wrote. I have the first half done and would like some opinions. I am currently working on the second half
which is the response that I believe the church should take. BUT I would really appreciate some feedback as I bring it all together and turn it in tomorrow. So PLEASE comment or fbook me your response.
So much of the research that I have done ends with books calling for the strict integration of biblical standards in all Americans lives through Law. I have a serious problem with this. While we were a nation founded on Christian morals we were also a nation founded on freedom. When freedom and Christian morals are put up to each other freedom wins out. We cannot integrate beliefs into people’s lives when we put laws and regulations in place that allows freedom to ring. Now I do recognize that allowing “freedom to ring” for the founding fathers meant they could find freedom in practicing whichever view of Christian morality they saw fit. This view has changed severely with the change in the multitude of moralities available. Allowing “freedom to ring” now involves individuals to proclaim and live out whichever view of morality they see fit. Under this current view of freedom strictly integrating Christian morals into law projects the rejection of freedom. While the freedoms that are allowing abortion, gay marriage and other sinful acts are against Christian morals they should not be viewed as persecution. They are simply the corrupted side of a good thing. Secular freedom is the flipside of Christian based freedom. Living in the fallen world there are corrupted sides to most everything. Until the laws are forcing people to sin or for people to act in hatred towards Christians they cannot be viewed as persecution. While life would be easier for the Christian individual if the nation was strictly integrated with Christian laws, is that living the Christian life? Running away from legal persecution is not fulfilling the call of “going into all the world.” Sometimes going into all the world means staying where you are.
Strict integration also gives the nuance that Christians do not tolerate sinful people. The issue with that statement is that a lot of the time it is true. This creates the issue that implementing strict integration, which is the problem of Christians hating the sinful person and not the sinful act. Politics and the issue of separation of church and state is a very personal battle. Attacking the moral code of an individual or people group goes beyond legal formalities and straight to the heart. Attacking the person does not love the enemy. Loving the enemy looks like loving the person through their struggles and past. Thus strict integration goes against the freedoms that have been instituted and the call to love even our enemies.
If strict integration is not the appropriate response for the church than maybe we should just back off. Maybe we should remove our political voice. Is strict separation the answer? I really only have one problem with strict separation and it is this: you cannot separate your moral code from your political position. Politics is just the fleshing out of one’s moral code. The Law and its system for Israel was the means by which they functioned in the moral code God set before them. However one believes they should live is the code by which they vote. So in all actuality strict separation is just strict integration of secular morals and programming. Thus we cannot simply choose strict separation or else we are choosing to live under a secular moral code. While it is not right to forsake religious freedoms and enforce Christian code it is also not right to forsake the moral code by which we are called to live.
I completely agree with your view on how we, as the Church, have come to be portrayed as "people who hate sinners, rather then people who hate the sin." The way we have gone about trying to change the politics has come off way to strong and instead of doing any good it has made Christians in America look like we are hating ignorant hypocrites. So as far as maybe stepping a few steps back and not protesting, we should love the people who continue to sin because they think it is their right in their freedoms. Which leads to the idea of America's freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe United States has always been a nation freedom. Therefore our laws have always mirrored this view. For example, separation of church and state was originally to protect the Church from the government getting involved in our views. Now, that law has completely changed and that it tries to protect the government and the nation's "freedoms" from church affairs. Why is that? It is because we have allowed ourselves to combine our beliefs and our views on politics to a point that we can no longer tell the difference from each other. Instead of understanding the culture and loving the people in it, we have conformed to it.
So instead of us taking a stand on each of the extremes of being seen as "Conservatives" we should take a few steps away. Now this does not mean that we should all head the opposite route and become "Liberals," because again that is conforming to the government standards rather than the Christian view. The Bible always speaks of what we should do through circumstances and that is how we find the way we should live. The Bible is not in the black or the white, it tells us to be in the grey. Its always telling us to do the thing that seems most unlikely in our world. So what does that mean? It means we should live in the way our God has called us, to love our enemies, but not allow ourselves to forsake the ways of our God. As in the words of Shane Claiborne, we are called to be ordinary, yet also called to be radical.
A quote i heard last week. "stop expecting lost people to not act lost"
ReplyDelete