The results of the recent elections were very disappointing for evangelicals. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, some 80% of evangelicals voted for Republican candidate, Mitt Romney. According to pre-election polls, Romney received a larger slice of the evangelical vote than any previous Republican presidential candidate. However, Romney and the Republicans lost.
At the state level, evangelicals also lost on a number of social issues. Voters in more than one state passed referenda supporting gay marriage. This marks the first time for any state to legalize same-sex marriage by the expressed will of the people, rather than through court rulings or legislation. Other social issues included abortion funding and legalization of marijuana.
In light of these losses, Ed Stetzer, President of Life Way Research believes “we should begin thinking about what it looks like to be the church in a ‘post-culture war’ era.” Simply put, evangelicals seemed to have lost a worldview battle, often referred to as “the culture war”.
According to Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “evangelical Christians must see the 2012 election as a catastrophe for crucial moral concerns.” Mohler believes “we face a worldview challenge that is far greater than any political challenge.” The question facing us is clear – how can we winsomely convince Americans to share our moral convictions about marriage, sex, the sanctity of life and a range of other moral issues?
It was with that question in mind I shared in a recent post-election sermon – when it seems okay to ridicule a priest because his prayer to God was unacceptable, you know we are in trouble. Or, when it seems okay for a political party to remove the need for God and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from its platform, you know we are in trouble. Actually, before our eyes we are witnessing the reshaping of a culture that is against the idea of Christian values in the marketplace.
The results of the November elections made it clear that politics is not the answer we need to confront the moral decline in America. In the words of Richard Stearns, president of World Vision, “we need to go back to the basics of living as disciples of Christ, living missionally for Christ and demonstrating the Gospel in tangible ways within our schools, workplaces and communities.” In other words, Christians need to get back to what we know best – serving others with the support of our faith communities, rather than to the beat of political drums.
The admonition of the Apostle Paul is appropriate at this time. In Romans 12:2, he urges the Christians in Rome to discontinue the practice of allowing the world to squeeze them into a mold. This is how The Message describes the verse: “Don’t become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking.” Or, “don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world” (NLT).
The New Testament writers are saying to us that we should not allow non-Christian ways of thinking to influence our thoughts or actions. For instance, the political practice of demonizing your opponent in order to dissuade others from voting for the challenger is a non-Christian practice. It must be opposed vehemently, regardless of the party responsible for the demonizing. Our commitment to civil discourse must not be defined in political terms. Whenever we allow such practices to guide our thinking, we are allowing a non-Christian worldview to squeeze us into its mold.
Rather than give-in to conformity, we should be “transformed by the renewing of [our] minds” (Romans 12:2). In essence, we ought to arrange our thinking to reason ‘Christianly’. Our values should not be defined by politicians. Our values must be in line with our primary allegiance – and that is not to ‘Ceasar’, but to God.
We must call on our politicians to pursue the common good – to care for the most vulnerable among us, including the unborn, the poor and the immigrant. We must continue to stand in defense of life, marriage and religious freedom. Like Cardinal Timothy Dolan, we must pray for the President and everyone in leadership – “that they help restore a sense of civility to the public order, so our public conversations may be imbued with respect and charity toward everyone.”
The cultural war is not an imaginary battle. It is real and must be fought in the spirit of Philippians 4:8 – “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things” (allow such things to shape your thinking).
Monday, November 12, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Nature or Acts of God?
Superstorm Sandy is gone. As one of the fifth worst hurricanes in US history, she left behind more than 100 deaths and billions of dollars worth of damage. The blame game has begun – some believe the hurricane was a result of global warming. Others believe it was “an act of God” – a statement that could suggest God was responsible or it was merely an act of nature.
Scientists tell us that the winds in a hurricane are caused by air near the ocean rushing inward to replace air that's rising in the storm. The earth's rotation gives the incoming air a counterclockwise spin. A hurricane grows weaker when it moves over cool water or over land, which cuts off the supply of warm, humid air, which is the storm's energy source.
Just like wind, rain and even earthquakes, hurricanes are necessary acts of nature. If nature is not allowed to do its thing, various ecological imbalances would occur. So, just as we protect ourselves from rainfall, we must protect ourselves from other acts of nature. Thankfully, science has advanced to the point where we know when to expect some acts of nature.
At times, science is unable to accurately predict natural disasters. For instance, in Italy, two scientists resigned their posts with the government's disaster preparedness agency last week after a court in L'Aquila sentenced six scientists and a government official to six years in prison. The court ruled that the scientists failed to accurately communicate the risk of the 2009 quake, which killed more than 300 people.
Thankfully, we got adequate warnings about Hurricane Sandy. Some American economists were even predicting the financial cost of the damage before the storm hit. Because we cannot influence the course of nature, the very best we can do is to prepare ourselves adequately to cope with nature.
However, if we build our houses near the mouth of a volcano, we should not complain when it erupts. The same thing is true when we drain wetlands or redirect the course of rivers in order to build our palatial homes.
When God placed human beings on earth He commanded us to take care of the earth – to dress it and keep it (Genesis 2:15). In this way we can be at peace with our environment. However, because of greed and selfishness we often ignore God’s warning and suffer the consequences.
Because of advances in science we are not only able to predict the course of nature, we are able to cooperate with the course of nature. In order to avoid flooding, we implement adequate drainage and erect lakes to compensate for intruding into natural habitat. On the other hand we see the consequences of reckless deforestation. This is what results in uncontrolled flooding and soil erosion.
The truth is – the practice of blaming God for the reckless choices we make is unfair. It is not logical to expect God to interfere with things that would violate the purposes of His creation. It is also illogical to expect God to thwart the consequences of our actions. The Bible clearly states, “we reap what we sow” (Galatians 6:2).
Thankfully, God is merciful and He often allows greater good to arise from our disasters. Apart from the opportunities for nature to replenish itself, God provides opportunities for us to care for victims of nature. For instance, within twenty-four hours of the hurricane, there was an overwhelming display of generosity across America.
Stories of compassion are flooding the media, despite the dominance of political rhetoric. The presidential candidates recognized the value of showing care and severely curtailed their campaigns. When Americans go to the polls tomorrow, they will be looking for compassionate leaders. The candidates know this and used the crisis to demonstrate care.
Just the size and force of Hurricane Sandy serve to remind us all that there are some things in life that are bigger than we are. Every wise person within the path of the hurricane took heed. Affluence, influence or status did not matter, we all submitted to something bigger than ourselves. Activities and priorities were rearranged.
In his book, An Act of God?, Dr. Erwin Lutzer reminds us that “historically, the church has always responded to tragedies with sacrifice and courage.” During the third century, Tertullian recorded that when pagans deserted their nearest relatives in the plague, it was Christians who stayed and ministered to the sick.
As nature rejuvenates itself we need to ensure that we prepare ourselves to avoid human tragedies. However, when tragedies occur, others need to rise to the occasion as philanthropic Americans do.
Scientists tell us that the winds in a hurricane are caused by air near the ocean rushing inward to replace air that's rising in the storm. The earth's rotation gives the incoming air a counterclockwise spin. A hurricane grows weaker when it moves over cool water or over land, which cuts off the supply of warm, humid air, which is the storm's energy source.
Just like wind, rain and even earthquakes, hurricanes are necessary acts of nature. If nature is not allowed to do its thing, various ecological imbalances would occur. So, just as we protect ourselves from rainfall, we must protect ourselves from other acts of nature. Thankfully, science has advanced to the point where we know when to expect some acts of nature.
At times, science is unable to accurately predict natural disasters. For instance, in Italy, two scientists resigned their posts with the government's disaster preparedness agency last week after a court in L'Aquila sentenced six scientists and a government official to six years in prison. The court ruled that the scientists failed to accurately communicate the risk of the 2009 quake, which killed more than 300 people.
Thankfully, we got adequate warnings about Hurricane Sandy. Some American economists were even predicting the financial cost of the damage before the storm hit. Because we cannot influence the course of nature, the very best we can do is to prepare ourselves adequately to cope with nature.
However, if we build our houses near the mouth of a volcano, we should not complain when it erupts. The same thing is true when we drain wetlands or redirect the course of rivers in order to build our palatial homes.
When God placed human beings on earth He commanded us to take care of the earth – to dress it and keep it (Genesis 2:15). In this way we can be at peace with our environment. However, because of greed and selfishness we often ignore God’s warning and suffer the consequences.
Because of advances in science we are not only able to predict the course of nature, we are able to cooperate with the course of nature. In order to avoid flooding, we implement adequate drainage and erect lakes to compensate for intruding into natural habitat. On the other hand we see the consequences of reckless deforestation. This is what results in uncontrolled flooding and soil erosion.
The truth is – the practice of blaming God for the reckless choices we make is unfair. It is not logical to expect God to interfere with things that would violate the purposes of His creation. It is also illogical to expect God to thwart the consequences of our actions. The Bible clearly states, “we reap what we sow” (Galatians 6:2).
Thankfully, God is merciful and He often allows greater good to arise from our disasters. Apart from the opportunities for nature to replenish itself, God provides opportunities for us to care for victims of nature. For instance, within twenty-four hours of the hurricane, there was an overwhelming display of generosity across America.
Stories of compassion are flooding the media, despite the dominance of political rhetoric. The presidential candidates recognized the value of showing care and severely curtailed their campaigns. When Americans go to the polls tomorrow, they will be looking for compassionate leaders. The candidates know this and used the crisis to demonstrate care.
Just the size and force of Hurricane Sandy serve to remind us all that there are some things in life that are bigger than we are. Every wise person within the path of the hurricane took heed. Affluence, influence or status did not matter, we all submitted to something bigger than ourselves. Activities and priorities were rearranged.
In his book, An Act of God?, Dr. Erwin Lutzer reminds us that “historically, the church has always responded to tragedies with sacrifice and courage.” During the third century, Tertullian recorded that when pagans deserted their nearest relatives in the plague, it was Christians who stayed and ministered to the sick.
As nature rejuvenates itself we need to ensure that we prepare ourselves to avoid human tragedies. However, when tragedies occur, others need to rise to the occasion as philanthropic Americans do.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Every Vote Counts
On January 18, 1961, in Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania), the Afro-Shirazi Party won the general elections by a single vote/seat. The seat of Chake-Chake on Pemba Island had been gained by a single vote. According to the Guinness World Book of Records, this is the closest general elections ever occurred in the world.
Here in the United States, on August 7, 1979 in Mississippi, Robert E. Joiner was declared the winner over W.H. Pyron with 133,587 votes to 133,582. That's the narrowest recorded percentage win in an election. The loser got more than 49.999% of the votes for the office of Southern District Highway Commissioner.
The above are mere samples of the value of every single vote. The 2000 Presidential elections is another example of the value of every vote. Then, President George W. Bush won the election by a margin of just half of a percentage point of the 110 million votes cast.
With this kind of information, one can understand why I was outraged when I heard the report of a group of black pastors who were encouraging their congregations not to vote. Thankfully, the report from the New York Times was proven to be inaccurate. The truth is that some pastors will be voting on the other matters on their respective ballots. However, they will not be voting for the Office of President.
Some pastors believe to vote for President Obama in the upcoming elections will advance the same-sex marriage agenda and also affirm the Democratic Party Platform which endorses that lifestyle. To vote for Governor Mitt Romney would be to release him from the racist teachings in the Mormon Bible that “black-skinned” people are “cursed…loathsome..unattractive...despised and filthy.”
It is in light of the above positions; some pastors believe that any vote would be to endorse an evil. In other words, our only choice would be to choose the lesser of the evils. And, to endorse any form of evil would be to undermine the cause of righteousness, to which we are first committed.
If we were to apply this line of reasoning to all the decisions we make in life, we would be suggesting that every decision we make promotes the cause of righteousness. However, because there is no clear biblical prescription on how to vote, issues of this nature are treated as issues of ethical thought.
Ethical views are usually divided into two broad types – ethics of ought (deontological) and ethics of consequence (teleological). Deontological ethics are derived from a previously-determined view of reality or of the nature of God – sometimes referred to as natural law.
The crucial thing with teleological ethics is not whether the act comes out of divine command or natural law, but whether it produces good results. There are times when Christians are confronted with issues for which there is not biblical clarity. At such times, as guided by the Holy Spirit and by consensus within the wider Christian community, it becomes necessary to apply teleological ethics.
Some argue that because God is sovereign, He already knows the outcome of the elections and therefore a single vote would not make a difference. Agreed, God is sovereign, but throughout the Scriptures He is seen inviting people to be in partnership with Him to accomplish His purposes. In other words, God’s sovereignty does not absolve me of my responsibility.
Many traditionalists contend that because we are pilgrims in this world, we must not become engrossed in “the things of this world”. Jeremiah the prophet responds to this attitude of non-involvement.
Jeremiah was fully aware that the Jews were going to be in exile in Babylon for a specified period of time. However, rather than suggest a program of non-involvement in a foreign land, among hostile captors, he encouraged full participation and involvement. Here is an excerpt of his letter to those who were already in Babylon:
“…seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).
In a democracy, voting is one of the most cherished rights of citizens. That right enables citizens to elect representatives who are obligated to comply with laws and the wishes of their constituents. Opportunities to vote provide opportunities for constituents to contribute to the welfare of their country. In addition, voting opportunities enable constituents to appraise the work of their representatives.
This system has contributed significantly to America’s position of greatness in the world. Isn't it interesting, while many are anxious to migrate to America, others in America are not as anxious to migrate to other countries?
Here in the United States, on August 7, 1979 in Mississippi, Robert E. Joiner was declared the winner over W.H. Pyron with 133,587 votes to 133,582. That's the narrowest recorded percentage win in an election. The loser got more than 49.999% of the votes for the office of Southern District Highway Commissioner.
The above are mere samples of the value of every single vote. The 2000 Presidential elections is another example of the value of every vote. Then, President George W. Bush won the election by a margin of just half of a percentage point of the 110 million votes cast.
With this kind of information, one can understand why I was outraged when I heard the report of a group of black pastors who were encouraging their congregations not to vote. Thankfully, the report from the New York Times was proven to be inaccurate. The truth is that some pastors will be voting on the other matters on their respective ballots. However, they will not be voting for the Office of President.
Some pastors believe to vote for President Obama in the upcoming elections will advance the same-sex marriage agenda and also affirm the Democratic Party Platform which endorses that lifestyle. To vote for Governor Mitt Romney would be to release him from the racist teachings in the Mormon Bible that “black-skinned” people are “cursed…loathsome..unattractive...despised and filthy.”
It is in light of the above positions; some pastors believe that any vote would be to endorse an evil. In other words, our only choice would be to choose the lesser of the evils. And, to endorse any form of evil would be to undermine the cause of righteousness, to which we are first committed.
If we were to apply this line of reasoning to all the decisions we make in life, we would be suggesting that every decision we make promotes the cause of righteousness. However, because there is no clear biblical prescription on how to vote, issues of this nature are treated as issues of ethical thought.
Ethical views are usually divided into two broad types – ethics of ought (deontological) and ethics of consequence (teleological). Deontological ethics are derived from a previously-determined view of reality or of the nature of God – sometimes referred to as natural law.
The crucial thing with teleological ethics is not whether the act comes out of divine command or natural law, but whether it produces good results. There are times when Christians are confronted with issues for which there is not biblical clarity. At such times, as guided by the Holy Spirit and by consensus within the wider Christian community, it becomes necessary to apply teleological ethics.
Some argue that because God is sovereign, He already knows the outcome of the elections and therefore a single vote would not make a difference. Agreed, God is sovereign, but throughout the Scriptures He is seen inviting people to be in partnership with Him to accomplish His purposes. In other words, God’s sovereignty does not absolve me of my responsibility.
Many traditionalists contend that because we are pilgrims in this world, we must not become engrossed in “the things of this world”. Jeremiah the prophet responds to this attitude of non-involvement.
Jeremiah was fully aware that the Jews were going to be in exile in Babylon for a specified period of time. However, rather than suggest a program of non-involvement in a foreign land, among hostile captors, he encouraged full participation and involvement. Here is an excerpt of his letter to those who were already in Babylon:
“…seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).
In a democracy, voting is one of the most cherished rights of citizens. That right enables citizens to elect representatives who are obligated to comply with laws and the wishes of their constituents. Opportunities to vote provide opportunities for constituents to contribute to the welfare of their country. In addition, voting opportunities enable constituents to appraise the work of their representatives.
This system has contributed significantly to America’s position of greatness in the world. Isn't it interesting, while many are anxious to migrate to America, others in America are not as anxious to migrate to other countries?
Monday, October 22, 2012
Dr. Billy Graham WAS WRONG
Following a private 30-minute meeting with the Republican presidential candidate Mr. Mitt Romney, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association removed from its website the reference to Mormonism as a cult. I disagree with the timing of this decision by the Association.
According to CNN News, in the section of the website, My Answer by Billy Graham, there was the question, What is a cult? The answer was clear – “a cult is any group which teaches doctrines or beliefs that deviate from the biblical message of the Christian faith.” Some of the groups listed as examples were Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, the Unification Church, Unitarians, Scientologists and others. Since Romney’s visit with Dr. Billy Graham, those examples have been removed from the site.
When asked about the change, Ken Barun, Chief of Staff for the Association, stated, “We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during the campaign.” Interestingly, a search of the word MORMONS on the website provides six results related to cults, including a discussion about how to recognize a religious cult. However, specific examples of cultic groups have been removed.
The present wording on the website is much more palatable in a culture of tolerance. However, the BGEA does not in any way compromise its understanding of what is a religious cult. My problem is the timing of its decision to remove the examples, including Mormonism.
Was the removal intended to create a more cordial relationship with Mitt Romney, a lifelong member of the Mormon Church? Or, could the removal be considered an attempt to have evangelicals respond more favorably to Mr. Romney’s candidacy? As mentioned earlier, the timing of the decision creates much discomfort.
The decision is symptomatic of a bigger problem among evangelicals. Many want to endorse Mr. Romney as president, but fear that doing so might tacitly endorse Mormonism. Something is wrong with this line of reasoning. For instance, when evangelicals voted for John F. Kennedy in 1960, were they tacitly endorsing the Roman Catholic Church of which Kennedy was a member? Similarly, was a vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976, an endorsement of the Southern Baptists? Then, how could a vote for Mitt Romney be an endorsement of Mormonism?
In an earlier commentary, I shared the view that if elected, I believe Romney’s faith will inform his decisions. However, that is not the same as saying that his religious views as a Mormon will be imposed on the nation. What I would expect is a commitment to high ethical standards, an awareness of having to give account to an authority higher than that of the office of president, a regard for the sacredness of life and a commitment to traditional marriage. I would also expect him to treat people of faith with respect and to reflect much compassion in his leadership. I would expect nothing less if President Obama were to be returned to office.
At the same time, I hasten to add that a vote for President Obama would in no way be an endorsement of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where the President was last registered as a member of a Christian church.
On November 06, 2012, Americans will not be electing a Pastor-in-Chief. Political leaders will not give account to God as pastors, but as servants who were entrusted with power and responsibility to govern, ensuring justice for all. Like the Minor Prophets, Christian leaders must continue to demand righteousness in public administration. The Book of Proverbs was correct when it said, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:23).
In this context I applaud Dr. Billy Graham and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. They just published a series of full-page newspaper advertisements calling on voters to cast a ballot for their faith. Dr. Graham, who is approaching his 94th birthday, urged readers “to cast their ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.”
Such prophetic positions are good for a nation that has had a rich Judeo-Christian history. The church does not need to demand a theocratic government. However, the church needs to speak prophetically, condemning sin and promoting righteousness.
In order to obey the injunction to pray for those in authority, Christians need to use every legitimate opportunity to influence the systems of this world. Voting provides one such opportunity – to abrogate that opportunity would be irresponsible and would delegitimize one’s right to speak with integrity.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Marriage & Politics
Both the Bible and science confirm that traditional marriage is good for society. Overall, men and women who are married live longer. Science finds that being married tends to motivate people to increase healthy behaviors, habits and attitudes.
In her book, The Case for Marriage, Professor Linda Waite states, “The evidence from four decades of research is surprisingly clear – a good marriage is both men’s and women’s best bet for living a long and healthy life.”
Dr. Robert Coombs of the University of California reviewed more than 130 studies published over the past 100 years on how marriage affects well-being. He found “an intimate link between marital status and personal well-being.” His findings which were disclosed in the journal, Family Relations (40 [1991]: 97-102), went on to say: “Virtually every study of mortality and marital status shows the unmarried of both sexes have higher death rates, whether by accident, disease, or self-inflicted wounds, and this is found in every country that maintains accurate health statistics.”
In essence, science has come around to confirm what the Bible has always contended, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). For Christians therefore, traditional marriage matters because it is biblically and scientifically valid. It is for this reason Christians seek to advance this view within society – traditional marriage is different from other relationships and is beneficial to families and the society at large.
Because politics is interested in the management of social structures, it would seem reasonable to ask where our politicians stand on this vital subject of marriage and family. In an attempt to obtain credible responses, I resorted to the platforms/manifestos of both major political parties – a party platform is a list of the actions which a political party supports with the view of making policies.
For instance, on the subject of same-sex marriage, The Republican Platform states: “The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage.
The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”
On the same subject, the Democratic Platform states: “We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference…We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
It's time we stop just talking about family values and start pursuing policies that truly value families. The President and Democrats have cut taxes for every working American family, and expanded the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit… We support passing the Healthy Families Act, broadening the Family and Medical Leave Act, and partnering with states to move toward paid leave.
We have invested in expanding and reforming Head Start and grants to states to raise standards and improve instruction in their early learning programs, and we support expanding the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. We must protect our most vulnerable children by supporting our foster care system, adoption programs for all caring parents, grandparents, and caregivers, and protecting children from violence and neglect. We recognize that caring for family members and managing a household is real and valuable work.”
Both political parties recognize the value of the traditional family. However, one party believes other forms of the family should be afforded the same respect and legal privileges extended to the traditional family. Christians need to recognize the differences and support the party that best represents your worldview.
In her book, The Case for Marriage, Professor Linda Waite states, “The evidence from four decades of research is surprisingly clear – a good marriage is both men’s and women’s best bet for living a long and healthy life.”
Dr. Robert Coombs of the University of California reviewed more than 130 studies published over the past 100 years on how marriage affects well-being. He found “an intimate link between marital status and personal well-being.” His findings which were disclosed in the journal, Family Relations (40 [1991]: 97-102), went on to say: “Virtually every study of mortality and marital status shows the unmarried of both sexes have higher death rates, whether by accident, disease, or self-inflicted wounds, and this is found in every country that maintains accurate health statistics.”
In essence, science has come around to confirm what the Bible has always contended, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). For Christians therefore, traditional marriage matters because it is biblically and scientifically valid. It is for this reason Christians seek to advance this view within society – traditional marriage is different from other relationships and is beneficial to families and the society at large.
Because politics is interested in the management of social structures, it would seem reasonable to ask where our politicians stand on this vital subject of marriage and family. In an attempt to obtain credible responses, I resorted to the platforms/manifestos of both major political parties – a party platform is a list of the actions which a political party supports with the view of making policies.
For instance, on the subject of same-sex marriage, The Republican Platform states: “The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage.
The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”
On the same subject, the Democratic Platform states: “We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference…We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
It's time we stop just talking about family values and start pursuing policies that truly value families. The President and Democrats have cut taxes for every working American family, and expanded the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit… We support passing the Healthy Families Act, broadening the Family and Medical Leave Act, and partnering with states to move toward paid leave.
We have invested in expanding and reforming Head Start and grants to states to raise standards and improve instruction in their early learning programs, and we support expanding the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. We must protect our most vulnerable children by supporting our foster care system, adoption programs for all caring parents, grandparents, and caregivers, and protecting children from violence and neglect. We recognize that caring for family members and managing a household is real and valuable work.”
Both political parties recognize the value of the traditional family. However, one party believes other forms of the family should be afforded the same respect and legal privileges extended to the traditional family. Christians need to recognize the differences and support the party that best represents your worldview.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Atheism & Politics
One in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion. The number of these Americans has grown by 25% just in the past five years, according to a survey released last Thursday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
When said differently, 33 million Americans now have no religious affiliation, with 13 million in that group identifying as either atheist or agnostic, according to the Pew survey.
The religious divide is clearly seen between political party lines. Of the 13 million people who call themselves atheist or agnostic, 73 % are Democrats or lean toward Democratic policies, compared to only 16 % who favor Republicans and conservative ideology. For those who are considered "unaffiliated," 63 % side with Democrats and only 26 % lean toward Republicans.
Greg Smith, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and a co-author of the study, points out that in each of the past three presidential elections, big majorities of the religiously unaffiliated voted for the Democratic candidate. In 2008, as many of the unaffiliated went for Obama as evangelical Christians went for John McCain.
"The 'nones' (the 63% that lean toward the Democratic Party) seldom or never attend worship services or pray, are more likely to have at least some college, and are roughly split between those who call themselves "spiritual but not religious" (37 %) and those who say they are "neither spiritual nor religious" (42 %).
Smith says, "One of the ways that the religiously unaffiliated are most distinctive is with their views on things such as same-sex marriage and abortion - the religiously unaffiliated tend to be quite liberal in their views on those kinds of issues." According to Smith, "about 75% of them say that abortion should be legal in all cases. A similar number favor same-sex couples to marry."
The Pew survey suggested that the Democratic Party would do well to recognize the growth of the unaffiliated, since 63% of them identify with or lean toward that political group. John Green, a senior research adviser at Pew, predicted that "in the near future, if not this year, the unaffiliated voters will be as important as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party collation.”
Green points to the 2008 exit polls as evidence for that prediction. That year, Republican presidential nominee John McCain beat President Barack Obama by 47 points among white evangelical voters, while Obama had a 52-point margin of victory over McCain among the religiously unaffiliated. According to exit polls, the proportion of religiously unaffiliated Americans who supported the Democratic presidential candidate grew 14 points from 2000 to 2008.
In announcing the survey’s findings at the Religion Newswriters Association conference in Bethesda, Maryland, Green said the growing political power of the unaffiliated within the Democratic Party could become similar to the power the Religious Right acquired in the GOP in the 1980s.
The Pew study doesn't say what were the causes of atheism in politics, however, David Campbell, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame, thinks he knows. "There is considerable evidence suggesting that the 'nones' have actually been caused by politics," says Campbell, co-author of American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. "Many people have pulled away from the religious label due to the mingling of religion and conservative politics."
Others believe that younger voters in particular are frustrated with the failure or refusal of traditional denominations to change with the times and embrace broader ideas on marriage and the environment. For instance, some Democrats are more amenable to social and environmental issues that do not appear to require religious endorsement.
However, because of the tacit relationship between Christians and the Republican Party, it is more difficult to align the party with issues that are inimical to the Christian worldview.
In light of the current voting trends, it would seem easy to conclude that one political party is more religious than the other. One has to be careful in coming to such conclusions. In November, America will not be electing a Pastor-in-Chief. Neither will America be deciding on a theocratic form of government.
However, we must still ask the question – should Christians participate in non-religious or even antagonistic political systems? Certainly!
- we must maintain righteousness within the system
- we must not be defiled by the system
- we must seek to improve the system
- we must pray for others who lead the system
- we must ensure that the system reflects balance in the issues covered.
When said differently, 33 million Americans now have no religious affiliation, with 13 million in that group identifying as either atheist or agnostic, according to the Pew survey.
The religious divide is clearly seen between political party lines. Of the 13 million people who call themselves atheist or agnostic, 73 % are Democrats or lean toward Democratic policies, compared to only 16 % who favor Republicans and conservative ideology. For those who are considered "unaffiliated," 63 % side with Democrats and only 26 % lean toward Republicans.
Greg Smith, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and a co-author of the study, points out that in each of the past three presidential elections, big majorities of the religiously unaffiliated voted for the Democratic candidate. In 2008, as many of the unaffiliated went for Obama as evangelical Christians went for John McCain.
"The 'nones' (the 63% that lean toward the Democratic Party) seldom or never attend worship services or pray, are more likely to have at least some college, and are roughly split between those who call themselves "spiritual but not religious" (37 %) and those who say they are "neither spiritual nor religious" (42 %).
Smith says, "One of the ways that the religiously unaffiliated are most distinctive is with their views on things such as same-sex marriage and abortion - the religiously unaffiliated tend to be quite liberal in their views on those kinds of issues." According to Smith, "about 75% of them say that abortion should be legal in all cases. A similar number favor same-sex couples to marry."
The Pew survey suggested that the Democratic Party would do well to recognize the growth of the unaffiliated, since 63% of them identify with or lean toward that political group. John Green, a senior research adviser at Pew, predicted that "in the near future, if not this year, the unaffiliated voters will be as important as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party collation.”
Green points to the 2008 exit polls as evidence for that prediction. That year, Republican presidential nominee John McCain beat President Barack Obama by 47 points among white evangelical voters, while Obama had a 52-point margin of victory over McCain among the religiously unaffiliated. According to exit polls, the proportion of religiously unaffiliated Americans who supported the Democratic presidential candidate grew 14 points from 2000 to 2008.
In announcing the survey’s findings at the Religion Newswriters Association conference in Bethesda, Maryland, Green said the growing political power of the unaffiliated within the Democratic Party could become similar to the power the Religious Right acquired in the GOP in the 1980s.
The Pew study doesn't say what were the causes of atheism in politics, however, David Campbell, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame, thinks he knows. "There is considerable evidence suggesting that the 'nones' have actually been caused by politics," says Campbell, co-author of American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. "Many people have pulled away from the religious label due to the mingling of religion and conservative politics."
Others believe that younger voters in particular are frustrated with the failure or refusal of traditional denominations to change with the times and embrace broader ideas on marriage and the environment. For instance, some Democrats are more amenable to social and environmental issues that do not appear to require religious endorsement.
However, because of the tacit relationship between Christians and the Republican Party, it is more difficult to align the party with issues that are inimical to the Christian worldview.
In light of the current voting trends, it would seem easy to conclude that one political party is more religious than the other. One has to be careful in coming to such conclusions. In November, America will not be electing a Pastor-in-Chief. Neither will America be deciding on a theocratic form of government.
However, we must still ask the question – should Christians participate in non-religious or even antagonistic political systems? Certainly!
- we must maintain righteousness within the system
- we must not be defiled by the system
- we must seek to improve the system
- we must pray for others who lead the system
- we must ensure that the system reflects balance in the issues covered.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
REMOVE THE WORDS Mother and Father
Very soon France may ban the use of the words MOTHER and FATHER from all government documents. The idea is to remove all gender-specific language from the nation’s civil code. In the case of MOTHER and FATHER, the words will be replaced with PARENTS.
The language change is an inevitable move for countries that approve homosexual unions. Homosexuals feel excluded because the words MOTHER and FATHER refer to the irrevocable biological origins of every human being. A more all-inclusive word like PARENT is preferred.
Following its approval of same-sex marriage in 2005, Spain had to deal with the gender-neutral language. The Spanish government announced a ministerial order that new births would have to be registered at the State Civil Registries under the headings of Parent (progenitor) A, and Parent (progenitor) B. In other words, the terms FATHER and MOTHER were no longer to be used.
The timing of these changes in France coincides with that nation’s desire to redefine marriage – a law goes before the French cabinet on October 31. President Francois Hollande has vowed to approve the law.
France is following decisions taken in Canada since 2005 when the Ontario government approved gender neutral language. No longer can a married couple be referred to as “husband and wife” or “man and woman”. The terms “widow” and “widower” have also been struck from government statutes. Gender neutral terms like spouses and partners are preferred when referring to married couples.
With the legalization of same-sex marriage here in the United States, gender neutral language will also become necessary. In some circles, terms like fathering and mothering have been replaced with fostering and nurturing. The general idea is to make gender distinctions indistinguishable.
Apart from facilitating gender-neutral language, some in our society are eager to neutralize gender roles and sexual distinctions. Some would want us to believe that gender distinctions are preferential choices rather than some innate disposition.
In response to such thinking, Christians would need to formulate a biblical understanding of maleness and femaleness. For instance, what does the Bible mean when it says of the Creator – “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27)?
The statement appears on the sixth day of creation and was used only in reference to human beings. The uniqueness of the term would seem to suggest that the mention of gender distinctions within our species should not be taken lightly.
Interestingly, the expression “male and female” appears in the context of “being made in the image of God.” Scholars are still grappling with what it really means to be made in the image of God. Among the views advanced, some scholars believe the plurality in gender may be related to the plurality in the term “let US make man…” Whatever the outcome of the discussion among scholars, it is obvious that a biblical understanding of gender distinctions should not be trivialized.
Throughout Scripture the concept of one flesh in marriage is very strong. Separate and apart from the procreative and pleasure derived from sex within marriage, there is the fusion of two genders that bring about “one flesh”. In other words, sex between the genders was intended for pleasure, procreation and permanence (one flesh). Hence, any sexual union that is unable to realize these outcomes is inimical to a biblical understanding of sex.
Logically, the strength of “one flesh” can only be stressed in the context of two different genders - the more noticeable the distinction of the genders, the richer the understanding of the “one flesh”. Using the same principle of noticeable distinction, Paul explains the richness of becoming one in Christ.
In his letter to the Galatians Paul uses contrasting terms to make his point – unity in Christ transcends ethnic, social and sexual distinctions - “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Galatians 3:28).
I find it rather interesting that many of the contexts in which gender-neutral language is preferred and promoted, sexuality is the subject being discussed. France is at the verge of legalizing same-sex marriage. Whereas Spain and Canada have already legalized same-sex marriage, a few States in the United States have joined them.
In Romans 1:18-32, Paul outlines the consequences of disregarding the natural and divine order intended between the genders. I would strongly recommend that you read this passage at your earliest convenience.
The language change is an inevitable move for countries that approve homosexual unions. Homosexuals feel excluded because the words MOTHER and FATHER refer to the irrevocable biological origins of every human being. A more all-inclusive word like PARENT is preferred.
Following its approval of same-sex marriage in 2005, Spain had to deal with the gender-neutral language. The Spanish government announced a ministerial order that new births would have to be registered at the State Civil Registries under the headings of Parent (progenitor) A, and Parent (progenitor) B. In other words, the terms FATHER and MOTHER were no longer to be used.
The timing of these changes in France coincides with that nation’s desire to redefine marriage – a law goes before the French cabinet on October 31. President Francois Hollande has vowed to approve the law.
France is following decisions taken in Canada since 2005 when the Ontario government approved gender neutral language. No longer can a married couple be referred to as “husband and wife” or “man and woman”. The terms “widow” and “widower” have also been struck from government statutes. Gender neutral terms like spouses and partners are preferred when referring to married couples.
With the legalization of same-sex marriage here in the United States, gender neutral language will also become necessary. In some circles, terms like fathering and mothering have been replaced with fostering and nurturing. The general idea is to make gender distinctions indistinguishable.
Apart from facilitating gender-neutral language, some in our society are eager to neutralize gender roles and sexual distinctions. Some would want us to believe that gender distinctions are preferential choices rather than some innate disposition.
In response to such thinking, Christians would need to formulate a biblical understanding of maleness and femaleness. For instance, what does the Bible mean when it says of the Creator – “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27)?
The statement appears on the sixth day of creation and was used only in reference to human beings. The uniqueness of the term would seem to suggest that the mention of gender distinctions within our species should not be taken lightly.
Interestingly, the expression “male and female” appears in the context of “being made in the image of God.” Scholars are still grappling with what it really means to be made in the image of God. Among the views advanced, some scholars believe the plurality in gender may be related to the plurality in the term “let US make man…” Whatever the outcome of the discussion among scholars, it is obvious that a biblical understanding of gender distinctions should not be trivialized.
Throughout Scripture the concept of one flesh in marriage is very strong. Separate and apart from the procreative and pleasure derived from sex within marriage, there is the fusion of two genders that bring about “one flesh”. In other words, sex between the genders was intended for pleasure, procreation and permanence (one flesh). Hence, any sexual union that is unable to realize these outcomes is inimical to a biblical understanding of sex.
Logically, the strength of “one flesh” can only be stressed in the context of two different genders - the more noticeable the distinction of the genders, the richer the understanding of the “one flesh”. Using the same principle of noticeable distinction, Paul explains the richness of becoming one in Christ.
In his letter to the Galatians Paul uses contrasting terms to make his point – unity in Christ transcends ethnic, social and sexual distinctions - “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Galatians 3:28).
I find it rather interesting that many of the contexts in which gender-neutral language is preferred and promoted, sexuality is the subject being discussed. France is at the verge of legalizing same-sex marriage. Whereas Spain and Canada have already legalized same-sex marriage, a few States in the United States have joined them.
In Romans 1:18-32, Paul outlines the consequences of disregarding the natural and divine order intended between the genders. I would strongly recommend that you read this passage at your earliest convenience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)