In a transparent attempt to keep up with The Democratic People's Republic, I will offer my own book recommendation and tip my hat to Mr. Philip Yancey for his book “What's So Amazing About Grace?” This is the only time I will mention the book by name, since I do not wish to put punctuation after the title of the book, even though I think it goes there.
Anyway, of the many interesting things about this book, one part is full of ponderings about the application of grace to the world of politics - a dangerous topic if there ever was one.
In the book, Phil Yancey talks about a column he once wrote called 'Why Clinton Isn't the Antichrist.' I have come to the conclusion that it's a bad thing that I consider this a provocative title. This seems like a self-evident statement, and yet that's not the kind of thing you want to go around saying aloud in some circles. If pressed, I think even the GOP leadership would admit that Bill Clinton is not, in all actuality, the Antichrist, but for many people that would be the extent of compliments they would give him.
I am increasingly convinced that the social and economic policies of Leftists are damaging and indeed dangerous to this nation and the world as a whole. However, I am not convinced of this by diatribes on the moral failings of Democratic politicians. Bad policy is bad policy.
Bill Clinton had a number of opportunities to sign legislation that would have ended partial birth abortion in this country. A combination of his own personal beliefs on the subject and the arithmetic of power politics (in a mixture that will probably never really be known) caused him to veto the bill each time. He was unfaithful to the vows of marriage he took before a holy God and then lied about it in a court of law and to the American people. To me, it seems like he did two things that would make me not want to live my life anymore. He could have saved babies and he didn't, and he betrayed his wife.
But shouldn't even Bill Clinton be able to come to a church today, any church that preaches the Gospel, and get “grace on tap,” as Phil Yancey puts it? Are we sacrificing truth by offering love to those who would do such harm to themselves and to others? Indeed, by offering love to someone who denied others the very right to live?
It is of utmost importance that someone speak out for the unborn, and I think it is a solemn duty for the Church to do so. The book essentially asks, 'Are we stuck between truth and grace?'
In a number of poignant scenes, Phil Yancey gives glimpses at radical love in a world of “ungrace.” I want to be like the nun at the Crisis Pregnancy Centers that gives the pro-abortion protesters coffee and donuts on cold days, or the church leaders in Russia that forgave former members of the KGB for razing their churches before the USSR dissolved. It is this very quality that separates the church of Jesus Christ from all other institutions ever created on this Earth. It is a powerful message about the one whom we serve.
So, what about the person who openly admits that he wants to nationally redistribute income, disband the military and is adamant that abortion remain legal forever? Is he my enemy? If so, then I'm flat out commanded to pray for him. Such a person probably doesn't have the greatest view of Christians anyway, so me serving up a nice ol' helping of judgment in his face is probably not going to help matters anyway. With a lot of stories and some tough questions, the book successfully makes this point:
The greatest arsenal the world has ever seen is the church equipped with weapons of mercy, waging a war of love on a world in desperate need of the grace offered by a holy God through Jesus Christ.
OFFICIAL HIFIDELITY RECOMMENDATION.
Seacrest out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
I read this book about three years ago, at LT in Orlando. It is a great read.
This post gave me much to think about, man. Thanks.
"I am increasingly convinced that the social and economic policies of Leftists are damaging and indeed dangerous to this nation and the world as a whole"
Dude~
Them are fight'n words. If I had to, I would put myself under a "leftist" category. I consider abortion horrible and am pro-life. I believe and support the Sanctity of marriage. I am against gay-marraige.
however, I also consider myself a Christian, and am really tired of hearing that Republican is the Christian party.
What about the death penatly? How many people have died with the death penatly under Bush as Gov. of Texas?
How many people die a year from breathing bad air?
How many people have died in a war that was supposebly over when Bush had the speech on the aircraft?
No need to defend these questions.
Neither side is perfect, is my point. The left has is problems. So does the right. But to say that one's is "dangerous to this nation and our world as a whole" and to imply that democrats or clinton may need more grace?
John Wesley said...
If you are drowing in the ocean and were screaming for help, would you rather be heard by a sinner who could swim or a Christian who couldn't?
Jeremiah
Jeremiah: If you don't believe the aforementioned statement ("I am increasingly convinced that the social and economic policies of Leftists are damaging and indeed dangerous to this nation and the world as a whole"), then the Left has done its job quite well in brainwashing you. That is what the Left does best, it brainwashes people into a mentality that hates and despises the Right. It tricks people into thinking that Republicans don't care about the environment when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Liberalism is a disease. I deal with hard-core leftists on a regular basis, and while I remain civil, they couldn't be more hateful or disgusting.
hmmm...
well, whoever you are, i really appologize that "leftists" are so hatefull. my only point, was, that a "leftist" can be Christians. I am sorry that these Democrats you speak of are so hateful and mean, but you might want to read your own words you just wrote. Geez. I didn't mean for this to get so dang ugly.
My bad.
Jeremiah
Jeremiah,
Just for clarification, would you consider yourself more a Democrate or a Leftist/Liberal?
From what I've heard from you, I see you more as a Democrat who has some liberal stances and some conservative stances. I see a Leftist as someone who is liberal in every facet.
-Matt
First, I removed the third comment because a whole article was cut and pasted as part of the article. I tried to search for the article so I could replace the removed comment with a link, but I couldn't find it. A link will suffice in the future. If everyone who read an interesting article followed suit, the comment section would soon grow unwieldly. Whoever authored that comment, please comment again with a link, it was worth reading.
Secondly, Jeremiah's comment raised some important questions, and I would like to rationally discuss these sometime.
It is disappointing to read the comments that followed Jeremiah's. They were ungracious, which is ironic. The fourth comment successfully raised zero thoughtful points and succeeded in sabotaging any hopes for a civil discussion.
But, the point of The Dude's post was not to begin a dialogue regarding the right vs. the left. There was no mention of the Republican Party being a Christian Party. The Dude only chose to illustrate the staggering scope of grace by way of his personal application of it towards people who, to him, are difficult to love. This is the only reason he mentioned the left at all. The left or the right is not the focus of this post. The focus of this post is the surpassing love of Jesus. We all would do well to take our sights from staring at the pebbles underfoot to gazing at the lofty peaks above.
I have taken liberty to speak to The Dude's intentions. If I misspoke, I hope The Dude will correct me.
We can definitely have a political discussion under an appropriate post later this week. I hope Jeremiah and the others will come back for that event, because I am interested in all of their perspectives. But let this post linger for awhile; there is much to consider regarding the character of God.
http://nypost.com/commentary/39187.htm
This is the link.
Yeah, it's easy for me, someone who deals with people on the Left (the vast majority of whom abhor Christians) all the time, to get pissed off when someone claims to be a Christian insinuates that those on the Right are more incorrect than those on the Left. I admittedly responded when I was angry, but I get angry when lies are told. Jeremiah, sorry, but I think you need to seriously educate yourself when it comes to knowing the hateful ways of the Left. Leftists hate God and are only out for their own good, and if that happens to include brutally murdering babies, then they think that is a-ok. I recommend Rush Limbaugh, who does a fair amount of show-boating but tells the truth like nobody’s business. The Left HATES him, because he tells the truth, just like they hate Christians for telling the truth.
And don’t rely on the liberal elite “mainstream” media to tell you what’s really going on in Iraq. They are full of $hit most of the time.
Also, I just came from another blog where around 10 liberals ganged up to bash Christians....to them, being against gay marriage is the equivalent of hating gays and wanting them to die.
Mark Says:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/dg20041023.shtml
Let it be known that Mark disagrees with the former article. Let it be known that Mark believes one can be both Christian, even Fundamentalist Christian and Liberal. Done.
Let it be known that I disagree with Mark....that Townhall article is pure genius.
To The_Dude and one_way,
I really honestly appreciate everything you have said after the original post. I think it's conversations like that, that show me that one can be a Democrat, Republican, Right or Left and and be a Christian. By all means, we each have a right to believe one way or another. I just don't think my way as God's way. I just hope to find His Truth and follow it to my best efforts.
Matt, to answer your question, I guess I would consider myself a "Democrat" or more to the "left". but really, i think its all semantics. I just get all rowwed up when i start to hear the "Democrats or Leftists are not Christians" point of view.
And whoever is posting anonymously, I shouldn't even be givng them this much of the time of day, but clearly they have shown they are by all means void of any rational conversation.
I consider it my fault that this post has taken a turn for the worst, and I will try not to stir the pot in the future.
But, consider me out for the political convo. later this week.
peace,
Jeremiah
Here is an article that represents my politics and the politics of evangelical Christians who are left leaning with regard to social issues, but still conservative on traditionally moral issues.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0502&article=050210
D. Teefey
Jeremiah...you've pulled the ultimate liberal move and personally insulted me by calling me void of being rational, when I clearly commented on why I was so angry. I am attacked by liberals ON A DAILY BASIS for my faith, and I am ALWAYS loving and compassionate towards them. You should really check out the Townhall article....
You apparently all seem to know each other around here so you'll defend each other to the nth degree, and even though you feel free to broadcast your views to MILLIONS across the world, you have no tolerance for anyone else to comment.
Pepperdeaf…as for your article…I stopped reading when I got to “choices of desperate women backed into difficult and dangerous corners” in reference to abortion. As if women who can’t keep their pants on are BACKED into corners…if they’re there, they put themselves there 99.99% of the time. Typical liberal jargon that doesn’t believe in personal responsibility.
From the news: "Terrorists used a disabled child as a suicide bomber on election day, Iraqi interior minister Falah al-Naqib said today.....Police at the scene of one the Baghdad blasts said the bomber appeared to have Down's syndrome."
Yeah, you're right, we should let these monsters get away with this crap. We should have left Iraq after Bush's speech on the aircraft carrier. I'm glad that I've been informed.
Mystery Person:
You read less than 1/2 of the article if you stopped at the above quote.
I once read 1/2 of the manual to a new remote controlled airplane that I bought. Needless to say, I only learned how the plane was to take off and not how to land it. Once it was in the air, I did not know what to do and it crashed.
I do not think it is fair to blame the manual for any shortcomings without having read the whole thing. . . or to stop at page 4 because it says that you should only fly the plane on a day without wind, when you do not agree.
I think the point he was trying to make is not that women who have abortions are not responsible for their actions, but that difficult circumstances often make them more susceptible to making that poor choice. For instance, the number one reason women choose to have an abortion is that they feel they are too poor to support the child or to pay for medical expenses leading up to adoption. Many more wealthy women naturally do not have to consider these things. Statistics show that there is a pretty strong relationship between the unemployment rate, percentage of people under the poverty line, etc. and the abortion rate. For instance, the abortion rate in the U.S. rose gradually through the Reagan, Bush Sr. years and then peaked and began to decline during the Clinton years. There are some indications that it may be rising again now. The argument is that if you help to alleviate some of the things that cause these women to choose abortion then you will curb the abortion rate. Focus on the things that lead to abortion instead of the abortion itself. Whether you agree or not, there is at least an argument there.
Please do not discount the article based upon one line that has very little to do with the overall point the author was trying to make. I do not care if you agree, but at least examine the arguments.
It seems like my earlier plea has effectively been ignored by every subsequent comment.
So, let's do this.
>>I am attacked by liberals ON A DAILY BASIS for my faith, and I am ALWAYS loving and compassionate towards them.<<
Who is this, Jesus posting anonymously? I don't know anyone else who can claim to always love those that attack them. And if you are attacked every day, then why is this blog getting you so riled up? Have you never heard concerns such as Jeremiah's before? Your reactions would suggest this is all new to you, that you were sitting there with grin on your face, when, KABOOM, someone had the temerity to question your worldview! OH NO!
Anonymous, I have an educated guess as to your identity, but even if I am wrong, it is obvious that you need to calm down. (I am assuming all the anonymous comments are from one person.) Everything you have been contributing to this section is dripping with unbridled emotion. Relax.
>>You apparently all seem to know each other around here so you'll defend each other to the nth degree, and even though you feel free to broadcast your views to MILLIONS across the world, you have no tolerance for anyone else to comment.<<
This really pisses me off (that is, after I get happy that MILLIONS are reading this blog, I get pissed). You have taken the liberty to comment repeatedly, and I only removed one of your comments for including an entire article cut-and-pasted. By far, I and The Dude have been tolerant of letting this comment section take its course, misguided and all.
I hereby serve notice: This blog does not recognize your rights, readers. This blog belongs to me. I am fully sharing it with The Dude. You have no free speech rights here. I will delete any comments that I feel are unedifying. I will censor comments with extreme prejudice. No one will hijack this blog and twist it into their personal crusade. I rule here. I am King Kong. Crash against me, and you will be broken.
I definitely got carried away. Where am I? Oh, yeah, HIFI. Fortunately, I want people to stir the pot, to challenge ideas thrown out, and to make me think. I will gladly take personal criticism. But, do not fool yourself into thinking you can comment with utter freedom. A non-exhaustive list of types of comments that will be bonged currently includes: too long, unrelated distractions, and crap. Any comments you leave are at our mercy to include.
I stopped reading, as your article was not some necessary manual, it was an opinion piece, and once I saw that ridiculous line I knew that the rest was not worth my time. Reading the rest of an article that contains that kind of trash isn’t the equivalent of landing an airplane by any means. Making victims out of women who murder their own children disgusts me.
I don’t FOR A SECOND buy your rhetoric about poor people and abortions. No thanks to social reforms in the 1960s, the current welfare system in our country REWARDS poor women for producing more children because their benefits go up with every kid they pop out (not to mention Medicaid and public housing benefits). Even if you were correct, women can still adopt out children rather than murder them and it won’t cost one red penny.
Also, I'd like to know where you get your information about money being the number one reason women have abortions. Probably from some pro-abortion group who wants people to believe the arguement you just made. I just googled that question and none of the sites I found named money as the number one reason, in fact, everything I found said that not being ready is the number one reason women murder their children.
So whether a woman just isn't ready or doesn't have the money to raise a child, that doesn't change the fact that adoption is a loving and CHEAP option.
Why women have abortions (none are good enough reasons to murder your child, by the way):
- Feels unready or not mature enough for responsibility 32%
- Feels she can't afford baby 21%
- Concern for how baby would change her life 16%
- Relationship problem 12%
- Has all the children she wants 8%
- Other reasons 4-5%
To oneway: the reason I am so bothered by what Jeremiah said was because it came from a person who was claiming to be a Christian. I get hated on daily by non-Christians, but I’m not used to it coming from someone using Christ’s name. I also find it extremely amusing that you think you know who I am, because I don’t know you or anyone else who has posted here (to my knowledge anyway). Can you please direct me to this “suspected” person’s blog, as I think I’d really enjoy his or her comments? Oh, my bad, you probably don’t want to “out” him or her, do you? And if you’re trying to go by IP address, I got your blog address from a co-worker, from another co-worker (the original person was very impressed with a particular post of yours and sent it on), so don’t be too quick to judge.
I forgot to say that "you win" oneway, I won't be visiting your holier than thou blog again. God bless.
Well, it appears I am wrong regarding this mystery person's identity. They truly remain anonymous. And, now, this person is gone like the wind.
I wonder if I am being a fool, but that does bother me, because this person felt that they were treated unjustly, and that is the reason they have signed off, permanent-style. I got no problem if someone dislikes the content, but I don't in any way wish to be unjust to anyone. Man.
Perhaps I handled this poorly. I freely admit that I cannot see where I misspoke. From my end, Jeremiah's post challenged my worldview in many ways, so I empathized with the mystery person. On paper, I bet this mystery person and I would agree on most issues.
I must also admit that I too allow myself to pass judgement on all liberals and call them much worse than brainwashed at times. But I am hoping to be transformed into a more grace-filled person. You see, my dad's a liberal, and while I've called him an idiot in my heart in the past, I've grown weary of not respecting him. I know pain because I don't know how to love my dad.
I am not holier than anyone. God is the only Holy One. I am a foolish man trying to cling to Christ. I anguished over this mystery person's comments because they reminded me of how I used to try to argue with my dad, with research and knowledge that I painstakingly found. The arguments were correct, but they did not change his heart. They did, however, push him away.
I would like anyone who read this to please comment as to how I screwed up. Was I wrong in perceiving the only attack came from the mystery person? That the mystery person was the biggest source of enmity?
There was a statement previously concerning abortion I want to address before moving on. Abortion is not a "personal responsibility" issue. I abhore arguments that say women need to give birth because it was their actions that got them there. Abortion is a LIFE issue. Whether the life is a result of intention, rape, or irresponsibility it does NOT change the fact that it is LIFE. Beginning with "Personal Responsibility" means abortion is only wrong if it is the woman's "fault". When you begin with LIFE and are not distracted by jargon and emotion, you realize that what is right is LIFE regardless of the circumstance.
We need to recognize that there are some issues that make you ask "What is right?", and some issues that make you ask, "What works?", and some that say "What do we value more?".
Abortion: what is right?
economic policy: what works?
gun rights: what do we value more?
Problems arise when we get into debates fueled by jargon and emotion, and fail to look at empirical evidence and the underlying values that we are trying to promote.
For example: I believe in helping the poor. (What is right?) However, I believe that government aid can create a dependancy on the state that is hard to break (What works?) Further, I would like to see power extend to the private sector, through "Aid vouchers", so that Christians can seek help from Christian centers of their own volition using the governments money. I support this because I do not trust the secular government to do what is right by religious organizations, and given the current "separation of church and state" mentality, I fear that the federal government is going to further inhibit a Christians ability to spread the gospel and love his neighbor. So, I do not want Christian organizations to have to bend to the governments will to get a grant. I don't like government involvement not because I don't want someone to get involved, but rather because I do not think they will do a good job because in my opinion governments are not concerned with what is right or what works, but what will get them elected. So in large I support the expansion of the private sector in matters of public aid and the diminishment of the government (What do we value more?)
Travis,
-All Canadians are guaranteed healthcare, provided by their fellow citizens, and objected to by relatively few of us-
Meanwhile, advancements in the health industry, new drugs, and surgical techniques primarily originate in America. Why? Because a free market encourages R&D which leads to greater profits.
-Canadian policy is to embrace our neighbours, regardless of their beliefs, race, wealth, national origin, or sex.-
Unless you are an English speaker in Quebec.
Canada isn't perfect, but that's not the point.
I think The Dude's point still stands. The Dude is making a point about Grace and redemption, not politics.
When Christians were in Rome their enemy was Nero. Christians in the Sudan are persecuted by Islam. The KGB was our enemy in the Soviet Union. In America we enjoy a great degree of freedom and by and large are not persecuted, but there are those that would destroy our way of life.
Christians in Philly are in jail for singing hymns at a Gay Parade. They are being prosecuted with hate crimes. One of the offenders is a 67 year-old widow who was not released on bond (which is reserved only for flight risks and those considered a danger to society, which she is neither).
NOW venomously attacks any real solutions to the problems of abortion and ignores the emotional and physical trauma of abortion out of fear their 'right' to kill an unborn child will be taken away.
The ACLU defends all persecuters of the Christian church and attacks Christians for living or speaking freely.
Universities across America have been trying to indoctrinate our youth and turn them against Christian values, displaying blatant double-standards when it comes to expression of thought and student organization rights.
The fact is these are all liberal organizations. But they do not represent all Democrats. Whether or not the Dude wanted to make this point, I will make it: Even though people work against us to destroy our way of life, we should desire their redemption and not their destruction. I don't think The Dude or I villainize all Democrats on account of NOW, but NOW and a great deal of other liberal organizations and movements can be used in good conscience as an example of how it would be easy for Christians to hate them, but Christ calls us to love them.
The Dude said in the post that he thinks liberalism is bad policy because it's bad policy, and not because Democrats are moral failures.
Politics was the subject of the post because it was the subject of the chapter, and offered a refreshing perspective on how to administer grace in politics.
I'm glad for discussions like this because it is easy to read your favorite columnists and sink further and further into an us-vs-them mentality, but I am unsettled when discussions turn into accusations of ignorance or small-mindedness, which I don't believe you did Travis.
Well, I have not been able to comment in awhile, as I have been attending to a far more important matter (see my post from this morning). This discussion may well be over, but I must address some things.
>>What I was objecting to was the intimation by the Dude and a commentator that he supported stating that all liberals hate Christians. That statement, which I demonstrate by pointing the finger at my own country, is patently false. It *may* be true for *some* leftists in the US, but is very likely untrue for their majority. Similarly, not all right-leaning thinkers are Christians.<<
The intimation that you perceive is not supported by any statement the Dude made. Moreover, whether liberals hate Christians is not important. It is inarguable that people of the liberal persuasion in the government and the media are bent on limiting the rights of Christians to practice a biblical lifestyle, thus it would reasonable to regard them as an enemy and pray for them as Jesus commanded.
When pointing a finger at your own country you mentioned:
"All Canadians can feed their children, thanks to redistributed income schemes that transfer money from economically fit regions, like Toronto, to poor regions, like Newfoundland.
All Canadians are guaranteed healthcare, provided by their fellow citizens, and objected to by relatively few of us.
Canadians have a murder rate that is the envy of the world.
Canadian policy is to embrace our neighbours, regardless of their beliefs, race, wealth, national origin, or sex."
These examples are not the evidence of Christians involved in your public policy.
>>It was the attempt to merge religion and politics that I was objecting to<<
The U.S. Supreme Court itself has recognized secular humanism as a religion. Secular humanist fundamentalists are currently running Canada and exerting a great influence on American public policy. Secular humanism is responsible for the quiet slaughter of over 40 million unborn children.
Post a Comment