“Obama or McCain? It’s a no-brainer!”
That was what our Aussie friend Sally T, who was here in the States recently, said when asked her opinion about the American presidential election. And she meant by this that Obama was the hands-down best choice. I have to be honest and say that this is what every non-American I have met in the last year says about the choice of candidates. I cannot recall even one who has pitched for either Clinton (in the primaries) or McCain when venturing their opinion. And just so that you know, I do travel extensively in the US, Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Now fair enough, they don’t get to vote for either candidate, and so can be dismissed as seemingly insignificant. But Americans need to be aware that all non-Americans do get to wear American choices because the President of the US is in fact the most influential person in the world and directly affects everyone, everywhere. Please don’t forget that.
What I am about to say I have deliberated long and hard over. And I do it with a deep sense of caution as well as a sense of profound love for (and calling to) America and the American people. I am about as American in spirit as a non-American can get! and I don’t mind going on record that I am strongly pro-American. So, I don’t say this lightly. On top of this sense of respect, I am loathe to engage directly in a sensitive political issue on a dedicatedly missional website. I don’t want to mix the message and dilute what I believe to be the essential one–that the church gets its missional act together–so the reader will have to excuse my political diversion here. I hope and trust you will. And once this is said, we can get back to business as usual for ye olde TFW site. So let me just say it– I agree with Sally (and all the others) here.
I say this mainly because I think that Obama is the symbolic choice: His election, if successful, will signal the healing of deep racial wounds and will, in effect, symbolize the utter greatness of America. Think about it! That America can elect a professing Christian, with an African Muslim (of all things!) father, a white mother, and a very strange sounding name to boot, to be its leader (and by extension, the leader of the free world) IS significant in the true meaning of the word. I can’t tell you what this will communicate symbolically to the rest of the world! imagine what this will mean to the Africans alone, let alone all those nations who struggle with race and ideological issues? And who doesn’t? And to do this in precisely this current, profoundly complex, global situation we all find ourselves in–well, that’s the historical piece. Hey, at the very least Obama represents the reconciliation of opposites…just look at him. He is himself a symbol of what I am saying: He reconciles black and white in his very person. He reconciles ‘the familiar’ and ‘the other’ in the precisely same way. He cannot but be symbolic. And that’s the least of it. At best, the symbolic power of a President Obama can itself potentially restore the prestige that America has lost over the last decade. Perhaps he might even develop it beyond where it has previously been since perhaps FDR in WW2. This can only be a good thing! America can, and should, stand as the symbolic re-presentation of the worlds best hopes. The other continents have a much darker history and struggle to be that which America at her best can, and should, be (except perhaps for my beloved Australia-but we are so far “down under” that it doesn’t really matter 
)
Seriously, as I see it, this choice represents a genuinely historical one. In my hack opinion, I do not think that such choices present themselves to any nation very often. It might be decades, if ever, that such an opportunity presents itself again–especially in light of the global situation. Viewed in this way, Obama can be seen as “a gift” to an America that has lost its moral standing in the global context.
One more thing, and here it becomes much more subjective, I do sense something of possible greatness in Obama. He has all the potential to be what can legitimately be called a ‘great leader’. He seems to be a very wise and considered person. There is sense of moral authority in him and we can only pray develops into genuine greatness–a Mandela-in-the-making. In saying this I am NOT saying that he is perfect, or that he is some sort of black messiah. God forbid we should lay any of our deepest hopes on him, or any other potential human pretender to Jesus’ rightful place. But I do believe he is the man of the moment. And as you can see, for my vote (if I had one), he has won my heart. It is interesting to note that Colin Powell has come to the same conclusion today in endorsing Obama.
And just to soften what I am saying here for my Republican friends and colleagues, I am NOT a natural ‘liberal’ of “lefty”. In fact I would be what Americans call “an independent” or a swing voter. And I am NOT saying the McCain isn’t a really good man. I think he is a very principled, open-hearted, dedicated, politician who has served his country well over a lifetime. In fact I think he can be a really good president. Its just that he cannot represent to the world, and to America itself, what Obama can. Greatness will therefore elude him. And lets face it, the election of the president of America is not only an American event, it is a global one. Therefore I am calling for Americans to go for greatness.
So there, shock, horror, I said it!! And if I have offended protocol, or intruded on your political sensibilities, forgive me and be kind to me. I have just felt that I should take the risk of possibly alienating some people in order to bring a perspective that Americans might not normally get….a global one.
Forgotten Ways, The: Reactivating the Missional Church - Alan Hirsch
Forgotten Ways Handbook, The: A Practical Guide for Developing Missional Churches - Alan Hirsch, Darryn Altclass
ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21 Century Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
Matt
You are the one who said “Now, if I’d heard him suggest Obama was God’s anointed I’d be more concerned. As I am when I here (sic) people suggest McCain is God’s anointed.” Matt, when you wrote that you gave no U-tube links or “reliable evidence” to back up the linkage of McCain with being Messiah. But when I as an American who actually lives in this country and am subjected to this never ending ongoing circus (I mean election – light hearted banter) I point out that in reality there is Messiah like attribution and adulation and reports of people saying “Here comes the Messiah” you now want me to give some “reliable evidence.” That is an interesting twist.
My point was to you not Alan. Most of the comments on this blog have had very little to say about what Alan actually said. Though it doesn’t matter if you believe me or not, I just read the other day of this specific event happening as a police escort stopped traffic on the Dulles toll road outside of DC. As Obama and associates came by the stopped cars, the report was that many yelled out “Here comes the Messiah” as the motorcade went by. Could have been a joke. I really don’t’ remember where I read that. But the point is that this messianic attribution, this joke, this is the concern, this is what we hear, that Obama is Messiah or clearly messianic. People regularly swoon at his rallies. We don’t typically hear this reference to McCain, as you attest.
I suspect even in Australia you can Google for Obama and Messiah. What you will find is that there are many discussions about this issue. Here are a few starters for you: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
slate.com started “The Obama Messiah Watch” was back in January 2007! http://www.slate.com/id/2158578/?nav/navoa/
Here is part 2 of which has grown to at least a 9 part series: http://www.slate.com/id/2159132/?nav/navoa/
Here is someone that I would not want to speak on my behalf if I were running for President, but he does say that Obama is the Messiah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE
Sorry, I took a double take with your comment and just realized I misread your earlier one. I think I have it now.
Where I am coming from is, if all you can see is the E, haven’t you got an eye problem? I mean, if you could read down to the EDF or even further you might realize there is a lot more to that eye chart than the first letter. What if your canditate was myopic, and got the first letter right … but every other letter wrong? What if you could see he was getting it wrong? Would you trust him to drive your car? And what if each letter had a moral consequence, a serious moral consequence? Maybe not as big as the E individually, but bigger collectively?
Hi Matt,
I think I understand what your saying in the collective sense. But if you miss the E, everything else below will be wrong.
Myopia is about depth perception relating to clarity with images that are nearby are clear and distant images are blurred.
I would be concerned if someone could only see the E and everything below it was blurry, like tunnel vision. That would be very dangerous.
If you went into the eye examination room and refused to acknowledge the foundational structure of the eye chart and the first letter, the E, that also would be serious.
I wonder if maybe you see govt responsibility to take care of the poor instead of the church. I see taking care of the poor to be the main responsibility of the church.
I live in England, though I am from the US. If a 15-16 year old girl wants to live on her own, the first thing she does is get pregnant, and before she has the child, the local council finds her a apartment, furnishes it, pays all utilities, and gives her about $1500.00 a month to make sure she is ok.
I think it is great that this person keeps the child, but this person is so ring fenced by the local govt finances she looks only to them for all their needs.
Obama is not going to pull the troops out of Iraq any sooner than McCain. The environment on the ground will dictate it.
As for Afghanistan, we are there for a very long time.
I still don’t see what any president can do to enhance the church from following the gospel as far as it wants to- the church is the one who is with holding by their lack of clear revelation of who Jesus is and who He calls us to be.
The average evangelical Christian in the US gives 3-4% of their income. they good feed the poor if they all canceled their cable TV and forgo their annual vacation. They won’t, so they put someone who will take it off them through law what they fail to give through generosity. the US govt, gets the glory, instead of Jesus. What a missed opportunity!
You and I may be at total ends of the political spectrum, but if we agree on the evangelical basics of who Jesus is, and hell & resurrection we are brothers in Christ.
Peace
Tim
During this election year let’s be reminded of these words:
* You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
* You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
* You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot build character and courage, by taking away men’s
initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently, by doing for them what they could
and should, do for themselves.”
- Abraham Lincoln
Alan
You and I have not had the pleasure of meeting yet but I am constantly hearing from some of the people I work with how influential you have been in their lives.
I am so pleased that you decided to support Barak Obama.
it just so happens that I sent out a personal email to about 75 friends today myself not knowing what you had said in your blog post.
I hope you find it encouraging
=================================================
Colin Powell calls Obama a transformational leader.
I suspect he got that phrase from this quote by Peter Drucker “Every few hundred years in Western culture there occurs a sharp transformation, within a few short decades society rearranges itself… we are currently living in such a time”
Powell and Drucker believe that American history is going through a transformational shift. If they’re correct then this election is about something beyond politics.
Besides Americas international reputation jumping 50% overnight if Barack is elected, I also believe this window is affording Christians an opportunity to transform a historic wrong.
The forced enslavement of millions of Africans 350 years ago and the subsequent economic advantage it provided our young country a.k.a. Americas Holocaust has never been addressed directly and concretely by any of our leaders.
While I wouldn’t vote for Barack just because he is a black man ( for example I would not have voted for either Alan Keyes or Jesse Jackson)
I am grateful that God (or history – you decide) is providing someone with bearing and character who happens to be a black man.
I believe that we have an opportunity to repent of our institutional racism and symbolically hand those whose history we stole the keys to the car.
I’m not certain whether you believe that you reap what you sow but perhaps one of the reasons our nation is currently $13 Trillion in debt is because of the sin of slavery that has never been repented of.
I see this as God’s mercy – as a way through this historic dilemma and one that will do for our national character what reparations never could.
Join me in voting for Barack Obama for President of the United States
Jim’s post effectively cements in my thinking on the wrongness of Alan’s advocacy of a candidate. Without consideration of the implications or consequences of his euphoria over Obama, Jim has added to the divide. This conversation is no longer about the mission of God through the church in the world. I began several days ago by arguing that Christian leaders have a high calling that compels them to relinquish certain liberties (e.g., taking a public stance for or against candidates). I say this as a Christian leader who has been in public ministry for over 35 years. Rudy effectively articulated cogent reasons for my stance in an earlier post. I am unaware of anyone responding to Rudy’s arguments. Now Jim makes it obvious: this is about taking sides. Someone else may very well respond by endorsing McCain, then another for Obama, then another for McCain…and on and on it goes. We are polarized over a candidate, not issues. We are divided over personalities, not mission. I find this very sad and especially finds Jim’s post repugnant, not because he endorsed Obama, but because his endorsement is without a context and without any merit. This is what I find inevitably happens when Christian leaders fail to regulate themselves and restrict their liberties.
Well, I just hope that you’re pursuing churches and organsiations like Focus on the Family (who have much, much stronger ethical and legal reasons for staying apolitical than a private individual who runs a blog) with equal vigour Dave. Otherwise your stance is partisan also.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36653
Janet: Seems like you’ve already got me pigeon-holed. I know you’d like me to be partisan to justify your presuppositions about me. But you’re wrong. I also abhor F on the F’s approach. But I don’t “pursue” others because I don’t have the time to waste. They are not going to change. I decided to engage this blog in dialogue because I felt that I might have some profitable exchanges and might possibly make a difference. And that has partially happened. But I am finding that there is resistance to change all over the political and religious spectrum.
I don’t want to pigeon hole you Dave, although you’ve made your distaste for Obama very clear. I’ll confess I thought your response to Jim was very discourteous, and therefore was a little annoyed when I posted, which is always unwise. I apologise… I think I’ve said more than enough on this thread already.
I mean the “without merit” bit of your response to Jim… that’ pretty harsh. These are just opinions. I actually do agree with you that political endorsements are murky territory, although I don’t presume to be someone else’s conscience.
Now I really will shut up.
In light of the heavyness that seems to have befallen this highly sensitive topic I wish to send you a comment on USA politics by the Queen:
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.
(You should look up ‘revocation’ in the Oxford English Dictionary.)
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).
Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
———————–
1. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘colour,’ ‘favour,’ ‘labour’ and ‘neighbour.’ Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut’ without skipping half the letters, and the suffix ‘-ize’ will be replaced by the suffix ‘-ise.’ Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up ‘vocabulary’).
————————
2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ”like’ and ‘you know’ is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter ‘u” and the elimination of ‘-ize.’
——————-
3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
—————–
4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can’t sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist,then you’re not ready to shoot grouse.
———————-
5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
———————-
6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
——————–
7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
——————-
8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
——————-
9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager.
Australian beer is also acceptable, as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat’s Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
———————
10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one’s ears removed with a cheese grater.
———————
11. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).
———————
12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australian’s first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
——————–
13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad.
—————–
14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty’s Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
—————
15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.
God Save the Queen!
PS: Only share this with friends who have a good sense of humour (NOT humor)!
Andrew,
I had a very similar one that was apparently from John Cleese’s Open Letter to the United States!!!
I love it!
Andrew,
i just googled it and found it wasn’t written by John Cleese at all… seems it has had quite an evolution from back in 2000 or so.
the seppos have actually written some amusing responses to it also!
Andrew: Thank you for salvaging this discussion with the Queen’s pronouncement. If you had posted that earlier, a lot of agony could have been avoided.
A brilliant post. I agree totally and have written a piece months back: Vote in the 2008 US Elections with the whole world in mind
I am not sure why Americans are so concerned with the global opinion of who is president. I keep hearing the value in this but isn’t it true that there are a large amount of people around the world who have at best ill will towards America and don’t have our best interest at heart? I agree fully with Obama’s economic plan but the fact that he has openly said he will not allow ministers to opt out of social security anymore concerns me!
from where i am standing killing is killing full stop whether that be the killing of Muslims in the name of ‘terror’ or the killing of an unborn child in a mothers womb! funny how the American public seem to side step that fundamental issue when it comes to politics and make allowances for all sorts of folly during election time…
Killing is not funny in any situation. The difference to me is innocence. Jesus never mentioned the position of the centurion in the army. That wasn’t the issue in that situation, healing was the issue.
God in the old Testament does not appear to have a problem with war or killing the enemies of Israel.
“Genesis 18:25
Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
Tim
Good response, Timothy. Our failure to understand the Bible can lead us to odd conclusions. The Bible uses different words to distinguish between various ways of taking life (military combat, murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, unborn fetus, and self-defense). To suggest that we should equate the taking of the life of a fetus with the killing of an enemy of the state is to demonstrate a failure to grasp a core concept of the Bible.
It’s amazing how so many Christians find it easy to take such an enormously complex, messy, and multi-faceted thing like morality and boil it down to a couple of small, singular issues such as, for example, gay marriage and abortion. Actually, I lie. It doesn’t amaze me at all. In fact, it makes total sense to me.
I mean sure, it might seem absurd to focus our energies on two issues like these, since they pertain to such a small proportion of the population. And it may seem odder still that even though Jesus spoke with such passion and discontent about such a plethora of moral issues, anyone would choose to identify their religious beliefs so primarily with two that he never even mentioned.
And yes, it might seem puzzling that such specific, singular issues are singled out at a time when the world is gripped by so many broader, deeper, and far-reaching moral ills, such as greed, violence, and human-induced poverty, to name just a few. That despite so many things being wrong with the world, so many people insist on judging political candidates using such a narrow and limited set of criteria.
But it’s not strange at all, and I understand it. In fact, perhaps I even envy it.
First, a little about myself: I’m a heterosexual, married, and a man; I don’t practice unsafe sex, and in the unlikely event that I’m faced with an unwanted pregnancy, I probably won’t opt for abortion. So, I’m about as immune from these two issues - gay marriage and abortion - as can be. If they are sins, then they are the sins of people other than me (my favourite kind of sins!) - temptations that I’m very unlikely to ever have to worry about myself.
So then, why not take the easy way out and construct my moral universe predominantly according to issues such as these? How comforting it would be to draw the line between right and wrong in a way that leaves me so unambigiously on the side of the righteous!
But - alas - the world I live in is comprised of many more moral issues than these, and try as I might I cannot find it acceptable to let issues such as abortion or gay-marriage play the starring role in my understanding of Christian morality.
In the moral universe I live in, greed is a sin. Yet, as a part of the consumerist system, greed is a temptation I have to deal with daily. In my moral universe, exploitation is a sin. Yet I’ve almost definitely eaten chocolate from cacao beans picked for me by child slaves in Africa - it makes me sick, but it’s the truth. In my sense of Christian morality, the systematic destruction of God’s Creation is a sin of monumental proportions, yet I am as guilty of this sin as anyone else. I believe that it is morally abhorrent to callously exploit any of God’s creatures or treat them with cruelty - yet that is what I’ve done every time I’ve eaten meat from factory farmed animals (even worse - I’ve been cowardly and pitiless enough to pay people to commit this cruelty on my behalf). In the moral universe I inhabit, inequality is an evil that I believe must be fought - yet I nevertheless contribute to it every time I try to get ahead in life, routinely putting my needs ahead of others’. I could go on…
Unfortunately, I live in a broken, messy world, where the line between right and wrong is sometimes hazy, while at other times it seems to drive straight through me, hitting me right between the eyes. Yet the great tragedy of Christianity is even though we live in this horrible scrapheap of a world, we have a mandate to care about it and our fellow creatures in it, and as difficult as it may be, we have no choice but to try and make it a better place.
The world that God would love us to live in will not be created by politics solely, nor even primarily. But it would be naive to believe that we could achieve it without politics at all. Many of the injustices of the world are systemic, and so they must be tackled on a systemic level; many of the just things we yearn for must be implemented on a systemic level too, if they are to be lasting.
It would be easy for me take the moral teachings of as complex, mysterious and - yes - contradictory a figure as Jesus and simplify them to the point where little stands out but a few hot-button issues like gay marriage or abortion. But I don’t believe that that would do justice to God, to Jesus, to me, or to the world. I also don’t subscribe to the dark fatalism and hand-washing that Dave the bible college professor seems to advocate (intentionally or unintentionally) in his first post, with all due respect to him.
Instead, I see no option but to engage myself with the political climate of today, and embrace positive change where I see it. And in Obama, I definitely see it. The change from a government that openly favours the rich to one that wants to reach out to the poor? I can embrace that. A president who seems to earnestly want to work towards peace and reconciliation, in a country that is better known for using religious rhetoric to justify brutality and war? I can embrace that. A president who can captivate and inspire a worldwide audience with an eloquent message of common-sense and hope, to replace one who could barely string an intelligent sentence together? That’ll be warmly welcomed, too.
Yesterday, I rejoiced when Obama won. I wept for the Blacks who saw with their own eyes the fruit of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream. I felt hope for the millions of people who live in poverty in the world’s richest nation, and for the millions more without even semi-decent health care. A small flame of hope was sparked in me as I began - tentatively - believing that the world’s biggest environmental criminal might one day become one of our greatest hopes in averting runaway climate change. I breathed a sigh of relief, in solidarity with billions of others, as the USA yesterday promised to metamorphose from an ominous and tyrannical presence, fueled by so much fear and unquestioning patriotism, to a beacon of inspiration to us all, fueled by a renewed commitment to international cooperation. I marvelled at the breathtaking pace with which America yesterday leapfrogged itself into the 21st century.
Sure, Obama won’t be perfect, and maybe he’ll have some glaring flaws. But then, so do I. And I’ll bet Dave the bible professor does too, as does Alan Hirsch and everyone else who has written on this page. That’s simply the nature of us strange creatures who inhabit this planet, and I can accept that.
What I cannot accept, however, is that in such tumultous and crucial times, where so much of our environmental, economic, and political security hangs in the balance, we should be in any way indifferent or apathetic to the US election. Or that we should dismiss larger, more pressing, and more painfully hard-hitting moral issues in favour of a small handful of ones that we feel safer with, like gay marriage or abortion. Both of those responses seem inadequate and irresponsible to me.
So, I commend you Alan Hirsch for writing about your thoughts about the electoral candidates; I believe we must embrace positive change wherever we see it. I believe that Obama’s election will bring in some great, radical changes. Though most of all, I believe that it will contribute to many more changes, albeit slow and incremental ones. Hopefully, these changes will take us forward another few little steps towards a distant yet much yearned-for ’shalom’.
And here’s hoping that if the world does indeed become a slightly better place in the next few years, it’ll help those of us who are so intrinsically linked to it whether we like it or not - all of us - to become better people along with it. We need that help.
Hi,
Any govt establishes policies and tax regimes that they think are beneficial to the furtherance of the values that they hold. So, if a govt policy establishes the principle that a married couple are the foundation of the society, they use the tax codes to reinforce that value. If they don’t believe that marriage is of any significance they treat it neutral in its tax policy.
Or if they think marriage is not to be rewarded they punish it with tax policy. An example would be interest deductions on mortgage payments. the govt wants people to own their own homes and is willing to reward people through the tax system.
In a democracy we have the responsibility to vote and shape the society that we live in with laws that have a moral base.
As I have mentioned before neither candidate is stopping people from doing all that Jesus commanded us as disciples to do. We either obey or we don’t.
When society establishes processes through the democratic process that have to pass through the legal system it is incumbent upon its citizens to try and influence that moral laws are passed to uphold righteousness that is denied to people through individual actions.
Abortion and Gay marriage are just two examples. people say that you can’t legislate morality. I think we do, we have laws against murder, rape, incest, theft, fraud. They are moral positions, not economic.
My concern is not for Christians who disagree with any moral positions we may disagree upon, my concern is for Christians whose main concern is economic and not moral. Any person who compromises an moral principle on behalf of an economic principle is called a prostitute.
I am from the US but live in England. In Denmark there is an publicly open group of pedophiles who are trying to get the age of sexual consent lowered to the age of 11 years, they want it at 8 years but they think society is not ready for this, so they said they will work toward 11 years, but hoping for 8 years in the next 50 years or so.
Behind the people who want abortion and agree with homosexuality is not the Holy Spirit, I am not say that these people are not Christians. But these thoughts did not originate from the Holy Spirit and must be treated as such.
The people who owned slaves in this country were peopled whom Jesus died for and loved deeply. But owning slaves is not from God and fortunately we will not have a war to end abortion.
James 1:20
Human anger does not produce the righteousness that God Desires” NLT
So I pray for President Obama and Mercy for this nation as we kill 1.37 million people this year.
Peace
Tim
GOD IS SOVEREIGN. HE WILL BE GLORIFIED.
that is the only end conclusion we can come to in a argument such as this…He is not an agent of evil, but has allowed us to choose that evil and in His omniscience it has become a part of His plan.
Sorry, horrific logic. I agree with you that it would be wonderful to have an African American President, but my first qualification on the part of a leader is righteousness . . . and Obama doesn’t even come close.