There is a growing divergence of opinion about how churches should handle politics. I find myself in agreement with both sides to a certain extent.
On the One Hand…
The church should never be distracted from its main work; making the gospel of Christ known in this world. Some churches have become, essentially, local branches of the Republican or Democrat parties. They talk politics from the pulpit and organize politically in the pews. They assume that their political positions are theological imperatives. To vary from political orthodoxy is seen as an indication of theological heterodoxy.
The fact is, whether the good guys win tomorrow, or whether evil prevails (I’m kidding, but I doubt anyone who reads me often has much doubt about my politics), the work of the gospel will still await us on Wednesday. The Republican Party is not interested in winning people to Christ – they are looking for our votes. If we allow ourselves to be co-opted by a political party, we will pay the price. The Democrats have no desire to advance the gospel and if you put your hope in them, you will be sorely disappointed.
Mark Driscoll has written a powerful article in the last election cycle that summarizes this view well. He claims that people are looking to political parties to accomplish what only our Savior can do. Driscoll powerfully confronts those who rely on political parties for the transformational work that only the Spirit of Christ can do.
On the Other Hand…
I think it matters what happens tomorrow. My vote won’t matter much tomorrow – I don’t live where any of the key races are taking place. (Actually, the key vote for me is the decision to retain – or not retain – three of the five judges who imposed homosexual marriage on Iowa against the will of the people). But the popular idea that there is little difference between the political parties is nonsense.
- If you care about the issue of abortion, tomorrow’s vote matters.
- If you believe in protecting traditional marriage, tomorrow’s vote matters.
- If you think the healthcare bill was a travesty, tomorrow’s vote matters.
- If you care about whether taxes go up or down, tomorrow’s vote matters.
There is a lot at stake tomorrow. I’m not going to lie to you. I care about what happens at the polls tomorrow. I’ll be up late – probably annoying people with blogs. I think it matters to the future of the nation I love whether the party in power holds onto power, or whether control of the House and/or Senate changes hands.
What To Think?
So, there seems to be a conflict here. Politics is not the chief purpose of the church, but it is nonetheless important. Is there a way we can strike a balance? Can we be politically active without compromising the work of the Gospel that has been giving Here are some perspectives I have about the whole thing.
1) I will vote tomorrow and I care how it comes out, but I didn’t even mention the election on Sunday. (Well, that’s not true – I mentioned that the good news was that all the political calls would stop on Wednesday). I preached from 1 Corinthians 9 about the necessity laid on us to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I think that politics matters to Christians, but I believe it is wrong-headed, even dangerous, for churches to become political organizations – whether for the left or the right. When you mix partisan politics into the gospel stew, you spoil the soup.
Vote on Tuesday, but keep the partisan politics out of the pulpit.
“Our hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.”
2) The Kingdom of God is not dependent on the preservation of the American democracy. I love America. I hope that America turns and experiences a Third Great Awakening. We need it. But the work of the church goes on whether “we” win or lose at the polls.
America needs God but God does not need America. The work of God is not dependent on the political workings of this nation. Throughout church history, nations have risen and fallen, but the gospel goes on and the work of the church goes on.
We need to remind ourselves that while we love our nation, America holds no special place in God’s heart. He loves Russians and Peruvians and Chinese and Zimbabweans every bit as much as he loves us. Let us never forget that we have no special standing in the heart of God, just because of our earthly citizenship.
Paul reminded us that the citizenship that really matters is our citizenship in heaven.
3) America is in a unique place, both globally and historically. The Early Church did not expect the government to advance righteousness. They just hoped the Empire would leave them alone so that they could advance the Kingdom of God. We in America have been spoiled. We expect our government to enforce our values. Its nice, but its not necessary.
Let’s remember that there is a distinct difference between the Kingdom of God and the USA.
4) Most churches have both Democrats and Republicans worshiping together – and that is as it should be. No church should make political allegiance a point of fellowship. That’s just wrong.
I don’t think there should be Republican churches, or Democrat churches (and my city has both).
So, go out and vote tomorrow. But preach the Word! May we never let partisan politics usurp the true work of God in this world.
And if you need help knowing who to vote for, I’d be glad to tell you!
Let’s limit discussion here to how churches should handle political involvement.
We cannot and should not expect the State to enforce our values. But we cannot become so apathetic that we allow are freedoms to be frittered away because of a live and let live mentality. IE gay people do just want the right to marry and have the same benefits as everyone else. They want to indoctrinate children in schools and they want special rights above and beyond existing laws. The health care law is written in a way that the Health & Human Service Secretary can decide that abortion must be part of any insurance policy. It goes on and on. The Hate Crimes Law is written in an intentionally ambiguous way so that at some point calling homosexuality a sin will be challenged as hate speech. Christians cannot and must not put their hope in any government but I think we are responsible to be good stewards of the freedoms that we have in our possession. They’re are being chipped away little by little.
First, I think that the Southern Baptist Convention needs to complete eradicate the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. This has done nothing but siphon money away from missions both here and abroad. It has been proven time and time again that issues are won at the forefront, not in the halls of Congress. You wanna eradicate abortion? Then you reach out, educate, and wins people’s hearts and minds on the issue. I have not been able to seriously point out anything of substance that has come out of this moneypit. I also have other thoughts about this organization, but they aren’t relevant to this thread.
Second, I think it is right and proper for a pastor to not be able to tell their congregants how to vote. It’s patently obvious that many pastors still do this each and every election cycle. I’m not stupid. The reason I’m for this is because it keeps the temptation of candidates to attempt to corrupt a pastor to get an endorsement. The pastor is first answerable to God, not to elected officials. I fear for the day when these roles switch. Pastors also wield an extreme amount of influence over their congregations for better or for worse. I think it is pleasing to God for pastors to influence their congregants for God’s will and works, rather than for politics.
I do think that the IRS needs to be more willing to pull the trigger on churches that break elections law with removing their tax exempt status. If laws are broken and the church is culpable, then I think that the church ought to also render unto Caesar.
I’ve stated numerous times that evangelicals have been programmed to vote for the first person to claim they’re ProLife. Even small municipal elections have people playing the ProLife card like some town alderman could actually enact laws of that magnitude. I think that we need to start holding our own accountable to the issue of abortion. I’m tired of so many ProLifers getting elected and abortion is becoming more and more prevalent and accessible. If they’re ProLife, then where is the legislation that even gets submitted, even if it dies in committee. Legislation isn’t even getting introduced which means to me that we have liars in our mist who know how to game our votes. I’m tired of Christians being played as a political voting bloc rather than a force that can change the world. Too bad that many others are just content to keep voting the same people in…
I made a commitment 30 years ago, Bill. I decided that I would never, as best I knew, vote for someone who thinks that abortion is okay.
If you think it is morally acceptable to go into a mother’s womb and kill her unborn child, your moral reasoning is so warped you simply will not get my vote.
That doesn’t mean that abortion is the only thing that matters. It just means that if you are so warped that you think murdering a baby in its mother’s womb is no big deal, you do not get my vote.
I’m not sure if we are disagreeing here, but that is a bedrock issue for me.
I’m not saying that everyone has to agree, but that is my commitment, one I think I can say I have never violated.
Bill,
I think we set up a false dichotomy when we pit (a) the gospel against (b) politics, as if they operated in opposition to one another rather than hand in hand. It’s like saying, “I think Pastors should preach the gospel and not do any blogging or rooting for Yankees.” (Yes, that was for Dave.)
There is room in my theology for the idea that preaching the gospel in such a way that lives are transformed will result in certain things being promoted in society — things like a culture of life, the traditional family unit, teaching creationism in public schools as an alternative theory of origins, etc.
Not surprisingly, because my philosophy differs from yours, I see the work of the ERLC as being a worthwhile component of our mutual witness in the public arena and thus, I favor its continued existence.
I will go to the polls tomorrow and vote for the best people I can find, not because my hope is in them, but because my hope is in the God who oversees the leadership of nations, and I believe He has called me to be an instrument of His in working that out in America. It is a form of public Christian witness, of being salt and light in our world.
Rick,
Did you even read my post?
-bill
Bill,
Of course I did.
Below are the relevant portions of both sets of comments juxtaposed so it is easier to follow the back and forth. I hope this helps.
Bill: “I think it is pleasing to God for pastors to influence their congregants for God’s will and works, rather than for politics.”
Rick: “I think we set up a false dichotomy when we pit (a) the gospel against (b) politics, as if they operated in opposition to one another rather than hand in hand.”
In other words, Bill, what you call “politics” I simply call the living out of our faith in a society where we have a right to vote and speak out as Christians on moral and spiritual issues that also happen to have political ramifications. Not only do I see nothing wrong with that, I see it as a form of both discipleship and witness.
Bill: “I think that the Southern Baptist Convention needs to complete eradicate the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.”
Rick: “I see the work of the ERLC as being a worthwhile component of our mutual witness in the public arena and thus, I favor its continued existence…It is a form of public Christian witness, of being salt and light in our world.”
If it helps you understand that I read your post, let me say that I agree with you that we should be more vigilant about insisting that those with a pro-life platform actually do something about it. Having said that, I want to vote in enough pro-lifers that we actually have the political clout to bring about real change. That will, of course, require even more speaking out and voting and getting involved than we are doing already.
Bottom line, I don’t see a conflict between Christianity and the kind of “pro-life, pro-family” political worldview espoused with eloquence by our ERLC. I like their work and what they stand for. If the “new SBC” wants to get away from this kind of ethical involvement, I think that would be a terrible mistake.
The main reason that I’ve set up the dichotomy between politics and other things is because politics has really taken a life of its own apart from anything else.
Where I live, the incumbent Republican Representative stated that if you vote for him, you are voting for a return to Christ-centered morals whereas if you vote for his opponent, you are voting to send America into a God-less atheistic society.
His opponent is a well respect Methodist Pastor who is Pro-Life, Pro-Gun epitome of the old school conservative Democrat from long ago.
My reasoning for pastors not being able to explicitly state who or what to vote for from the pulpit is solely to eliminate the perception of impropriety. I would figure that most here would appreciate the appearance of sin being just as powerful as sin itself. I would hate for pastors to come to be viewed as corruptable in that candidates immediately try to find ways to earn a pastor’s endorsement from a pulpit. In this one way, I am in favor of there being a boundary between the pulpit and the state. A pastor can preach on issues all day long because issues like abortion and welfare do have implications but the congregants have to be able to do their own homework as to who to vote for on the ballot. We have far too many who take the word of a pastor rather than the admonition of Paul to the Bereans. I think we have to be Bereans here.
The ERLC in my opinion is a joke in my opinion and is nothing more than a siphon taking the monies of people’s tithes and offerings and handing it over to friends of the establishment, both within our convention and in Washington, D.C. There have been little tangible results other than soundbites and photo ops in the last decade, if not longer and its time to put that money directly into missions, both here and abroad. I think increasing the ministry efforts and reaching people for Christ will have for more lasting implications for the cause of Christ than dinner parties and handshakes with Caesar.
bill,
Go with the Pro-gun guy.
He who has the guns makes the rules. But if we all have guns, we can keep the rules even. 🙂
Bill, I absolutely agree that the Ethics & Religious Comittee needs to go away. I really don’t lime it that if Richand Land speakes it’s treated as if he speaks for all Southern Baptist.
As far as abortion goes, there is not a day that goes by that some abortion law or another isn’t being debated. I know in thus current congress Mike Pence introduced a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. The problem with abortion is that it was determined to be a constitutional right so if it’s going to be overturned it will probably be a law which starts at the state level unless you get super majorities of real prolife congresspeople. And you’re right some prolifers are all talk but there are rankings which tell you who really votes consitently prolife.
I think churches should say anything from the pulpit regarding politics but churches could allow church members who are more in the know to have a table in the foyer or something for members looking for advice – of course you couldn’t support candidates.
Should read I think churches should NOT speak from the pulpit on political matters.
I wondered about that line.
Oh, I’m against Abortion.
I’ve just become tired of it being the main thing claimed in order to garner the evangelical vote while abortion as a whole is becoming increasingly prevalent and accessible.
We’re voting for people claiming to be Pro Life yet they’re doing nothing to advance the cause of Pro Lifers like you and me.
I’m advocating trying to find new people to go in and introduce Pro Life legislation since the ones we keep voting in aren’t going to do it.
I agree with you. There have been quite a few “pro-lifers” who care more about protecting the life of their own political careers than those of unborn babies.
You have to wonder about those politicians who SAY they are against abortion in order to get your vote.
Abortion is an example how laws creep farther than anyone could have imagined. At the time of Roe v Wade abortion was only legal for the first trimester. Then it gets inched up to “the life of the mother” – it has never been medical standard to force a woman to carry a child full term if it endangers her life. What “life of the mother” abortions are about is we can save the mother but let’s do nothing to save the life of a premature baby who will have complications that the mother doesn’t want to deal with. Now mothers can abort babies who have down syndrome. Babies who survive abortion are not protected because that would infringe on the constitutional right of the mother. Who could have imagined in 1973 that we wound have president who supports infanticide?
What concerns me is when a ‘politican’ states that he/she opposes abortion even to save the life of the mother.
That is absolute unbelievable.
Not even my Church holds that opinion. The surgeries conducted to save a pregnant woman from death because of uterine cancer or ectopic pregnancy are considered moral, in the sense that the death of the fetus is NOT what was primarily sought in the operation to save the woman’s life.
I wouldn’t pay any attention to any politician who used the abortion issue as a wedge issue. I don’t trust them. Period.
Christiane, it has never been the policy at least in modern medical times to force a woman to carry a baby to term. The life of the mother takes precedence. When politicians are against the “life of the mother exemption it is not to force woman to continue an at risk pregnacy but to force medical for a child taken prematurely.
Now I’m thinking about this what’s becoming commen now in some of the quiverful cults like Doug Phillips is the idea that ectopic preganacy should not be terminated. Which is just wrong. But the phrase “life of the mother” prior to the cultic misinterpertation was about later term preganicies with blood pressure are eclampsia issues. So you’d have to get clarification from the politician – is he/she really about putting the mothers life in danger for ectopic preg or is it someone who wants to save both the mother and baby where possible.
I believe Republican politicians are just as disingenuous about abortion as Democratic politicians are about civil rights. The idea is to publicly oppose abortion, guaranteeing the evangelical vote, and then proceed to do absolutely nothing useful to curtail it. This way it remains a perpetual plank in the Republican platform, thereby ensuring evangelical votes in perpetuity.
Here’s the math: Abortion matters to us, and our votes matter to them. As long as they publicly oppose abortion, but abortion law never changes, they own us. And they know it. And deep down we know it too. Oh, Christians often line up with other items on the Republican agenda, but most of those things matter far less to us than abortion. Were we ever to set those other things aside, and be tempted to vote the other way, all they have to do is wave their National Right to Life membership card in our faces, and we must fall in line.
Politicians don’t just get a National Right to Life card for just stating opposition to abortion. They have to back up the statement with actions by voting prolife at every opportunity. The setbacks in abortion policy have happened in the courts.
It was just a figure of speech.
All the more reason to examine the positions of parties and candidates thoroughly before deciding to vote. For me, the key this year is who is hawking ‘cutting the corporate taxes’. And I’m not talking about the REAL small business people, either.
Under the veil of ‘aren’t we holy and family-oriented’ is, not so successfully hidden, some of the worst shenanigans imaginable to do with wealth-care. Both parties have played games to the point where it takes a lot of digging to come up with what is really going on.
‘Wedge issues’?
I recommend doing your homework.
Our soldiers in the field risk their lives for our freedom in this country, AND the least we can do is be responsible citizens and wise up to the cons out there.
As far as some of the wackos and their ‘Second Ammendment’ solutions? So it’s ‘if we don’t get our way at the ballot box’ then we take our government back another way?
Please, don’t get me started.
Don’t be messin’ with the Second Amendment L’s.
If it were not for the Second Amendment, the Vandals and Visigoths would have already stolen you from your husband, burned your house, ate your dog and hanged your cat.
The First and Second Amendments are bedrock to the way of life you have enjoyed all the long, long, long, long days you have been on this earth. 🙂
Bess, the ones I am referring to are the politicians who are new to the ‘game’ and think their hand is strengthened with the base when they state that they are ‘against all abortion for ANY reason PERIOD’.
It is not too difficult to see right through them.
There are definately some wackos, but I think we are also seeing some much needed purging of the fake prolifers. I suspect some of those pols may make exceptions for a nonviable pregancy but I know some would not.
I doubt they really care, or they wouldn’t have made that statement in the first place.
They are after votes, Bess.
All politicians are after votes. The political fact is that the abortion exemption for the “the life of the mother” really had nothing to do with saving the mother’s life but denying medical care to the baby. There are ways to find out whether a pol is truly prolife and what exactly is meant by no exemption for the life of the mother. I’m assuming no one in this community thinks you should save the life of the mother and ignore the life of the child for sake of convenience.
Let us never forget the campaign Obama went on in the Illinois legislature to deny medical care to born alive aborted babies in late term. The Oaklawn Hospital was letting them die in a soiled linen closet. And Obama was lobbying against those that wanted to say that they must be given medical treatment.
the same guy that wants to take over your health care needs.
Heinous is not a strong enough word. The point I was attempting to get across here is that the exemption for the life if the mother has not and pretty much mostly is not about the mother but about the baby not being saved. I’m afraid a lot of people are telling themselves it doesn’t matter where a politician stands on life issues cuz they all lie in an attempt to justify voting for proabortion candidates.
Lydia,
You are such a hate mongerin’ fundy to say that about the Obamassiah. You must be a racist. (/sarcasm)
I preached yesterday as well and left politics out. I think Christians need to engage culture through voting and hoping to limit evil and promote good in society, but we can never forget that it is the gospel of Christ that will truly change people.
I wrote a series on this at my blog http://www.studyyourbibleonline.com/random
what Wesley said.
Currently we are suffering under the “Tierney of the Two Party System” This was not the intent of the Founding Fathers! Ever wonder why we have only two parties? This came about due to the consolidation of political power during the so called reconstruction that following the Civil War under the 17th amendment that radically shifted power from the States to Washington and the two national parties.
Following the passing of the 17th amendment; the U.S. Senate, originally intended to represent the voice of the State governments, became the voice of the two parties. Thereby disenfranchising the States and nationalizing each and every Senate race. From that time forward the vast majority of our (or should I say their) Senators have been bought and paid for by one or the other of the two parties from which they receive the majority of their financial support. True campaign finance reform would ban all contributions from outside one’s own district or state, but that would mean no money or influence from the national parties… don’t hold your breath on that one.
The answer is to repeal the unconstitutional 17th amendment…
http://gritsgrace.blogspot.com/2010/11/tierney-of-two-party-system.html#links
Grace Always,
Greg,
I thought the only “Tierney” was Jean Tierney who played opposite Humphrey Bogart in “The Left Hand Of God.”
I always thought she played a pretty good part, especially since she played Anna “Scott.”
C.B., get out of that Halloween candy NOW.
Do you remember Jean Tierney L’s? 🙂
Unfortunately, I do. 🙁
But only on the late-night oldies movies. 🙂
Sorry L’s,
I just had to ask. You know me. 🙂
You’re forgiven.
I’m not sure I understand the reasoning behind the Tea Party push to get rid of the 17th Ammendment.
Here’s my problem:
The 17th Ammendment provides for the DIRECT election of Senators by the people of that state.
The result of getting rid of the 17the Ammendment would be to take away the direct voting power from the people and place it in the hands of the state legislature (correct me if I’m wrong here).
The Tea Party supports returning government TO THE PEOPLE.
So there’s a conflict in reasoning, isn’t there?
All I see is a redistribution of power, if the 17th is repealed. But it is taking the direct vote for Senator AWAY from the people and handing that power over to a legislature. Hmmmmm . . . . doesn’t sound right
I’m not sure its accurate to say that there is a “Tea Party push to get rid of the 17th Amendment.” It might be more correct to say that there are some among the Tea Party who are advocating the 17th Amendment be repealed.
That said, I’m not sure I see how the State Legislatures are going to do that much of a better job than the people in electing Senators.
I read the links and it seems to be just a few people. But that will get press and then some pick up on it and will paint the entire tea party as being behind it. Remember all this stuff always gets a big push the week before election day.
The other side (Conway) has Rand Paul tying up young girls and forcing them to worship idols.
L’s,
I say repeal all you want as long you you never repeal the Second Amendment. If you repeal the Second Amendment two things will occur.
1. All the other Amendments. including the 17th will be meaningless and soon done taken away.
2. Alabama will become an independent nation. 🙂
And that is “sure ’nuff and done the truth” Dear Lady.
I’m not in favor of repealing the 17th Ammendment.
I like to see the people entrusted to elect their own state senators.
If David is right, and only some tea party-ers are wanting to destroy democracy with the repeal of the 17th, then they should be tossed out of the Tea Party for betraying a ‘grass-roots’ movement.
wait a minute . . . maybe the Tea Party is not a grass-roots movement after-all . . . . ?????
stranger and stranger this gets, WHAT is going on ?
The repeal of the 17th is in part in how Senators are elected. Senators are on the ballot for the whole state. So an urban area has more of a voice in a state than a rural area or vice versa. Which means that you get Senator who may not be representative of the whole state. By allowing State legislatures to appoint Senators a Senator has to be accepted by represenatives elected by many diverse constituenties. So in theory you would get probably more moderate Senators who have appeal to a broad range of idealogies.
Bess, Well said…
The Founding Fathers of this nation designed checks and balances into our “Republic” at every level… that were intended to restrict the consolidation of two much power in one branch of government or at one level of government. One of those checks was the Senate, who’s purpose was to be the voice of the State Governments and not the voice of one Political Party.
Today we see the wisdom of their design… and the folly of allowing the power of the Federal Government and the political parties to grow unchecked.
And by the way the President is NOT elected by popular vote, and never has been. He is elected by representatives… we call them “The Electoral College”.
But in order to accomplish the agendas of those who wish to repeal the 17th,
you have to remove government even further ‘away from the people’ by disabling the popular vote for Senators from each state.
A paradox indeed
Is any agenda worth taking the popular vote away from the people? Saying that others know better than the people may be one argument, but I don’t think the public is going to want a government that doesn’t trust them.
You elect the people who choose the Senators. The power is closer because the people you elect to State legeslatutrs live closer to you and they represent far fewer people thus you have more access and can participate and have your voice heard more. Elected officials who are closer are easier to hold accountable. It’s been said somewhere esle here the US is a Republic not a democracy. We elect people who speak for us. The closer you are to your elected representative the more power.
“You elect the people who choose the Senators.”
That’s still ‘removing’ the direct decision from the voter.
Electing someone to vote in your place does NOT guarantee that they would vote as you would vote.
Not these days.
The way it’s supposed to work is that you get to fire the people who don’t do what you want. As it stands right now is that if you’re a conservative in places like NY or Cal you never have a voice in Senatorial elections.
Bess,
“You elect the people who choose the Senators.”
That’s still ‘removing’ the direct decision from the voter.
No Bess… what you remove is the “Big Out of State Money”.
Look what “Big Out of State Money” just did in Nevada for Harry Reid. Do you think the Millions of Dollars spent to get this guy reelected came from the people of Nevada?
The above comment should be addressed to Christiane… sorry about that Bess 🙂
Greg,
Bingo.
Nice try, Christiane :o)
“I’m not sure I understand the reasoning behind the Tea Party push to get rid of the 17th Ammendment.”
Where have you been hearing about this?
“And by the way the President is NOT elected by popular vote, and never has been. He is elected by representatives… we call them “The Electoral College”.”
If we did not then Los Angeles, NY, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, etc would elect every president.
Right, now extroplate why we don’t allow NY and LA the power to elect the President and you get the argument as to why the 17th should be repealed. Some people in some states never have a voice in who their Senators are which means their Senators may not be representing their interest ir the interest of the entire state.
Good point but again, my state overwhelmingly elects democrats to the the state legislature but republicans as Senators. It would be horrible for them to be able to decide our Senator. Horrible for people in other states, too.
Strange, huh?
I think two things happen 1) people don’t pay as close attention to the state races – you see some those people hi unopposed and/or 2) the party may not matter as much as that level. Which may not make sense if you’re state is active in passing anti-abortion laws or if you have a heavy union state.
The problem with states legislatures having more power is you get those states like IL. where it’s absolutely corrupt.
The reasoning seems to be the issue of States Rights. Anyway, that is what I think it is. To go back to having State Legislatures appoint two Senators to represent each state.
The argument is that the United States is a Republic rather than a Democracy.
My guess is that it’s a question of how much power should be concentrated in the hands of a few.
L’s,
Therein may well be the problem over an extended period of time. If government is in the hands of a righteous king, life may be wholesome for all. If government is in the hands of a tyrant, life becomes a burden for the majority.
The argument for repeal is that it brings power back to the States and out of the big money and special intersts which currently control who gets elected to the Senate. The closer the votes to the people the more power the people have. So the theory is that when those who are closest to the people ie State legislatures have more power than the people have more power.
Nice post, thanks.
great, well-thought-out post. thanks for sharing.
Before the 17th was in force the few states that existed had different procedures and different times for conventions for electing senators. That coupled with corrupt influence there were occasions when states didn’t even have a senator to perform their job. Kind of like a Hate Crime that the local government couldn;t find the wherewithall to prosecute so the feds took it over. Direct election of senators was seen as an improvement- the electoral college accepted. Who ever has the mo – goes to the show.
It’s going to be an interesting evening. I just saw exit polls and people are VERY ANGRY at both parties. I think I’ll fix a party platter, pop some pop corn, and stay up tonight with my husband and watch the results.
Hope everyone voted or is on the way to vote.
L’s,
I am going to venture a personal question. Most American Armed Forces folks are rather conservative. Your husband in a career Navy guy if I am not mistaken.
If you watch the returns with him, will it be from opposite sides of the den? 🙂
Nope
🙂
I’m really hoping the bad guys take some heavy, heavy losses and that many Conservative, anti-hate crime legislation, anti-Obamacare, anti-abortion candidates are elected. The thought of liberal voters feeling sadness as good, honest Americans take the country back brings a happy smile to my face.
In 2008, President Oh_Blah_Blah said “Yes, we can”. I’m hoping tonight he and the rest of the bad guys here America say “Oh no you dit’nt”.
I wished I could see your smiling face.
Joe, There are conservatives who are in favor of some of those things you mentioned.
It seems that, with the Tea Party slowly replacing the Bush era Republican party, the issue of abortion has been put on the back burner, if it is even a factor any more at all. If you look at the “social issues” that the Republicans used to draw the evangelical right into the party in the first place, virtually nothing has been accomplished on any of them and the Republicans have had a Congressional majority for most of the time since then.
Gang membership I read is up 25% and that includes huge problems in Chicago where citizens right to own firearms has been restored and Los Angeles who has a major problem and the NRA I hear has their eyes on them as they are covered by the same Constitution. The politicians have been avoiding any confrontation not knowing how to handle the problem which is bigger than their police departments. Two wins in the Supreme Court has caused them to take notice.
I apologize for re-visiting the issue of abortion, but I would be interested in the opinions of several of the pastors or theologians regarding birth control. I have never personally heard the issue addressed from the pulpit, I have heard the issue of abortion addressed from the pulpit. Apparently some of the favored birth control pills, not the “morning after” pill, actually cause abortion to occur after the ovum has been fertilized. You can Google AAPLOG for more of the medical-technical information.
I believe this may be the reason the Roman Catholic church objects to birth control pills. I may be incorrect on the RCC reasoning but it seems to align with their belief system.
Anyway, do you teach/preach or hold personal feelings against against birth control pills? I hope this question is not too out-of-line for this thread. Maybe it is a politically too hot to handle?
Jay, a few years ago it was brought up that the SBC health care plan would not cover birth control pills but did cover viagra. Does that give you a hint?
There is a lot of propaganda being put out by the Quiverful cults regarding BC. Birth Control pills today are medically defined as anti ovulant. Years ago aborticificient BC was commen. A lot of doctors would not prescribe those. The science is much more advanced. The RC are similar to Quiverful cults in the belief that nothing should be done to control fertility.
Bess,
“the Quiverful cults”???
I think the Bible says something like “Blessed (of God) is he who’s Quiver is full” (meaning, who’s house is filled with children).
I don’t think I would call anyone whom God calls “Blessed”, or those who promote what the Bible teaches on this issue, as being a “CULT”.
I hope that is just a “throw-away” comment by you and not something you truly believe.
Greg, there are those in the Quiverful movement are sincere and genuine in their beliefs. Then there are those who have gone past anything the Bible could possibly teach. Just as the Westboro Baptist Church has nothing to do with Baptists or Christianity, there are Quiverful cults sprouting up and they push dangerous propaganda such as a women with an ectopic preganacy should not end the pregancy to save her life. I think if you look up the definition of cult you will see that many in the Quiverful community fit that definition. Not all Quiverful are cults but there are definately cults within the quiverful community.
Greg:
Old Covenant: Be fruitful and multiply
New Covenant: Go and make disciples
If quiverfull was the focus on the NC, then Paul would not have said what he said about marriage, singleness, etc.
Well and who defines fruitful? When Joseph had his second son he declared himself fruitful. If I have three kids and they each have three kids and on and on – that’s fruitful. It’s amazing to me some of these Quiverful blogs you’ll have stories on how the family prayed and waited for the Lord on whether to buy a new blender but they don’t believe God can guide them in family planning???
Bess,
“family planning?” Has long been used by the Liberals as code for “Pro Abortion”…
Now, I don’t know you from “Adams House-cat”. But your use of the word cults to define conservative Christians who do not approve of any form of contraceptive birth control, and your use of the phrase “family planning” to try and defend those who do not consider children as a blessing from God, probably tells me all I need to know…
I am glad my mother loved me before I was even conceived… and I am saddened to think of all those millions of children who were denied their right to life by a mother who thought herself wiser than God.
No Greg Alford you don’t know me from Adam’s cat and you also don’t seem to know much about Quiverful Cults. Let’s assume that your statements tell me all I need to know about you.
1. You believe women should not have the right to vote.
2. Women like me and the ladies posting on here tonight shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet and certainly should not be commenting with strange men
3. You believe there are certain colors that women should never wear and that women should always wear ankle length skirts and dresses with long sleeves at all. Women should show no skin.
4. You believe that women should cover their hair in public. Snoods are quite fashionsble.
5. You believe that the only acceptable church is a home church where the elders will determine your eligiabilty for membership by such things as how the women in your family dress, by how much organic products your wife produces and uses, is your wife handy with sewing and does your remain absolutely quiet when in the prescence of men
6. You Greg Alford believe the little woman’s purpose as your helpmeet is to run your bath, bathe you and then massge your stinky feet.
7. When it comes time for the little woman to pop out the fruit of your loins she must (are you lose membership in your house church) she must give birth at home with maybe the help of the older daughters are other women of the house church.
To be continued and believe me there’s a whole lot more involved in the quiverful movement.
But let me tell you Greg Alford what you have never done that I have. I gave birth to three beautiful babies. Each pregnacy was literally a hell and never did I ever in the worst of those times did I consider anything but that I would give my life for those precious lives. Fortunately, for me and my three precious children their father is a real man of God and after the third preganacy he decided and we decided that God had completed our family. That’s what family planning and if I’d been married to a quiverful husband I. WOULD. BE. DEAD.
Bess,
Like I said… your comments tell me all that I need to know about you.
“Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks”… Your anger at God and those who actually love, believe, and live his Word is quite evident… and quite extreme.
Since you brought up house churches… may I simply ask what church and denomination you belong to? I am guessing you are not Southern Baptist?
Greg Alford, your resorting to the ad homiem shows your absolutely cluelessness about Quiverful quotes.
Let me try again again and you make an attempt at reading comprehension. Here’s an important point I made that you missed – not at all quiverful followers are participating in cults. But there are dangerous quiverful cults which have zero respect for women and girls. I’ve given a few of their practices which you seem to be hunky dory with. These a whole lot more. I’ll list and be sure to let it be known that you think those practices of Biblical.
I was Baptist born and Baptist bred a d when I die I’ll be Baptist dead. I’m also a complementarian. I’ve spent weekends protesting outside the local abortion clinic.
Greg Alford I can tell you right now you know zero about me if you think some fool on the Internet can make me angry. but please continue your foolishness cuz there are others posting on this site that know exactly the dangers of quiverful cults. Go ahead defend in some more and show your ignorance.
Greg Alford, my husband has adviced me to leave a fool to his folly and being the submissive wife that I am I will submit.
It truly is a sick poor excuse of a man who would defend such abuses of women and girls as our happening in the quiverful cults.
Anyone who wants to research further can go the No Longer Quivering blog where there are many wives and daughters who have escaped these cults and share their stories.
Good Night Bess… and tell your Husband that I think he has given you some wise advise.
Actually I did not intend to offend you, or inflame your passions quite as much as I have obviously done. Forgive me for doing so… and be at peace, we are actually not that far apart in what we believe.
I admit to being quite ignorant of the Quiverfull Cults you speak of… But I do know that the two most Godly women I have ever known both had 10 & 12 Children each… They were my Grandmothers and my Baptist Grandfathers were not part of any Quiverfull Cult.
Blessings,
Hi BESS,
Your comment: “The RC are similar to Quiverful cults in the belief that nothing should be done to control fertility.”
I would say that is not accurate. From what I know of Quiverful beliefs, they are very cultic. I don’t think they are from a tradition of respect for the dignity of the human person, or from a tradition of respect for natural law.
Abstinence is NOT a quiverful value, in cases where a woman’s health has been compromised.
In the Catholic concept of respect for life, taking into account the reality of the health of a woman is a moral obligation.
That would apply when a married couple faces the question of whether or not to abstain from marital relations, because to go through a pregnancy would harm the mother’s health or lead to her death.
And, for a Catholic couple, there are many, many other considerations that involve all of the following factors:
the reality of their situation, the teachings of the Church, and their own enlightened consciences before the Lord.
These three considerations are personal to them as a couple united together by the sacrament of holy matrimony, and they are bound to examine these considerations honestly.
In the end, they must follow their consciences.
From my understanding, ‘quiverful’ does not have the same morality at all. So your comparison of ‘quiverful’ and the ‘RC’ as you call it, is not accurate.
Sorry Christiane, I did not mean to imply that the Quiverful Cults and the Catholic Church were alike in any way. I was trying to reply to the question as to why the RC has teachings against BC. It’s my understanding the RC is against all forms of BC except the Rythem method. But certainly the RC teachings are not anti woman as are those of many in the Quiverful Cults. It’s stomach turning when you read of the abuses against women in those situations.
Bess, I understand.
The concept of the ‘natural law’ is not one that is understood by many outside of my own Church, or at least, certainly not in the way that we understand it.
Also the concept of ‘the dignity of the human person’ is absolutely not understood in the same way as my Church sees it.
There is in ‘quiverful’ an absence of those two moral concepts, as developed in my Church, from what I have been able to learn. I think that the dignity of women has been suppressed in the ‘quiverful’ movement, in the light of those two great moral teachings.
Christiane, I think everyone who calls themselves prolife must respect th e Catholic Church’s consistent stance regarding the Sanctity of Human Life from the Petrie dish through to a life’s natural end.
“I think everyone who calls themselves prolife must respect th e Catholic Church’s consistent stance regarding the Sanctity of Human Life from the Petrie dish through to a life’s natural end.”
Bess, On this I greatly agree. The RCC has been “Stand-up Guys” on Sanctity of Human Life.
They stood strong long before the SBC.
C.B., we know that the early Christians respected life in a way that contrasted greatly from the surrounding civilizations of that time.
Here are some references:
Catholics believe that from the moment of conception until natural death, each human being is endowed by God with dignity and rights.
You shall not kill. (Ex 20:13; cf. Deut 5:17)
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. (Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11)
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. (Ps 139:15)
Early Church writings: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. (Didache 2, 2: SCh 248, 148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19, 5: PG 2, 777; Ad Diognetum 5, 6: PG 2, 1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9: PL 1, 319-320)
Where evangelicals and Catholics depart from the teaching of my Church is that our Church does not approve of the death penalty (if at all possible another way can provide for the containment of the guilty party and the protection of innocent people from him/her).
The reason: in the time remaining in the natural life of that guilty person, he/she may come to repent and to ask God’s forgiveness. If that opportunity is denied to them by the death penalty, then the guilty person may not be able to return to the Lord.
L’s,
I knew those things. Therein lies the substance of my comment to Bess.
Yet, to say the RCC or all Catholics would not be for the death penalty is a misstatement. History will not support that statement.
Also, I have been “involved” with Catholics in many places who have no problem with putting someone to death and that includes a great number of Priests in the PI.
There are also a lot of Evangelicals who are against the death penalty.
Of course, anyone who is against the death penalty is wrong, be he or she: Catholic, Protestant, Baptist or Infidel.
Hi C.B.
The thinking of my Church on the death penalty is complex.
To understand it, it must be examined in context.
Here is the catechism teaching:
“2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” “
Believe it or not L’s,
I am “pretty up” on Catholic Theology. (Long story, not for blog consumption 🙂 ).
I am also pretty up on the way many Catholic folks think and the “actions” their thinking has produced on this globe.
Well, C.B.
Put those Chick tracts away. 🙂
If you need to check on anything specific for your own information, just Google ‘Vatican catechism’.
Or you can ask me. Happy to help.
I knew you didn’t know a whole lot back when you offered to come with Vol and speak at our Church. I realized right then that you don’t know how we pray there.
It’s not your fault. It’s those darned Chick tracts. 🙂
L’s,
I am familiar with Chick Tracts. But I was dealing with Catholic folks long before I knew anything about any kind of Tract, Chick or otherwise. 🙂
That is how I came to be able to catch those little glimmers of Liberation Theology from time-to-time? And I guess that’s about I need to say about that, because I don’t want to fight with you today L’s. Or tomorrow either, if I can help it. 🙂
So let’s just say, I say Bravo on the RCC stand on the Sanctity of Human life relating to the unborn and beyond.
L’s,
Those comments Vol and I made about coming to your church to preach were jokes. We were raggin’ on you and you know it. Don’t use that. Because the truth is, you really don’t know what I know about Catholic Theology and more than that, how I know it.
Bess, thanks, and check out the quote below from APPLOG below, concerning the “third” mechanism of some birth control pills. As someone stated here “from conception till death” we are persons, then shouldn’t we hear more from the pulpit regarding the “possible” effects that I never knew about until recently, i.e. abortion after conception.
Jay Turner, Current BCP are antiovulants which means that the egg is never released. The hormones involved in the releasing of the egg and the shedding of the uterus are two different hormones at different levels. The science us pretty clear in that if an egg were to “breakthrough” that are not enough of the hormone necessary to shed the lining thus you actually have women who get pregnant while on the pill. Miscarriages are incrediable commen at least one in four pregnacies and many scientist believe that it could actually be a 75% miscarriage rate. So when you hear stories of ” I was on the pill and miscarried because of it” there is really no way to know but odds are pretty great as 99.9999 that it wasn’t the pill. It’s fine that people don’t want to take the infimitisalmal risk but understand that many of the opponents against BCP have other agendas and are likely advocating that “real Christians” wouldn’t use any form of BC even if the life of the mother is at risk as in an ectopic pregancy.
Make that “feelings about the “use” of the pill not the pill itself”. Sorry.
I’ll say at least generically that if the birth control pill does not abort an already fertilized egg it’s ok, but if it aborts a fertilized egg it’s not. As a general rule, I am not against birth control methods because I can find no such prohibitions in the Scriptures. Some may bring up the two sons of Judah who were killed for their actions, but that was because they refused to raise up seed to their brother. But when conception takes place you are now dealing with a human being and therefore that pregnancy should not be aborted at any stage of development.
Hi JOHN WYLIE,
‘But when conception takes place you are now dealing with a human being and therefore that pregnancy should not be aborted at any stage of development.’
There are moral exceptions to your statement.
If the life of a pregnant woman is threatened and she requires surgery to save her life, such as cases of uterine cancer or ectopic pregnancy;
then the life of the fetus may be terminated,
but the moral point is that the death of the fetus was not the primary reason for the surgery.
That is a moral teaching that is tied in with ‘the dignity of the human person’ and ‘the natural law’.
Um, I guess you missed the part where abortion is not legal only in cases where the mother’s life is in jeopardy. People find out that “Aw dang, I’m preggers and that sorry man done left me” or “Aw shoot, I done got her preggers and she’s gonna make me pay child support” or “Aw crap, we can’t afford another kid” and use that as an excuse to murder an innocent child.
Also, what does “the dignity of the human being” require for suvivors of botched abortions–you know, the ones Obama voted to be denied medical care?
Hi Christiane,
I agree with you about saving the life of the mother. I agree if a pregnancy is not viable and is life threatening to the mother, as in the case of a tubal pregnancy, it is acceptable to abort the pregnancy. But, whether we are talking about bc pills or procedures that end the life of the unborn who are viable simply because they are unwanted, that is morally reprehensible.
Also, just wanted let you know I really appreciate the spirit in which you present your arguments. Why do some on this blog call you L’s?
Hi JOHN WYLIE,
I’m L’s because:
about three years ago, I saw the Westboro Baptist Church on t.v. and I was very shocked by them.
My maternal grandmother, of blessed memory, had been a Southern Baptist. Now I wanted to make sure that Westboro was nothing like the Southern Baptists, so I came looking to find out and found Wade Burleson’s blog. I was called L’s Gran for L’s Grand-daughter for a time, as my grandmother’s Christian name was ‘Lucy’. Then, it was shortened to ‘L’s” and so it has remained.
When ‘anonymous’ ended on Wade’s blog, I logged in as Christiane. Christiane is a French form of Christine, and my father’s family is French-Canadian.
Well, that’s the story. 🙂
“….my father’s family is French-Canadian.”
Which means- “mey dad-die folk id de Cajun”
Whe mey dad-die wa 4 or 3 yer ode, he singa Jolie Blon, like dis:
“L’sie Blon, L’sie Blon L’s Blon, ma chere ‘tit fille
Gardez donc quoi t’aprés faire
Joli Blon, tu croyais
Il avait juste toi dedans le payle
Eh a ha! Eh a ha!
L’sie Blon ma ‘tit fille criminelle
L’sie Blon, tu m’as laisse moi tout seul”
Soe, whe mey dad-die have a bab-bie grl, hey nam her, L’sie Blon.
Mey rel nam id L’sie Blon Brussard. I short et to de L’s for de blog nam.
Only cb knew I was a Cajun girl. Now you do to. En dat de truf.
C.B., wrong end of the Mississippi . . . Pop’s family is from Quebec City, Montreal, and St. Armand. Not a Cajun in the wood pile.
Have you ever been to the ‘Paris of the North’?
Montreal is a gorgeous city. And the food? To die for.
But L’s,
You have to admit, it was a beautiful story and “dat de truff, right? 🙂
LOL
Okay, points for ‘imaginative’ writing . . . 🙂
How can one know that the action of taking the birth control pill did not cause an abortion, however remote the possibility. Is that kind of like having several people take aim at the condemmed, but only one has real bullets? I don’t know the answer, I’m just asking. I had never even considered the possibility until recently. I was shocked to find out that there is the real possibility of killing post-conception via BCP. Shouldn’t we pursue as agressively this cause as much as the dilitation and curretage mehtod of abortion?
Thanks again.
There was a group of early Christians in Rome who spent their nights in boats beneath the bridges of the city with nets fishing babies out of the water where the midwives of the rich would discard the unwanted.
I guess “Family Planning” has been around for a long time, it’s just that today we discard our unwanted with a little pink pill. However, regardless of the method used to discard the unwanted the result for the child is still the same.
If I may submit a quote from the APPLOG website:
The fact that the hormonal contraceptives have an abortive potential is discussed in the paper circulated at AAPLOG’s 1998 midwinter meeting. “Most (virtually all) literature dealing with hormonal contraception ascribes a three-fold action to these agents. 1. inhibition of ovulation, 2. inhibition of sperm transport, and 3. production of a “hostile endometrium”, which presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby if the first two mechanisms fail. The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third proposed mechanism, IF it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient.”
A certain small percentage are in fact aborted as a result of some BCP’s.
So as a pastor do you preach against abortion? Do you preach against Birth Control Pills. If not why not?
Oh, and thank you Christiane for the excellent references and explanation. Much appreciated. Definately.
Pesonally I preach against abortion in general, and that would include any BC pills that have the potential to abort fertilized eggs.
Thank you John. My next question will be to the prescribing physician if he is aware of this situation:shadow abortion. I suspect that many are not aware of the risks or incidence of BCP induced abortion
Being realistic about taking on the responsibility of parenthood is NOT against Christian values.
If a non-Catholic is wanting to consider birth-control, the BEST thing to do is consult a doctor. All the ‘mis-information’ out there can interfere with the RESPONSIBILITY married people have to live in the real world, honestly, with sound medical advice and treatment. To buy into all of the mis-information currently out there, is not responsible adult behavior worthy of Christian married people.
Some decisions belong solely to a HUSBAND and a WIFE, with the attending advice of their medical physicians.
BDW,
I meant to ask you, did your father in law win his election? Just curious.