to choose or not to choose…

Wow! Some pretty hot responses to the last post. I have now officially had my wisdom challenged, my faith questioned, and my name forever tainted for venturing an opinion on an important subject. I am beginning to think that perhaps my wisdom was in doubt, but my love of God and my reputation as a diligent spokesman for the missional cause? C’mon guys, a little more grace and civility than that!!

But as all this raises the issue of public faith and morality, lets chew on this for a while. One commentator suggested that I stick to theology and don’t venture into places I don’t understand. Besides this being counsel of despair, it effectively means that faith has nothing to say to issues that concern us all and that I should just shut up. My only response cannot be to say that the dude should take his own advice but surely must be to say that the Lordship of Jesus doesn’t allow me (or any claim His rule for that matter) to compartmentalize life in such a way. We all live in the world and we must seek to live out our faith in the public sphere. To divide politics from faith and family from economics for instance, is to create idolatrous zones where the Kingdom/Rule of God has no say and to invite false gods to rule where the Kingdom has vacated. For instance, apartheid South Africa was in part a direct outcome of the separation of the love and grace of God for all people from God’s call to act consistently with His love and grace. I was raised in those conditions and it was both morally sinful and socially disastrous.

I said that I am neither a leftie nor a rightie-I really mean that. Neither of them can claim to be more righteous than the other, and this is precisely because the Lordship of Jesus transcends (but includes) politics. Both left and right have perspectives that square with God’s rule and those that jar with it. For instance, from my perspective, the left tends to be more socially concerned while the right more concerned in terms of personal morality. Both political stances, where entrenched, have serious blind spots as far as I can discern. For one, they are weak precisely where the other is strong and both are mere ideologies. That’s why I can legitimately self-identify with neither. And for what it is worth, in the last few years I have probably had more debates with my lefty friends and have found them as fundamentalist on political issues as the right is around issues that they think important.

Those who follow Jesus must be far more discerning simply being politically aligned with one party: we must always strive to discern which best represents the Jesus’ challenge to bring all under his rule, recognizing that sometimes it simply ain’t that clear. And we cannot afford to become one-dimensional in our approach. Single issue Christians are by definition dualistic and don’t understand the monotheism (the claim of the One God over all our lives) or the dynamics of Kingdom of God (and that we are agents and must express this agency in the world). Disciples have to live under Jesus in such a way so as to try our best to honor Him as far as possible without becoming morally paralyzed by the complexity that confronts us in some of the choices we are called to make. So lets be clear, not to choose is also a choice that has moral consequences. There are many who were simply by-standers during the holocaust! They refused to have an opinion and express it or act on it. Does that make them morally neutral? No way Jose! To counsel that we should not have an opinion, or at least we should not venture to express that opinion, is to imply that discipleship is purely a private affair…a question of personal value and preference. But as mentioned above, this results in idolatry. And surely this Kingdom of God must call into question any attempts to make an election of a candidate a one issue choice.  Surely God is concerned about more issues than simply homosexuality and abortion? surely God is for fetal rights as much as he is for environmental concerns–particularly if this has implications for the poor (and it sure does–there is going to be a lot more death and starvation because of climate change!) Anyhow, I’d rather be wrong and have an opinion, than be a deliberate idolater. Choose my friends! McCain or Obama (they are both good men as far as politicians go), but do so in good conscience before the Lord and, please,  grant others their right to differ.

In terms of how we communicate our opinions, well that’s back to the question of civility without which civil society cannot function. We are Christians living in a democracy…lets be gracious to each other as the lack of grace for the disciple is a greater sin than simply expressing a wrong opinion.

October 21, 2008 | Filed Under lordship of Jesus, monotheism, politics |  

Comments

41 Responses to “to choose or not to choose…”

  1. Jared on October 21st, 2008 5:34 am

    Who do you think you are? I’m joking. I “went to bat” for ya on the other thread. Good response to your critics….

    jared

  2. kevin on October 21st, 2008 6:11 am

    As a staunch conservative, I have to say that you made me think about Obama in a different light with your previous post. I have often pondered what the U.S. foreign policy and the War on Terror would look like if we followed the command of Jesus to “love our enemies.” Maybe, electing Obama would be a step toward showing love to our enemies around the world for the reasons you cited in your previous post. On the other hand, I can’t vote for socialistic ideologies (which are creeping into both parties!) as blatant as I’ve heard from Obama. So, my vote has to stay with McCain. Thanks for sharing your perspective! It made me think!

    kevin

  3. Dan Lowe on October 21st, 2008 6:41 am

    Alan,

    I’m not sure if you take requests for the blog, but I’m going to throw this out there anyway. How’s about a post on worldview? It would seem that the scathing posts you received in the previous posts betray quite the Western, dualistic worldview (which you alluded to here). Yet, what does it mean to bring all things under the lordship of Christ in a dualistic culture such as ours (speaking from North America)? I don’t know, I just wonder to what degree we’re taking our own worldview seriously, which, granted, is difficult for us to see unless someone points it out to us. And, it doesn’t seem as though there’s a whole lot of pointing out going around. I hear lots and lots of missional conversations but very very few conversations regarding worldview and how that effects the ways in which we are missional (if you know of anyone having this conversation on the public/popular level, I’d love to know who that might be). I mean, it effects the way we see the world right? It would even seem to effect the way we view what is, or is not, the Gospel.

    Thanks.
    Dan

  4. Brian on October 21st, 2008 7:11 am

    Can real world change come from a hierarchical system of government and political figures or from underground, organic movements of people willing to do when nothing is being done?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY&feature=related

    ’sorry for the double post’

  5. Johnny Laird on October 21st, 2008 7:21 am

    You certainly opened a can of worms there, Alan.

    Thanks for showing grace.

    Pax

    J

  6. Janet on October 21st, 2008 7:26 am

    Brian… IMO there’s a legitimate place for both.

    One comment on world view… my reflection is that Christendom thinking is alive and well. I felt some were expressing the view (and I may be misinterpreting this) that is was the legitimate business of government to legislate on sexual morality because of our strongly held Christian convictions. (this implies a perfectly legitimate function of police in a modern democracy is snooping into people’s bedrooms to maintain moral standards!) This may be perfectly reasonable in a theocracy… it is not (IMO) reasonable in a modern, pluralistic democracy, where the law should work around issues of person and property, not areas of conscience (which is the job of the church, rather than the government).

    Christendom is over, and we need to mourn and get over it.

  7. Wes Woodell on October 21st, 2008 8:07 am

    When I said you should “stick to theology” I put a little :p behind it so that you would know that was partly said in jest.

    Sorry if that struck a nerve.

    That being said, you implied in your post that people should vote for Obama because he’s black.

    I don’t believe it’s outside the bounds of moral decency on a public forum such as this to say that I think it’s silly to cite skin color as a reason to vote for or against ANYONE - regardless of what side of the isle you find yourself on, and regardless of America’s sordid, racist history and the symbolic victory an Obama win would be.

    Again, I sincerely apologize if my comment gave you heartburn - that wasn’t intended, I was really just giving you a hard time with a smile on my face (though I can’t speak for others).

    I understand that your political opinion is just that: an opinion. I hope you’ll remain open to the possibility that it might just be wrong.

  8. Peggy on October 21st, 2008 8:09 am

    Alan,

    Your sister thanks you for the manner in which you hold your conversations. I am sorry for those who flamed you in the previous post. Certainly, The Abbess has always been one to encourage grace and mercy in our conversations.

    It is always good to have as many perspectives as possible when considering difficult decisions. I have been sorry that there seem to be so few voices (especially in the press, but I won’t even go there) who speak out for looking at all the truth in all the situations and then encourage folks to do the hard work of discernment personally.

    You gave us your opinion — and I value it for what it is. I value it from knowing who you are when where you have come from. There must be a valuing of each view, rather than a fear-based reaction to views that are contrary to our own.

    US politics are, for my taste, too simplistic. Folks talk about wanting to know what the candidate will do on this and that…anything they say will fall short because the presidency is way more complex and nuanced than that.

    I yearn for a conversation that looks at all the strengths and weaknesses of each side of every discussion, without fear-based spin (which both sides use).

    You, Alan, are one who I trust to engage in this kind of truth seeking. I may not come to the same conclusion (in this or any other conversation), but that will not make me think any less of you. It will, in truth, deepen my love and appreciation because of your willingness to seek the truth.

  9. Gibby on October 21st, 2008 8:10 am

    Alan…Bravo! Thanks for challenging our thinking for the cause that is greater than politics. That cause being missio Dei.

    peace…

  10. Dan Lowe on October 21st, 2008 9:55 am

    Janet,

    I’m not sure where you’re writing from, but Christendom is not over. Not by a long shot, nor IMO will it be as simple to get over as Shaping of Things to Come seems to put it, or the way folks have interpreted that text. I don’t think we’ll get past Christendom until the church in North America is willing to own up to its part played in colonial expansion and the atrocities that followed the colonial plan. In some forms and functions, Christendom may be over, but gone for good? Not quite, not even close.

    Peace.
    Dan

  11. Chris Cote' on October 21st, 2008 10:14 am

    Thank you Alan. It is incredibly worrisome to see how much partisan dogma and gospel conviction have become conflated as one in the same. Any Christian challenging the conventional thinking (i.e. you’re Christian so you’re a Republican) in North America is often treated like a heretic, rather than someone who’s reached a different conclusion about how best to affect biblical imperatives in the public square. Most of all, you got the tone right. Thanks again.

  12. Janet on October 21st, 2008 10:32 am

    Australia. What I meant was that we are no longer part of a Christian kingdom ruled by a Christian emperor who can impose Christian practice (and morality) by force of law. Christendom is of course alive and well in the hearts of church people as you have noted.

  13. Alan Hirsch on October 21st, 2008 10:44 am

    Wes, I hear ya. Actually it was not only your comment that sparked this post. It was the more aggressive Dave and Rudy. Basically their argument amounts to the same thing anyhow. But hey, I am not really fussed about the disagreement…I am fussed about the sheer harshness of the responses. This sure has been a lesson for me. Perhaps I am naive about these things, but to call into question faith and character on this basis is pretty dicey. That is way more worrisome. People need to learn how to play nice. :-)

  14. Wes Woodell on October 21st, 2008 11:43 am

    I agree - people should be civil, and I was in no way intending to be harsh in my post - just having a bit of fun and inviting additional thought.

    I have many Christian friends who are voting for Obama this time around. I don’t believe their salvation is in jeopardy nor do I believe it a sin to vote for Obama.

    I can tell you that there ARE many people who DO believe it a sin to vote for Obama, and who WILL call your salvation into question if you proclaim your support for him.

    No doubt many people who think that way are fans of your books and regular readers here, and when you venture into the realm of American politics you can count on polarizing your audience 100% of the time.

  15. Blake on October 21st, 2008 12:11 pm

    Wes said: “I don’t believe it’s outside the bounds of moral decency on a public forum such as this to say that I think it’s silly to cite skin color as a reason to vote for or against ANYONE”

    As V put it so eloquently, “The building is a symbol as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. Alone a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people blowing up a building can change the world.”

    I don’t think Alan would have endorsed Alan Keyes or Jesse Jackson when they ran. Obama is a symbol by virtue of his policies and his abilities which have given him the masses to make him a symbol. When Alan endorses Obama because of his race it’s a different matter in this context than if it were someone else at some other time. Jackson and Keyes are not symbols and couldn’t be because they didn’t have the policies and ability to gain the crowds to make them a symbol. Race as a symbol is inextricably linked with policy in the context of this election and it hasn’t been this way before. One can vote for Obama as a symbol or because of political agreement. It doesn’t matter because the two are united this time in the movement that has made it possible for this man to be on the ballot.

  16. Mike Brantley on October 21st, 2008 1:15 pm

    Yo Mate,
    I am so sorry for the angry replies of those who wear country before God, who hold to ideologies of national religion before the virtues of Jesus. I am sorry for those who debunk “socialist” values stating they can’t vote for these…. such old school cold war talk that is totally blind that much of the Kingdom is just that.

    I am sorry for those who blindly hold to two planks, now disregarded by the GOP, and are left adrift, yet hold to them as if they actually love Jesus…. and are completely blind to the planks in the DNC that might actually be like Christ.

    I am sorry for those who draw lines over economy and privilege because they’ve never been the opposite and don’t know anyone who is the opposite and live secure in suburban safe places and rather than have pity and heart enough like Christ, they tisk from their pristine driver through coffee shops as they read your blog on their iPhone.

    They’ve never lived abroad, don’t realize how much like ancient Rome our own nation has become in its governance, arrogance, demanding self centered nature. They don’t know that the US President is elected by a small minority and holds sway over billions. They don’t realize how damaged the American reputation is and how sad it makes the world when we’ve acted such, because they actually do hope for more from the US.

    I’m sorry they dismissed your comments, holding to a party that is indebted to the same corporations that now take mega hand outs of our tax dollars, debt our grand children will inheret. They stand loyal to a party that disregards those who made the less than wisest choice with sub prime mortgages, but sing the praises of the machine who made FOOLISh fiscal greedy driven decisions that have led to a GLOBAL recession and crisis….

    I’m sorry for the Americans who responded so unlike Christ, who find your opinion a reason to disregard following Jesus to act so horribly.

    As your friend, your compatriot, your fan, I am so so sorry. Please forgive the leaders of the church who have lost their ever loving minds to respond so.

    Mike

  17. David D. Flowers on October 21st, 2008 2:30 pm

    For an alternative to this kind of political conversation… check out my recent blog posts at The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ: http://ddflowers.wordpress.com

    Recent posts:
    “Jesus: Change We Have a Hard Time Believing In”
    “Kingdom Conversations (Faith & Politics)”
    “Rethinking the Two Kingdoms”
    “The American Beatitudes” (Satire)

    Peace,
    David D. Flowers
    free-lance writer & blogger
    The Woodlands, TX

  18. alan hirsch on October 21st, 2008 3:18 pm

    Too right Blake! Keyes and Jackson are extremists who do not provide the eloquent symbol I am referring to. Spot on!

    Mikey, my bro. Thanks for the apology bro, but it is not needed on my behalf. I have a nice thick Jewish skin! Besides posting on politics invites extreme responses I suppose. But the response of some IS embarrassing to the cause isn’t it?

  19. doug on October 21st, 2008 3:52 pm

    In the legal standard of reasonable person, I fancy myself as “reasonable”. However, I am troubled that I simply do not understand the idea that America represents hope to so many, as Mike put it, ” They don’t know that the US President is elected by a small minority and holds sway over billions. They don’t realize how damaged the American reputation is and how sad it makes the world when we’ve acted such, because they actually do hope for more from the US.”

    This should trouble more people. More reasonable people. I feel like we are living in the Matrix here in American and we need to get unplugged from it to see the reality we are living in.

    I am every bit proud of my American heritage, but concerned that we have so desensitized ourselves as Americans to the “hope” our country offers so many. We can do better and we must do better.

    This idea seems to resonate more in Obama’s campaign than McCain’s.

    Alan, thanks for taking on the tough subject. . .

  20. Matt Stone on October 22nd, 2008 1:37 am

    Seeing as I don’t get to vote I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the election race, but from what I have seen I reckon Obama would be better for the rest of the world, Christian world included.

    Its a strange thing though. Steven Covey once spoke of the dangers inherant it a person’s sphere of influence exceeding their sphere of concern. Well, irrespective of who wins the race the rest of the world gets a world leader who is America focussed. So its loose/loose either way for the rest of us. I just hope we get a guy who is more a man of grace and truth than the current guy.

  21. alan hirsch on October 22nd, 2008 1:55 am

    Matt, I think we will either way. both of these guys are serious improvements on the current incumbent as far as I, and the American polls, are concerned. Bush’s ratings will make him the most unpopular president of all time!!

  22. Matt Stone on October 22nd, 2008 2:07 am

    And yet, i wonder, if American evangelicals could go back in time to that critical election, knowing what they now know, I wonder if they would have voted any different…

  23. byron Harris on October 22nd, 2008 2:33 am

    Alan,

    In your post you ask for kindness, yet you don’t extend that kindness. I’m hopeful it wasn’t intentional. Your headline “It’s a no-brainer!” was unkind to those that think differently than you. The way it comes across is, “If you don’t see it my way, then you obviously don’t have a brain.” You didn’t say that directly, but that’s what comes across.

    Let me ask you a question. Is it a sin to vote for McCain? If not, then shouldn’t everyone have the liberty to vote their conscience without ridicule?

    BTW, I did not find unkindness in the body of your post and I think your arguments in support of Obama are very good. They brought out a dynamic I had not thought of before. Thanks.

    Maybe in the future, it would be better to put this type of post on your “A Taste for the Other” blog.

    Blessings,
    byron

  24. alan hirsch on October 22nd, 2008 4:56 am

    Byron, I was quoting someone, and while I go on to agree with that person, I can’t for the life of me see why this might be insulting to anyone. But, let me say, that if I have insulted someone by using that phrase, I am genuinely sorry. I do think that choosing McCain is not a bad choice and I certainly do not think he is in some way a bad person (quite the opposite). the point I was trying to make is that in light of the global situation, I see a choice for Obama as the much better choice…in other words, a no-brainer. But like I said, I mean no insult by this. Perhaps I don’t understand the phrase well enough.

    But bro, why would it be better to post on the more personal blog? Apart from questioning the wisdom of it (and I have thought that :-) ), is that not another invitation to dualism–relegating my choice to private opinion instead of public issue. Besides, I think all these things demonstrate missionality in the broad sense of the term.

  25. Aaron Snow on October 22nd, 2008 5:38 am

    May I just throw out there that we actually do have more than two choices in this election. America seems to have been fooled (thank you mainstream media) into thinking they must “choose the lesser of two evils”. This is NOT true. All this fuss and attention on Obama and McCain has us distracted…

  26. Isaiah on October 22nd, 2008 6:39 am

    A Missional Politics? ;)

  27. Alan Hirsch on October 22nd, 2008 7:13 am

    Well, if missional means focused outside the church then it should include political engagement.

  28. Matt Stone on October 22nd, 2008 7:50 am

    Politics. A Missional issue? Yes, of course. Recall that “Jesus is Lord” is at the centre of The Forgotten Ways diagram and that, last time I checked, Alan explicitly critiqued the sort of dualistic thinking that places restrictions on the implications of that affirmation. Jesus is Lord of everything, not just Lord of “some things”. So it shouldn’t surprise that he refuses to treat politics as a private matter. Consider also the implications of “incarnational” living. It means there is no sphere of life where Jesus irrelevant. Beyond that, the relationship between church and state and religion and war is a prominant apologetic issue in conversations with non-Christians. A Missional issue? Yes, of course.

  29. Lucy J on October 22nd, 2008 10:23 am

    Hey, Al, while reading all the recent posts, I couldn’t help visualising a picture of a cat on a hot tin roof! Thankfully, you’ve got some thick skin on those little Jewish feet… here’s an Aussie encouragement from the good old Little River Band…
    Which kinda says it all… keep exploring the truth. There’s a lot of us with you on the journey.

    CURIOSITY (KILLED THE CAT)
    (WRITER BEEB BIRTLES)

    Sometimes I think I’m just a crazy cat, running around don’t know where it’s at, getting confused with my way of life, that’s when you say now you cut that jive. Right now, right now. You keep this flame I have alight in me, and with this cat it’s curiosity, that keeps me hanging on night and day, surprisingly again I hear you say. Guess what, guess what. Curiosity killed the cat, I’m telling you I know where it’s at, love is everywhere to be found, open your eyes and look around. You You You … Yeah Yeah Yeah … Some things you say take me by surprise, I like your style so give me your advice, send me the truth and I’ll always be, singing your song with you in harmony. That’s right, that’s right. Curiosity killed the cat, I’m telling you I know where it’s at, love is everywhere to be found, open your eyes and look around. Curiosity killed the cat, I’m telling you I know where it’s at, love is everywhere to be found, open your eyes and look around. You You You Yeah Yeah Yeah Aah Aah Aah Ooh Ooh Ooh

    It’s kool for kats in the Kingdom!

  30. Andrew on October 22nd, 2008 5:09 pm

    Al. Just last week I was saying to Lucy, its gone a bit quiet on TFW website blog.
    Well, how that changed with your last post!
    I actually found it quite a good process, because robust catharsis is often good for the soul.
    Also I agree with other bloggers - you are a leader with an incredible capacity for grace in the way you responded to what people were saying about you.
    Interesting that the Aussies who blogged stuck out a mile as indicated by what they said and how they said it. No flies on us mate…

  31. Janet on October 22nd, 2008 7:26 pm

    I think I know what you mean… but I’d happily declare several of the U.S. bloggers here as honorary Aussies Andrew! Well, I’d have to say this discussion has been a cross-cultural education for me.

  32. Tim C on October 22nd, 2008 8:41 pm

    Jesus was an extremely Political messiah in his die. Ask the Romans.

  33. Amanda on October 23rd, 2008 2:24 am

    Boo.
    Where is the love? People are mean.

  34. Amanda on October 23rd, 2008 3:02 am

    Can someone answer a question for me?
    What exactly has been compromised on this blog by having an opinion on political issues and posting it?
    Are we judging character and spiritual maturity now based on presidential pick?

    Further, do we forget that both Obama and McCain are both dearly loved by God. Maybe instead of fussing over who will be the next president, we should be praying for their salvation. Maybe instead of worrying over whether America will make the right decision, we should spend more time praying for our leaders.

    Have we forgotten that God is the one who allows leaders to rise and fall.
    Have we forgotten who the real authority is?
    Have we forgotten that we serve a God who is intimately involved with His creation?

    God is in control, even if another Hitler should rise up, what is that to us when we serve such a powerful God?

    If God is for us who can be against us? Do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering as though something strange were happening to you, but rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.

  35. Alan Hirsch on October 23rd, 2008 4:54 am

    thanks Amanda. good reminder.

  36. Isaiah on October 23rd, 2008 5:16 am

    Missional politics:

    Not saying I’m against the idea.. just wondering what it would look like.

  37. Isaiah on October 23rd, 2008 5:19 am

    I think my first post miscommunicated what I meant… I meant to say I think it’s a good idea.

    I shall never use emoticons again! (ha ha)

  38. Matt Stone on October 23rd, 2008 10:09 am

    Isaiah, I think it is important to first explore what we mean by the word “politics”.

    Consider these definitions:
    http://www.google.com.au/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENAU254&q=define%3A+politics&meta=

    Politics can be narrowly defined as “the study of government of states and other political units”, or more broadly defined as “the process by which groups of people make decisions.” If you use the narrow definition it would be reasonable to interpret Jesus as apolitical. If you use the broader definition then Jesus starts looking VERY political. Me, i go for the broader definition, without excluding the narrower definition, so everything I say must be interpreted in the light of that.

    I would say the church itself is a political entity, a body politic, and so missional politics has a lot to do with how churches engage with their world. How does the way the church socially organizes itself, internally and externally, bear witness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus? Is political manipulation, for instance, a good witness to the power of the cross?

  39. Isaiah on October 24th, 2008 2:09 am

    “missional politics has a lot to do with how churches engage with their world”.

    Too true.

    We (the church) need to dialogue more about what that looks like.

  40. Andrew on October 24th, 2008 10:23 am

    My former theology professor who was also in the past a US congressman, Charles Bayer, once defined “politics” in the very simple terms as the task of influencing others toward choices, viewpoints and social action. He opinion was that all humans, at one point or another, try to influences the others to adopt their viewpoint. Therefore, all humans are to some extent, politicians. (My interpretation of what he said rather than a direct quote).

    Dr Bayer, a white pastor, marched with Martin Luther King, I think in Selma - during the 1960’s in the hope that through doing so he would also challenge other white Christians to take courage and to take a stand against racism that was structurally entrenched (institutionalised) within the political and civil setting of the time.

    In doing so, it was making both a political and prophetic statement.

    It challenged others to convert from racism or indifference toward racism, and to stand up in protest against racism by actively embracing and incarnating MLK’s radical dream (ie. for a racism free, violence free, and social injustice free society).

  41. don woolley on October 24th, 2008 11:09 am

    Here’s a naive thought. What if:
    1. we set aside our lists of pro’s and con’s
    2. ask God who he wants us to vote for, and then
    3. vote that way regardless.

    To add to this foolishness, isn’t it possible that God would tell me to vote for someone he might not want to win? If I’m a McCain supporter, maybe he wants McCain to win but wants me to vote for Obama as I deal with my racism, or uncritical support of free-market capitalism or George Bush.

    If I’m an Obama supporter, maybe he wants Obama to win, but wants me to vote for McCain as I deal with my feelings about “old people” or my uncritical support of a woman’s right to choose, or near hatred of George Bush.

    God calls us to use our brains, count the costs, and think through our decisions, but that is not our first recourse. God speaks! And he frequently makes no sense - surrender to the Assyrians (the Nazi’s of their day), march around Jericho as a battle plan, feed thousands with five loaves and two fish, die in order to live.

    I didn’t read all the posts, but how many people are voting a certain way simply because “I asked God and that’s what he told me to do.”

Leave a Reply




Comment spam protected by SpamBam

Copyright © 2008 The Forgotten Ways • Linear WordPress Theme • Powered by WordPress • Maintained by Noble Design