I find it somewhat confusing that people are continually told that in 'polite' society one never discusses religion, politics and money with other people. They are too sensitive for open discussion supposedly. However, when one thinks about it, they are probably the most universal topics that we have to discuss as they uniformly impact each of us in our (North American) society. Probably in any society for that matter. Seeing as how I've already discussed politics, to some extent, I thought I'd broach the subject of religion today.
First off, I am a Christian. I should be up front about this as it definetly impacts my view of the world and any subsequent conclusions that I draw. However, what I want to truly discuss is Christianity in the North American context.
In Canada, we are experienceing a growing movement to see religion, namely Christianity, involved in the political process. As our courts have recently approved of gay marriage this is coming more and more to the fore. Also recently there was a paper proposed that would allow Muslim's the right to observe their religious law within Canada. Apparently this has some women's groups concerned, but this is not what I want to comment on. I merely point them out as examples of how religion and politics are more and more mingling here in Canada. Most have seen in the recent election in the U.S. how religion, specificly Christianity, is involved in the political process there.
I am for the concept of seperation of Church and State for two reasons. First, we as Christians are never exhorted by the apostles or the Bible to try and influence the political process within our countries. Second, in the end I view it as a protection for religion so that the State cannot meddle with Religion. For if you believe the Bible, then there is a coming apocalypse in which the world will turn against Christianity and this seperation may provide some form of protection when things start to hit the fan.
Many in our society who point to the involvement of religion in politics justify their point of view through the Old Testament. This I think is fundamentaly flawed for Christians. It is clearly delineated in the New Testament that through the actions of Christ the old covenant had been done away with and a new covenant had been made. We are no longer under the law but under grace. Works no longer will draw you closer to God but rather faith through Jesus. Yet those who promote Christian (new covenant) involvement in politics use old covenant ideas to defend their position.
Let us look specifically at the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage which is very much in the forefront of our society now. In Canada, the courts (as I have already stated) have defended the rights of homosexuals to marry. Personally, I have no problem with this as long as the government and the courts do not force churches to perform the marriages. Marriage today in our society is as much a civil institution as it is a religious one. Therefore our governments have to look after the rights of all its citizens not simply a portion therein. But if a church does not want to perform the ceremony due to its stance on homosexuality then it should not be forced to. If a chuch is willing to perform the ceremony that is their decision. Again this is where the seperation of Church and State can be used to protect the Church from the State.
Personally, I believe that homosexuality is a sin. This of course has little bearing (in my mind) upon how I believe gay people should be treated, as we are all sinners. To God no one sin is greater than another, except for blasphemy. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Therefore a lie, murder, homosexuality and stealing are all the same in the end as they draw us away from God. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). All sin, not some sins, not this sin over that sin, but all sin. Yet in our North American culture Christians seem to believe that homosexuality is the ultimate sin, unforgivable even by God.
This of course is a drastic misunderstanding of the New Testament and Christian theology. However I'm not so much interested in debating theology at the moment as I am interested in discussing the Christian reaction to homosexuality. "For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whoever should believe in Him should have eternal life" (John 3:16). Please note that it says 'WORLD' and not everyone but homosexuals. When Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment he stated "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all our soul and with all yoru mind ... Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:34-40). However, I must ask, do Christians do this?
I am sure that many if not most do. As with anything it is the extreme elements of a society or group that get the notice. However when I talk with non-Christians they are more influenced in their opinion and view of Christianity by those extreme elements than anything else. Christian theology and the Bible clearly state that God is a god of love and that He sent His Son to humanity to demonstrate and show that love. "For God so loved the world" (John 3:16) ... "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8)... "and now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love" (1 Corinthians 13:13). This is but a minute sampling of passages demonstrating God's love for humanity. As Christians we identify ourselves with Jesus and claim to follow Him. What did He exhort us to do? To love our neighbors as ourselves (1 John 4:11).
Of course in many instances this is not happening as can clearly be experienced by the homosexual community. In the book of Jude we are admonished to love the sinner but hate the sin. In Romans we are told that EVERYONE has sinned and therefore needs God's mercy. In Ephesians we are told that salvation is a gift from God and not the result of works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). The apostle James tells us to demonstrate our faith in Jesus through good works (James 2:14-26). In the end every Christian should realize that we are in as much need of God's mercy as the next person and therefore we are in no position to judge the next person.
In my old church there is a person attending who served time for molesting their child. There are those in the church who complain that that person should not be there. This is of course extremely hypocritical as they were in as much need of God's grace as this person is. These are the same people who would probably been among those who condemned Jesus for dining with prostitutes and tax collectors. However, as Jesus said, it is not the healthy that need a doctor but the sick. It is this apparent attitude of superiority on the part of Christians that convince non-Christians that not only do Christians not love them, but neither does God. No wonder they draw back from Christianity, the Church and more importantly God. Would I approach a god that I am told hates me? No.
As Christians we are to go into the world sharing God's love with one another. Not merely among Christians but with the world. The character Tyler Durden in the movie Fight Club states that fathers are our examples of God, and if our fathers don't love us, what does that say about God? The obvious inference is that neither does God. Now the Church is to serve that role, to be the representative of God in the world, demonstrating to the world, His love, compassion and mercy. However if the Church doesn't love someone, or some group, what is that person or group to infer about God? The only thing that they can infer is that God does not love them. This of course is false but I can't condemn them for this conclusion. For Christians (at least those we continue to see on CNN, Fox News and the like) fail at extending to those around us the love of God, so that those around us might see and experience the love of God for themselves.
As for the supposed Christian desire to create a theocracy (at least in the U.S.) I would say to those people that they are choosing to adhere to the old covenant rather than living by the new. Just as the jewish nation sought out a king for itself, God said that He was sufficient. Yet still they clamoured for a king like the other nations. They got what they wished for and were given the king Saul. As the old Chinese proverb states "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." Just as the jewish nation grew to regret their decision so too will modern Christians who desire to have religion rule the land. They are seeking an Old Testament position while claiming to be free of the old covenant. They cannot pick and choose. The apostle Paul clearly states that we are no longer under the law but under grace (Romans 6, Colossians 2:14, Ephesians 2:14-15, Hebrews 8, Galatians 3). If Christians desire to apply Old Testament doctrines then they must accept the entirety of the Old Testament and therefore place themselves not under grace but under the law. The law clearly shows us that we are falible creatures and cannot attain salvation in and of ourselves. So if they wish to live under the grace of Christ then they should let go of the law and live by the new covenant. Again the apostle Paul exhorts those in Galatia the the strictures of the law no longer apply because we are under grace.
The apostles at no point exhorted their readers (us included) to rise up against the government and to try and form a theocracy. In fact Paul tells slaves not to try and escape but to work for their masters as if they were working for God (Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, 1 Peter 2:18). Jesus himself did not agitate for political revolution but rather stated "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21). Christians are continually instructed to obey the government and to do as they are asked (Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13-14), unless what they are asked to do is clearly in defiance of what we know to be God's will. The story of Daniel is a good example of this. When insructed by the king to break Jewish dietary laws, Daniel asked that he prove that by obeying them he would still be healthy. When instructed to cease praying to God, he asked that he show that by being faithful to God he was a good servant to his king. However in the end when given the choice, obey the king or obey God, he chose to obey God and was thrown into the lion's den. Daniel tried to work with his king to not only be faithful to God but to his king, it was only when this was made impossible that he went against his king.
This is what Christian's are to do. Obey their governments and be faithful to God. At no point does the government allowing gay marriage affect Christians unless churches are FORCED to perform marriage ceremonies that they are agianst. Unless that happens we are to obey our government and not to aggitate for a Christian theocracy.
In conclusion, let me simply state that God is a god of love and mercy. That this is demonstrated through Jesus Christ. That as we all need this mercy no one is in a position to judge another. That because salvation is a gift given us from God, no one can boast. That unless we as Christian's are clearly forced to disobey God if we obey the government, we are to obey our governments and not to try and legislate our religious views or morality upon anyone else. In the end as Christian's we are to love our God with our entire being and to love our neighbors as ourselves. It is this attitude which enabled the Church to grow in the beginning, and will allow the Church to continue into the future.
Sincerely;
Vespasian
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Monday, December 27, 2004
Merry belated Christmas
I know its the 27th already but I would like to wish everyone who reads this a Merry Christmas. I suppose I should get a head start and wish everyone a happy new year. Personally I'm not one for new years resolutions but if you are, good luck.
Christmas is always such a hectic time. There are so many people to see and any number of functions to go to. This year I had four such functions and while we try to connect as a family I find it hard to actually talk with anyone as there are so many people around and a whole host of distractions and responsibilities. However this year I found myself alone wtih my father in the car for about and hour and we had a fairly interesting converstation which I thought I'd share.
We found ourselves discussing American politics (don't ask me how, because I can't remember for the life of me). Anyway, we were discussing what the Americans might do next if and when they free themselves from Iraq. I personally had heard a Scottish professor talk about the idea of American empire and how during the 19th century those in power in the U.S. spoke fairly openly concerning the notion of a new American empire taking the place of the British empire. According to this proffesor it wasn't until the Americans had gone into the Phillipines around 1898 on a liberation mission and were beat back by the Philipine people that the language of empire ceased to be used by those in power in the U.S.
Being a history student I couldn't help but try and draw some parallels between historical empires and what America was presently doing to see if there were any similarities. The Roman empire was achieved through military dominance. Once Rome controlled an area it would then try to subjugate the people culturally and economicaly. Usually to great effect. The British empire was similar in its methods. The British would conquor an area militarily and then try to subjugate the people culturally and economically. In essence both of these empires would defeat a people then begin the process of making the conquered people like their conquerors. Trying to change the way they thought, lived and interacted.
However I don't think that this model works as a model for how America goes about building its empire (if in fact that is what is happening). The American empire seems to be working in reverse order. It seems to be trying to subjugate foreign peoples culturally and economically first. Anyone can see this to some extent, with Coca-cola and McDonalds in China and every other nation in the world. American TV, movies and music is beamed to all the nations in the world. The American penchant for conspicuous consumerism has spread around the world and therefore so has the products that feed that mentallity. We all (supposedly) need that new cell phone, dvd player, mp3 player, flat screen TV, etc. Each item in some way feeds into the American empire by allowing America to dictate to the world culturally and economically.
One aspect of the Iraq quagmire that the U.S. finds itself in now that scares me is that they were willing to go to war unillaterally for false reasons. 'Coalition of the Willing' aside (in effect 4 nations - U.S., Britain, Poland, Japan), this action seems to be more about subjugating a foreign people militarily when their efforts to do so economically and culturally failed. The obvious question is what country is next? Logically there is no real defence for the American invasion of Iraq when the world condemned Iraq for invading Kuwait. Both incidents are essentially the same.
Obviously I'm not American and I hope that people who read this (American or non-American) will think through the facts rather than toss out knee-jerk reactions and accuse me of hating America. I don't. I don't hate American's either, in actuallity I pity them. They are giving up their civil liberties and basic human rights in an effort to fight an invisible enemy. All of those terror alerts may be real, they may not, but they all have the effect of subjugating the American populace much like America has tried to do to foreign people. There is no free speech, when President Bush says that the press can only ask one question. How is the public to become informed when they are not allowed to question? Of course an uniformed public will in the end ask no questions.
Anyways, it was an interesting discussion that I had with my father. We don't always see eye-to-eye on such topics but at least we can discuss them openly and honestly without fear of judgement. It's Christmas time, the time of year when we wish for peace on earth and goodwill towards men, hopefully it will happen some day. But not this day and not in Iraq. Of that I am sure.
Vespasian (ironic handle, no?)
Christmas is always such a hectic time. There are so many people to see and any number of functions to go to. This year I had four such functions and while we try to connect as a family I find it hard to actually talk with anyone as there are so many people around and a whole host of distractions and responsibilities. However this year I found myself alone wtih my father in the car for about and hour and we had a fairly interesting converstation which I thought I'd share.
We found ourselves discussing American politics (don't ask me how, because I can't remember for the life of me). Anyway, we were discussing what the Americans might do next if and when they free themselves from Iraq. I personally had heard a Scottish professor talk about the idea of American empire and how during the 19th century those in power in the U.S. spoke fairly openly concerning the notion of a new American empire taking the place of the British empire. According to this proffesor it wasn't until the Americans had gone into the Phillipines around 1898 on a liberation mission and were beat back by the Philipine people that the language of empire ceased to be used by those in power in the U.S.
Being a history student I couldn't help but try and draw some parallels between historical empires and what America was presently doing to see if there were any similarities. The Roman empire was achieved through military dominance. Once Rome controlled an area it would then try to subjugate the people culturally and economicaly. Usually to great effect. The British empire was similar in its methods. The British would conquor an area militarily and then try to subjugate the people culturally and economically. In essence both of these empires would defeat a people then begin the process of making the conquered people like their conquerors. Trying to change the way they thought, lived and interacted.
However I don't think that this model works as a model for how America goes about building its empire (if in fact that is what is happening). The American empire seems to be working in reverse order. It seems to be trying to subjugate foreign peoples culturally and economically first. Anyone can see this to some extent, with Coca-cola and McDonalds in China and every other nation in the world. American TV, movies and music is beamed to all the nations in the world. The American penchant for conspicuous consumerism has spread around the world and therefore so has the products that feed that mentallity. We all (supposedly) need that new cell phone, dvd player, mp3 player, flat screen TV, etc. Each item in some way feeds into the American empire by allowing America to dictate to the world culturally and economically.
One aspect of the Iraq quagmire that the U.S. finds itself in now that scares me is that they were willing to go to war unillaterally for false reasons. 'Coalition of the Willing' aside (in effect 4 nations - U.S., Britain, Poland, Japan), this action seems to be more about subjugating a foreign people militarily when their efforts to do so economically and culturally failed. The obvious question is what country is next? Logically there is no real defence for the American invasion of Iraq when the world condemned Iraq for invading Kuwait. Both incidents are essentially the same.
Obviously I'm not American and I hope that people who read this (American or non-American) will think through the facts rather than toss out knee-jerk reactions and accuse me of hating America. I don't. I don't hate American's either, in actuallity I pity them. They are giving up their civil liberties and basic human rights in an effort to fight an invisible enemy. All of those terror alerts may be real, they may not, but they all have the effect of subjugating the American populace much like America has tried to do to foreign people. There is no free speech, when President Bush says that the press can only ask one question. How is the public to become informed when they are not allowed to question? Of course an uniformed public will in the end ask no questions.
Anyways, it was an interesting discussion that I had with my father. We don't always see eye-to-eye on such topics but at least we can discuss them openly and honestly without fear of judgement. It's Christmas time, the time of year when we wish for peace on earth and goodwill towards men, hopefully it will happen some day. But not this day and not in Iraq. Of that I am sure.
Vespasian (ironic handle, no?)
Thursday, December 23, 2004
What to say?
With so many blog's in existence what is one more? Will anyone ever see this collection of thoughts? Does it matter? With so many things happening the world there are so many things to say at times. But to whom should I share these random thoughts and diatribes? I'm sure the few friends that I do have are becoming numb from my rants. So I will attempt to toss my thoughts into the ether. I will attempt to form my confused and mangled thoughts into a coherent sentences. Even if no one reads word one I believe that any time a person is able to express themselves it is beneficial. Of course if you are reading this please don't think I'm insane. I'd hate to lose my job.
Sincerly;
Sincerly;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)