comment by Richard Hall — 10.26.04 @ 6:10 am
La Shawn,
The fact that many Democrats haven’t come to grips with is this:
The basic tenets of Christianity haven’t changed over the years. The Democratic Party platform and leadership has. But just as noteworthy, the overall tone of the left has changed.
You can admire many of the aspects of the traditional Democratic party: sticking up for the little guy and making sure the poor and disadvantaged are taken care of, for example.
But the party has judged human rights issues in Iraq to be irrelevant; it’s refused to permit any dissent on the issue of abortion rights; it’s embraced dishonest leadership and scolded anyone who has questioned the dishonesty; it’s loudest members equate prayerfulness with right-wing nutjobbery; they mock the church-going and God-fearing.
Heaven forbid a conservative mocked an agnostic, though. Then there’d be hell to pay.
Again: it’s not just that the left’s policy positions put it at odds with traditional Christianity. The bullying, condescending, intolerant tone does the same thing.
Comment by Ed — 10.26.04 @ 7:34 am
>>“The bullying, condescending, intolerant tone does the same thing”
You never come across conservative christians being bullying, condescending or intolerant of course.
Comment by Richard Hall — 10.26.04 @ 8:12 am
re: that Update II:
“Doug Giles isn’t arguing that there are no Christians who are liberals”
But that’s exactly what he does! He said (and you quoted): “the Christian is between a rock and a hard place: he can either be a Christian or a liberal, but he cannot be both”
Comment by Richard Hall — 10.26.04 @ 8:27 am
‘Doug Giles isn’t arguing that there are no Christians who are liberals; he contends that liberal ideology itself is anti-Christian to the core and should not be supported by one purporting to be a Christian. I concur.’
Actually he says its impossible to be both. Which to me says that there are no christians who are liberals. Meaning they are either not real christians or not real liberals.
Comment by actus — 10.26.04 @ 8:50 am
I have no doubt that the intent of the left is, on the surface, altruistic. It’s when the rubber meets the road that I have a problem. When government becomes the primary benefactor of the opressed three things happen:
1. The left abandons any pretense of Christian charity. Look at statitics on giving and you’ll understand. Church giving amounts to about 1 to 2 percent of income in most mainline churches today. In other words, people have come to assume that the bite the government takes is a satisfatory replacement for Christian charity.
2. The left than makes a “god out of government.” That in turn leads the left to believe that they are noble, wise, good, and the benefactors of those they OWN, the poor and disenfranchised. That, as I see it, is anything but charitable.
3. The resulting bureaucracy then created actually means less and less of the government revenue gets to those in need. That’s why the left is always insisting on higher and higher taxes. The money goes to the bureaucrats, not the people. They have a vested interest in maintaining this obscene status quo. There is really no intention of seeing their “lifeblood” move out of the cycle of poverty and despair, If that were to happen, the poor would no longer need the left and that would mean and end to their shell game.
Comment by Phil Dillon — 10.26.04 @ 8:56 am
Religion, Politics, and the Blogger
Religion and politics are two subjects that create tension when discussed together. Some argue that the two go hand in hand while others say it is distasteful. For this author, the discussion is fine as long as it consists of civil discourse. Once t…
Trackback by Right Journal — 10.26.04 @ 9:19 am
This all reminds me of not one but two quotes from former founding fathers:
John Adams (2d President of US) in a letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts~
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
George Washington (1st President of the US), Farewell Address ~
“And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Comment by Renee — 10.26.04 @ 10:06 am
As a pastor I am far more frustrated with christians being too conservative than being too liberal. I find that more liberal minded christians, politically, take the words of Jesus far more seriously actually. I don’t know about you but it was my liberalism that led me to “sell all my possessions and follow Jesus”. I vote republican if I vote becaue of the pro-life issue. BUT if I had my druthers I would be a pro-life democrat. The problem is there is no party like that.
brad
Comment by brad — 10.26.04 @ 10:08 am
Right on Phil. Richard Hall, I look forward to your comments supporting your view in the future.
Comment by Andy — 10.26.04 @ 10:12 am
I love Mr. Giles. I blog on him almost every week. I just hadn’t got to this latest article yet.
But he will get a lot more exposure here.
Glad you’re back La Shawn.
Comment by Joshua — 10.26.04 @ 10:14 am
Brad,
I have to ask, what is the definition of “conservative” you are using for your response? Liberal Christian taking Jesus far more seriously? It seems you are picking only one aspect of Jesus (such as selling your posessions). What about all the other things that Jesus said and stood for? You find that liberals are more “serious”, I find that they pick and choose the parts of Jesus they like and throw out the ones they do not. Jesus is a WHOLE package, not bits and pieces.
Comment by Renee — 10.26.04 @ 10:25 am
Actus,
) and embrace the modern left is very, very hard if not impossible.
I think that you hit Giles point on the head. To embrace Christian in its core tenets (the broad Christianity, not the individual denominations
Granted, the more one embraces moral relativism, the easier it is to redefine the meaning of being Christian, liberal or any other term.
A Christian who contends to be a big L liberal is either confused about their faith or their politics, IMO. He may be a Christian with liberal tendencies, or perhaps a Liberal with christian tendencies.
To be honest, the same goes for Conservatives… any time you put the politics before faith, you get into contradictions between the two. One has to take a back seat to the other.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.26.04 @ 10:26 am
My wife is a strong Christian, a black female, and a Democrat, but she’s far from liberal. In fact, in discussions we’ve had, she’s more conservative than I on some issues.
Which brings me back to her being a Democrat. I just don’t get it. I’m sure part of it is upbringing, and some of it is simply the fact that she is so focused on her work (she’s a music teacher) that she doesn’t take the time to inform herself on the issues. Therefore, she depends on her peers to make suggestions for her. Unfortunately, her peers are professional educator, IE: The NEA.
I try to avoid forcing my political views on her out of love and respect, and am finding that she’s discovering more reasoned, Christ-guided ideas on her own. In fact, she told me the other day that if our Governor, Mike Huckabee, a Republican, ran for President, she’d vote for him!
I’ll take that as a step in the right direction. It also helps that our church maintains a consistent message that backs up the core values of the GOP while remaining non-partisan. The Governor DOES attend our church though.
Comment by Nixon Casablanca — 10.26.04 @ 10:35 am
“To embrace Christian in its core tenets (the broad Christianity, not the individual denominations
) and embrace the modern left is very, very hard if not impossible”
I think the same can be said of any politics.
Comment by actus — 10.26.04 @ 10:47 am
Jesus was the orginal Liberal and thank God for that!
Comment by Cupie — 10.26.04 @ 10:52 am
I want to jump back to Tom B’s response to dmellnik’s post. Dmellnik said, “The most caring and loving Christian I have ever known was a homosexual.” Tom B’s response was:
Substitute some other words for a moment and consider the impact of such a statement: “The most caring and loving Christian I have ever known was a liar (or gossip, adulterer, back-biter, etc).” I believe that provides some necessary perspective.
That may be a good response or it may not, actually. The problem is that we use the phrase “being a homosexual” in two different ways. We use the phrase to describe someone who’s actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle, but we also use the same phrase to describe someone who’s sexually attracted to their own gender, whether or not they act on those feelings.
If dmellnik meant the former meaning (that his friend is a practicing homosexual) then yes, Tom B’s response is quite relevant. You cannot read the Bible and come up with approval for the homosexual lifestyle without doing extreme violence to the meaning of the text. But if you mean the latter (someone who has homosexual feelings, but may or may not choose to act on them) then a better analogy would be to someone who’s an alcoholic. They, too, are prone to a particular sin — immoderation and drunkenness, in this case — which other people have little problem avoiding. But it does not necessarily mean that they will sin. My pastor, for example, is a recovering alcoholic. He has occasionally said things (during the sermon!) like “Back when I was going to AA meetings — by the way, my name is ______, and I’m an alcoholic. But by God’s grace I haven’t had a drink in the past twelve years.” And one of the Christians I know who comes to mind immediately when I think of having a servant’s heart is a man who has quite openly talked about the fact that he has homosexual desires. He’s made it plain that he considers actually acting on those desires to be a sin, but it still doesn’t make the desire go away. God designed the desire for sex to be one of the most powerful human desires, and when that desire gets twisted out of the shape He intended for it, it still doesn’t make its natural strength any less.
Now given the rest of dmellnik’s post, including the sentence “He felt that he was a child of God, and that God did not make a mistake when He made him,” it seems to me that his friend did not believe that homosexual practice was a sin — in sharp contrast to the man I mentioned in my previous paragraph.
But I think my point is still worth thinking about. An alcoholic is particularly vulnerable to one particular temptation that the rest of us don’t face. Thinking of homosexual desire in the same way may help us have compassion on the person while not condoning the behavior.
Comment by Robin Munn — 10.26.04 @ 11:33 am
It would seem to me that Christians are more “stuck in the middle” of the Democrat/Republican battle. On the one hand, you have a party that is willing to further delimit lifestyles and values which are not supported by your own Bible (D). On the other, you have a party that is willing, on flimsy and/or ulterior motives, to embark upon an unneccesary war, with all it’s disgusting trappings (R). There is the choice. Do I support the party that treats Christianity like it is just some admirable set of ideals not to taken seriously (D)? Or, do I support the party that is willing to have thousands of innocent people shot up, blown to pieces, burned to death, and tens of thousands more maimed and distraught for no legitimate reason (R)? Do I support the party who will allow the future of American culture to continue in a direction that is against my beliefs (D), or do I support the party that empowers industrial leaders who pollute and destroy the environment to save a few bucks while we lose the view of whole mountains and breathe toxins (R)? It seems ironic that the popular view is that Christians must be aligned behind the Republicans. Just because some of them talk about Christianity doesn’t necessarily prove that they are all so Christian. Even in the Bible, it says, “You shall know men by their deeds.” Given that, how Christian are the Republicans, really? The war in Iraq is a sad, sad, deed. And the tax cuts? Hey, we ALL want tax cuts, but we cannot afford one right now. Especially a tax cut on dividends. What a statement. How do you justify that? How much good did that do for everybody, really? So, honestly, NO. I do not support some of the modern “liberal” values, and I happen to agree that Christians can’t really support that and still be living true to their Christian beliefs. But then, how can Christians support what is basically human slaughter for greed and power in the disguise of “freedom”? We need to make a decision, and vote. I’ll make my choice in a week. I may not be 100% happy with that decision, but it’s one that must be made. Bush has got to go. It is truly the lesser of two evils.
Comment by Shane Reber — 10.26.04 @ 11:37 am
Your comment wasn’t bad per se; it just rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry. We’re living in an arbitrary world. - Admin
Comment by Cellarius — 10.26.04 @ 11:39 am
I will make every reasonable attempt to allow somewhat open discussion on this post, but please read my comment policy if you’re new to this site or never read the policy before.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.26.04 @ 11:44 am
Strangely enough, it’s not me at all. Something in your comment triggered the spam filter. - Admin
Comment by Test Comment — 10.26.04 @ 12:04 pm
Giles, Barber, and some here are fans of faith alone. Others, like the Catholic orthodoxy that represents one in four Americans, argue that faith without works is dead. Thus the genesis of liberation theology, which is a serious approach to Christianity that is not only liberal, but downright socialist. The theology bandied about here, by contrast, reminds me of nothing else so much as of the pharisee in Luke. Keep up the good work, though, kids — it’s intolerance like yours that makes atheists like me.
Comment by wcw — 10.26.04 @ 12:06 pm
I don’t believe Christians or conservatives on this blog claim to be “tolerant”, at least not the way you mean it. But all the best to you in your atheism, though. “Good luck”, as they say.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.26.04 @ 12:15 pm
Tom B:
‘Substitute some other words for a moment and consider the impact of such a statement: “The most caring and loving Christian I have ever known was a liar (or gossip, adulterer, back-biter, etc).” I believe that provides some necessary perspective.’
But liar, adulterer etc.. are not substitutes for ‘homosexual’. Sure does show the perpective you come from. Watch out or Lynne Cheney’s gonna come after you.
Comment by actus — 10.26.04 @ 12:18 pm
The comment by wcw reminds me of how much Christianity has been co-opted in the minds of the general populace and replaced by the teachings of the Catholic church, which may or may not (mostly not) bear any resemblance to what the Bible teaches. Catholicism replaces the biblical truth of salvation through faith alone with salvation through works. Faith has very little to do with it as I knew nothing of this when I was a Catholic.
Because of this, given its dominance in the culture, we have come to believe that being a “true Christian” is tantamount to advocating socialistic government policies. Liberal “Christians” take this idea to the extreme and hitch their wagons to a party which is now dominated by radical leftists.
As a Christian, I cannot reconcile with Scripture or my own conscience support of a political party that supports same sex marriage, abortion, affirmative action, and a whole host of other issues not supported by the Bible. Christians supporting that agenda may be saved, but they Spirit is definitely not working in them.
Comment by Tom B. — 10.26.04 @ 12:21 pm
Actus, I don’t understand your comment. I tried to choose other sins similarly condemned in the Bible as is homosexuality.
Comment by Tom B. — 10.26.04 @ 12:23 pm
“This is getting really boring, now,” SAID LA SHAWN, WHO IS EDITING THIS COMMENT AND NOT IMPERSONATING ANYONE. Please get a life, ladies. How empty your world must be.
Comment by The Rogue Angel — 10.26.04 @ 12:39 pm
Christian Liberals
Can a Christian be Liberal? Question for the tough-minded among you. I have, I would say, slightly more conservative Christian friends than liberal Christian ones…but only slightly more so. One of my more Liberal friends, Lauren, runs Ramblings of a…
Trackback by Fringe — 10.26.04 @ 1:40 pm
A question, which will answer whether Doug Giles believes that conservatives corner the market on biblical decision-making. Let’s assume that he is correct about Christian liberalism being an oxymoron (and as a secularist who rarely attends church, I tend to concur with him). Does he believe that someone can be a Christian moderate? Just curious.
Comment by molotov — 10.26.04 @ 1:43 pm
Giles says liberals don’t believe in the plain English of the Bible, but we are supposed to believe that when Giles ends his column by saying you can’t be both a liberal and a Christian that he doesn’t really mean it. Of course he means that no liberals are Christian. That’s the whole purpose of his column!
I think it is fair to claim that Christians are voting against their beliefs by voting for x,y or candidate. However, Giles is stepping beyond that to make an assessment of the person’s status as a believer or non-believer. Marvin Olasky did that recently when he described John Kerry as a non-believer.
For my own views, I consider the death penalty to be un-Christian. I also consider conservative Christian support for usurious interest rates to be un-Christian. But I’m not going to claim that someone can’t be a Christian and support the capital punishment or pay-day loans.
Comment by Joel Thomas — 10.26.04 @ 1:50 pm
People, please. Every vote is a compromise. If we can’t see that–if we’re going to assume that because a politician holds what we believe to be the clearly “Christian” position on a particular issue, or even on a range of issues, that he then therefore is the “Christian” choice–then Christianity in America is in deep, deep trouble.
Hercules Rockefeller
Comment by Dr. Hercules Rockefeller — 10.26.04 @ 2:17 pm
Problems With Liberalism (Christian Perspective)
My series on the moral errors of political liberalism, as stated in J. Budziszewski’s book, The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man. I expand on them, and relate them to current events.
Trackback by DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS — 10.26.04 @ 2:41 pm
Around The Blogosphere In 80 Seconds
See if you can get through these - sometimes - hilarious entries from around the blogosphere in under 80 seconds (all links open in a new window for faster browsing). Alarming News covering a republican student kicked in the shins…
Trackback by Diggers Realm — 10.26.04 @ 3:14 pm
Actus,
Didn’t I make that point? That faith and politics can’t hold an equal footing? One must yeild to the other?
I am a conservative Christian… I don’t agree with much of what the vatican says, but I don’t see another form of Christianity that would be a better fit for me to jump the Good Ship Catholcism. I believe more in the conservative model (teach a man to fish; small government), and try to implement a conservative expression of my Christianity. I know other Republicans that are the opposite, in that they are Conservative first, and are then influenced by faith.
I think the heart of Giles commentary is that you can’t be a capital C christian and a capital L liberal (at least as the liberal wing of the democrat party is moving) without severe contradictions.
Big C christians and big C conservatives also have issues, but conservative politics (as practiced by the current republican conservs) aren’t openly hostile towards Christianity the way liberalism (again, as seen in America lately) is heading.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.26.04 @ 3:34 pm
Render unto Caesar….
Comment by jmaile — 10.26.04 @ 3:41 pm
‘Big C christians and big C conservatives also have issues, but conservative politics (as practiced by the current republican conservs) aren’t openly hostile towards Christianity the way liberalism (again, as seen in America lately) is heading.’
How do you like bush’s announcement of being in favor of civil unions?
Comment by actus — 10.26.04 @ 3:46 pm
In response to Shane’s comment about the Iraq war being so wrong and causing deaths. Read some of the Iraqi blogs and listen to the people’s reaction to freedom. There is more death ahead, but they are so thankful to be free of the tyrant who caused as many deaths. I believe we are our brother’s keeper and the brothers in Iraq have suffered for so long. The people in Sudan are suffering so greatly. Can we as Christians just look the other way? Freeing the people of Afghanistan and Iraq is the very reason I voted for President Bush. Are the millions of dead fetuses less tragic than those that die in the cause of freedom? I can not vote for a man who sees abortion as a right and has a litmus test for
judges based on abortion. This election has so many issues that are important and I think the judges on the Supreme Court need to interpret the constitution as it was written.
Comment by Pat in NC — 10.26.04 @ 4:31 pm
Two points I should make:
First of all, La Shawn, you may yourself not believe that being a self-identified liberal excludes a person from the grace of God. This Doug Giles guy explicitly does. I did read his article, and it was both so badly written and insulting to God (reducing the sacrifice Jesus made into a mere political ideology) that it should not even be dignified with our attention. (Ok, I guess I failed on that right away by giving it my attention!)
Anyway, I think it would be a good thing for you to more clearly distinguish your position from his.
Secondly, the arguement which you are trying to make is that it’s not a good idea to lead a secular lifestyle. Good, ok, that’s a very good point. How is this related to political ideology? I can’t see how conservative ideology is really any superior in terms of avoiding secularism. I myself don’t follow political ideologies at all, I just try to do what is right, and I am in favor of many liberal policies, but for pragmatic purposes, not to further some ultimate liberal agenda.
Comment by Ben — 10.26.04 @ 5:14 pm
BTW, I am a newbie, but I read your post you directed us to, so I do see where you are coming from.
Have a good day.
Comment by Ben — 10.26.04 @ 5:18 pm
Tom B:
‘Actus, I don’t understand your comment. I tried to choose other sins similarly condemned in the Bible as is homosexuality.’
For one, liar and adulterer are in the comandments. . . And there’s plenty who take umbrage at your comingling of homosexuals with such evils.
Comment by actus — 10.26.04 @ 10:34 pm
I think Giles needs to be more careful in how he puts things lest he be accused of “dechristianizing” people. One can be a Christian and fall under the false sway of liberalism, and for that matter, one can be a Christian and adopt certain right wing approaches like war-mongering as well. But neither of these errors will affect a true Christian’s eternal salation, although they will hinder his present enjoyment of Christianity and affect his place in the world to come. It would have been nice if Giles had actually quoted some verses to back up his point, but you can search his article in vain and see not one scripture quoted or referenced. There is mention of everyone from Limbaugh, to Hilary, to Osama but not one Bible verse. There are numerous passages that could be quoted. See Romans 10: 8- 13 for example.
It is clear from that verse that Christianity does not depend on any particular political philosophy or national group. The requirements are clearly laid out in the scriptures. NOW- we all know that many things in the corrupt, arrogant and amoral liberal world view, are contrary to the faith. We also all know that Christians are too often wrongly led astray by the siren voices of worldy trends and philosophies, but the facts of the matter, as laid out in the scriptures show that salvation is freely open to all, and once saved, you are saved period, unless you apostasize. That’s the bottom line.
NOW turn this around and ask- is it possible for a conservative to be a Christian? NO might be the answer. God is not necessarily with the latest politial party platform. In many cases both parties may support something evil, with their differences being only a matter of degree. Back in colonial times for example, parties and religious people of all stripes were all too willing to seize Indian land by force or fraud, even advocating it from their pulpits. Back in slavery times for example, politicians were only too willing to “split the difference” on the issue. Eventually such deals became untenable leading to a massive civil war that left over half a million people dead. “Gott mitt us” anyone?
The right-wing world view (the exact label may vary) in various periods of history also has some things that contradict the faith- including racism, violence, war-mongering, a self Social Darwinism, etc. Just pick the period of your choice. There are many true believers who have been influenced by such features, and they are in the wrong, just like liberals, but again, their bondage to these philosophies and passions does NOT affect their eternal salvation. Once saved, you are saved period. You may fail and fall under the influence of racism for example, but it does not affect the bottom line spoken of in scripture.
The answer to Christians, who may be liberal, or conservative or whatever is set forth in the scriptures, as guided by the Spirit of God. Naturally being human we will fail, but God is faithful and we have His Spirit ot help us. Upon death, every Christian must appear before the judgement seat of Christ to answer for himself- from the Southern racist, to the Northern limousine liberal. (2 Corinthians 5: 10) Their eternal salvation is not at issue, but what fruit they bore while on earth. Rewards will be distributed. Many will be bitterly disappointed to find that the time and energy they invested in various political philosphies was essentially wasted. It is a somber warning. Hence there is a need at the present moment as Paul says to “redeem the time”.
Comment by enrique cardova — 10.26.04 @ 11:46 pm
How can people on this site claim too have a monoply on the word of God. Do you believe Dr. martin Luther King was not a christian? This is when religion becomes very scary, too many people including my-self. Dogma is never a good thing God should be personal it should not be thrown around. When dealing with issues of people and the country we need to challenge ourselves and think critically about these pressing issues not debate who’s a christian.
Comment by Denmark — 10.27.04 @ 12:15 am
Justin, who claimed to know everything? The only thing I have learned in life is that the more I know, the less I understand. This is why I rely on Jesus.
I have many colleagues who are compendiums of knowledge, but who understand nothing. They have no wisdom. The difference between them and me is that I know I am not wise and know on whose wisdom to depend.
Look at Noam Chomsky…full of knowledge, but an empty vessel.
Comment by Allan — 10.27.04 @ 12:17 am
I posted way up there but someone asked “what do you mean by liberal?” Well, I don’t mean biblically liberal. I simply mean evangelicals who vote democrat. An example would be “Tony Campolo”. I find that conservative “politically” christians tend to have less radical moral distinction. If I counted the christians I know who live in community and lead ministries where lots of “tax collectors and sinners” are being transformed many are politically liberal.
That is my observation.
It is about 50/50 but to say these people are not christian because they side more for a safety net provided by the governement when the church is failing miserably jsut doesn’t seem to make sense.
Like I said I vote republican 99% of the time, but never would I call into question someone’s commitment to Jesus becasue they desire to see Jesus clothed and fed by what ever avenue it takes.
brad
Comment by brad — 10.27.04 @ 12:43 am
Actus: “For one, liar and adulterer are in the comandments. . . And there’s plenty who take umbrage at your comingling of homosexuals with such evils.”
Life is indeed so unfair, but that is our concern, not God’s;
Eze 18:29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? Are not your ways unequal?
Eze 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all, your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
Eze 18:31 Cast away from you, all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure, in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
So what might be the transgressions/inquities? As you mentioned, the 10 commandments, but not limited to just that. This also includes the abomination of homosexuality/sodomy as related in Lev 18:22-23, Lev 20:13-16, Deu 22:5, Deu 27:21, all of Proverbs, Isa 1:10, Eze 16:49. I’d suggest that those “plenty” need to direct their umbrage at God for categorizing homosexulaity with extreme evil.
As for Bush favoring civil unions, this is just an example of the “necessary:” evil of politics. As you may recall, even God was against the Jews having a king, yet he allowed them to establish this form of civil governance — freewill. Such is the nature of our republic, in that although we believe in freewill, society does have the right to impose certain mores by popular majorities, so long as they fit under certain constitutional constraints. On the other hand, a true democracy is simply majority rule without regards to the minority vote–in that regard, plenty should be grateful that we’re not a democracy.
Comment by Andy — 10.27.04 @ 1:13 am
I’m sure there are plenty of ways for the bible to be read in anti-gay ways. Which is not to say that the bible also picked out 10 things that it wanted to highlight, and which you choose to equate with a love and caringness that we find in all levels of our society.
Comment by actus — 10.27.04 @ 11:23 am
Actus said “How do you like bush’s announcement of being in favor of civil unions?”
Well, I am fine with them. As I’ve said on LaShawn’s board before, I am for a civil union. I am not for activist judges deciding what marriage means, or any other kind of “legislation from the bench”.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.27.04 @ 12:13 pm
Chin,
I am guessing your post(s) or track back(s) were either/or:
insulting, vulgar or inflamatory, or directly dissed LB and/or her blog. It is all in the comment policy.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.27.04 @ 12:17 pm
Please don’t feed the trolls.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.27.04 @ 12:23 pm
LB,
Sorry
With regards to update IV… while I have no need or want of a house (won’t say), there is an opening for House Deva if you ever want to come north to Philly/Jersey. It may be hard to explain to my gf… but maybe you can help me win her over to the cause (she’s a Kerry voter and big L liberal)
A few halogen lights and a movie projector and the funky chair… a Clock Work Liberal?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.27.04 @ 12:29 pm
LaShawn you been posin’ as Miss Chin’s sister?
Open-Minded = free from rigidly fixed preconceptions.
Preconception = to form an opinion of beforehand.
Hmmm - Seems to me LaShawn was being opened minded. She read the comments thereby forming her opinion afterward and deleted them.
That seems open minded to me.
JJ
Comment by John C James III — 10.27.04 @ 12:50 pm
Awe man where’d my post go? It was a good one too.
Comment by John C James III — 10.27.04 @ 12:53 pm
Your comment got stuck in the spam filter, John. I “unstuck” it. And don’t feed the trolls, please.
Comment by La Shawn — 10.27.04 @ 1:02 pm
Sorry LB. Hey, what did I have in my post that triggered your spam filter?
Comment by John C James III — 10.27.04 @ 1:08 pm
Leave your comment…
I am very happy to do so. It’s great you took a bit of time to reflect. You were thought about and I even said a prayer for you, believe me that is true.
You are right and those coming against you? Well, that tells me you are doing something…Absolutely Right.
You chose no words of slander and you most defintely use no profanity. Perhaps if more bloggers would think about their use of such language they would find the truly bright and intelligent people would rather sit down to a cup of coffee or tea and read what this nice and simple lady has to say. To me, she is truly a, Lady! Many ladies have gone about and sprewed awful things in print. Oh and so have the men but really do you think people want to come back and read them?
You make me smile and I love your wit so welcome back my friend. You and Michelle sure have one fan that sits with a laptop on her lap!
Blessings A Bounty Full to You!
Comment by Janelle — 10.27.04 @ 2:16 pm
Janelle,
That’s right. If we all could just sit down at Starbucks and truly discourse about topics or issues.
But, sadly, it doesn’t seem to be possible. Most times I just keep my mouth shut when I’m out with folks. They get kind of nasty when I ask them “why is that?” Or if I ask them “Why do you believe voting for Kerry is the answer” (you better duck on that question - LOL)
{hmmm seems I have too much time on my hands today}
JJ
Comment by John C James III — 10.27.04 @ 2:34 pm
LaShawn,
Mr. Gile’s article is interesting. I don’t agree that one need be liberal or conservative to be Christian, rather it is one’s reasons for their position that matter. Oddly, the common view is that it is impossible to be both Christian and Republican. I have a semi-recent post rebutting that notion. http://secureliberty.org/index.php/2004/10/08/republican_and_christian
Comment by Steve Lance — 10.27.04 @ 3:40 pm
La Shawn,
This is great. Even if you get the trolls, the fact is… you are making them READ for once, as opposed to listening to “side of the neck lip service”.
Luvin’ It:-)
Comment by Renee — 10.27.04 @ 6:19 pm
Actus:
“For one, liar and adulterer are in the comandments… And there’s plenty who take umbrage at your comingling of homosexuals with such evils.”
and
“I’m sure there are plenty of ways for the bible to be read in anti-gay ways.”
Please, please, clarify — when you talk about homosexuals and use the phrase “anti-gay”, are you talking about people whose inclination is towards homosexual (rather than heterosexual) desire, or about people who have chosen to act on those desires? Because making the distinction is vital to understanding Biblical doctrine on the issue.
First, homosexual practice: if you go through the Bible and look at all the verses that talk about it, you’ll find that every single time, it’s included in the middle of a list of many different sins that are being condemned. Leviticus 18:22, which specifically condemns homosexual behavior, is in the middle of a list of all kinds of different sexual practices that God forbids to the people of Israel: incest, adultery, homosexual sex, and bestiality (that is, sex with animals) are all forbidden in that passage. Then there’s Romans 1, where homosexual sex (both men with men and also women with women) is listed as just one sin among many that people will commit when they choose to reject God — the others being “every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They [that is, those who reject God] are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” Phew! What a list. And the other two places that I can easily find where homosexual behavior gets mentioned are also lists of different kinds of sins: 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. I don’t want to take too long, so I’ll just mention 1 Corinthians 6: “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
But do you see the end of that passage? That’s the other half of the coin. First, the bad news: here’s a list of all kinds of sin, all of which will keep you out of the kingdom of God, and who can fail to recognize their own failings in that list? Oh, I may not be a thief or a drunkard — but a slanderer? Have I ever spoken ill of someone behind their back, unjustly, just to make myself look good? A person will read past all sorts of sins saying, “Oh, I don’t do that”, and then suddenly one word jumps off the page at him and his conscience pricks him most uncomfortably. But then comes the good news: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
The message of the Bible, which you’ll see repeated over and over again in different passages, is “I’ve got bad news and I’ve got good news.” The bad news is, you’re a sinner just like everyone else, and sinners will not enter the kingdom of God. But the good news is, that’s not the whole story: God took the penalty for your sins and placed it on Jesus instead of you. Jesus — the only man who ever lived a sinless, perfect life — took your sins on himself and died the death of a guilty man so that you no longer have to die for your sins; you can now live the life of an innocent man.
That’s the message the Bible is saying, to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. They’re all sinners in one way or another. You are, I am, and so is Joe over there. And sin must be punished. But because Jesus deliberately accepted the punishment instead of us, each and every one of us can be washed clean of our sin, and can enter God’s kingdom, innocent and justified.
Comment by Robin Munn — 10.27.04 @ 10:26 pm
Robin, that was excellent. The beauty of forgivenss in God’s grace is the reciprocal need for us to make every effort to cease and desist the activities that offend God.
Comment by Andy — 10.28.04 @ 12:23 am
‘Please, please, clarify – when you talk about homosexuals and use the phrase “anti-gay”, are you talking about people whose inclination is towards homosexual (rather than heterosexual) desire, or about people who have chosen to act on those desires? Because making the distinction is vital to understanding Biblical doctrine on the issue.’
I’m talking about my friends that are just like mary cheney. Building families and struggling as best as they can.
Comment by actus — 10.28.04 @ 8:29 am
“We are all childen of God.”
In light of John 1:12-13 (and other scripture), are we?
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jphn 1:12-13,NKJV)
Comment by Dan C. — 10.29.04 @ 8:06 am
Sorry to be off topic a bit here but as a newish Christian I’m having an impossible time finding a church here in Toronto that isn’t Pro-Palestinian. I find anti-Israeli sentiments incompatable with Christianity. There are such things as “bad guys” aren’t there? Is recognising a group as vile as Palestinian Muslims un-Christian? Any advice would be welcome. Thanks, Jim.
Comment by Jim Tufford — 10.29.04 @ 10:30 pm
Well, Jim. It’s the terrorists who are vile, not Muslims per se. The problem is most terrorists wreaking havoc all across the globe are Muslims. I believe any negative sentiment (hatred?) toward a people because of their race is anti-Christian. It’s the behavior that should be hated.
As many readers can probably tell by now, I think the JollyBlogger is great. I think you should consult him about some of these issues, or at the very least check out his site: http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/
Thanks for reading, Jim!
Comment by La Shawn — 10.29.04 @ 10:37 pm
Jim, try looking in the phone book for churches that are named “XYZ Bible Chapel”, ” XYZ Bible Church” or “XYZ Bible Assembly”; where “XYZ” generally might be the name of a street, neighborhood or some other landmark.
Comment by Andy — 10.29.04 @ 10:44 pm
I find that idea very troubling to me.
Falwell was once in a “debate” with a “liberal” Christian. The “liberal” Christian was getting the best of Falwell. Falwell then asked how many people the “liberal” Christian was responsible for bringing to Christ.
Some things are just wrong.
Comment by DarkStar — 10.30.04 @ 3:41 pm