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.
