St. Timothy Lutheran Church

12 comments (Add your own)

1. todd wrote:

Interesting thoughts.

How would you respond if I posit that taxation is nothing more than wealth redistribution with a large portion going to those who are lazy and have little regard for responsible work?

Proverbs 6:6-11 speaks of this:
"6 Go to the ant, you sluggard;
consider its ways and be wise!
7 It has no commander,
no overseer or ruler,
8 yet it stores its provisions in summer
and gathers its food at harvest.
9 How long will you lie there, you sluggard?
When will you get up from your sleep?
10 A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest-
11 and poverty will come on you like a bandit
and scarcity like an armed man." (NIV)

Continuing in that chapter, you have:

"16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." (NIV)

At this point, both political parties (and some of their supporters) are guilty. And we all know that voting for a third party is nothing more than throwing your vote away ;) (Perot....Barr....Nader....)

I guess I will just have to hold my nose and vote the better of two evils tomorrow. I'm afraid that the next few years we may see more than a few trials as followers of Christ.

November 3, 2008 @ 8:32 PM

2. PJ wrote:

Taxation in and of itself is not a problem (unlike the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, which in and of themselves are immoral). After all, Jesus Himself said to give to Caesar what was Caesar's. But, I completely agree with you - the likely result of this is nothing short of slothfulness.

I, too, consider this voting for the lesser of two evils. For me, it's all about character and beliefs (which might be determined from past voting records and other statements). Though I know I can't cast the first stone, I don't have a lot of confidence in either candidate's character or beliefs. Either way, I think the Body of Christ is going to have to re-commit itself to the purpose and mission of Jesus!

I agree that most write-ins are just a wasted vote - except one. Todd Brooks just might have a chance!!

November 3, 2008 @ 10:47 PM

3. Steve Henze wrote:

I vote Todd for President! The reality is that we almost always "have to hold our nose" and vote for political candidates, because as fellow sinners, they all have their flaws. Someone wiser than me said we "elect the leaders that we deserve" because they generally reflect the values, beliefs, and mores that we share.

I agree with PJ's comment about the body of Christ recommitting itself because the political process itself will never really bring transformational change to our nation. The Moral Majority of the 80's and early 90's taught us well those limitations. While it succeeded in organizing evangelical Christians like never, and helped elect leaders like Ronald Reagan, all these elections failed to change the moral and spiritual direction of our nation. That can only happen when God brings those changes to each person in his or her relationship to God Himself through Jesus Christ.

I join PJ and asking for us all to recommit ourselves to prayer and to the purpose and mission of Jesus!

November 4, 2008 @ 3:35 PM

4. PJ wrote:

I agree. I think we need to vote our conscience as a follower of Jesus Christ, but we need to realize that God didn't place the government here to transform the world! Jesus alone will transform the world, and amazingly, He chooses to use us in the process.

It's definitely time for the Body of Christ to be raised up, and to recommit ourselves to live in a way that honors and glorifies God!

November 4, 2008 @ 3:46 PM

6. Aaron wrote:

"Taxation in and of itself is not a problem (unlike the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, which in and of themselves are immoral)."

We shouldn't consider whether or not same-sex marriage is immoral or not. The question is of legalization. If morality was the sole basis of making laws, why doesn't America make a law banning lying, disobeying parents, or any other scenario that we consider to be immoral? Any law dealing with an immoral act directly robs somebody ELSE of their liberties. By killing someone, you are robbing them of their right to life. By speeding, you are (arguably) robbing everyone else on the road of their right to safety. The list goes on.

Who is robbed of their liberties by two gay people getting married? I can't think of any. In fact, I think that homosexuals have THEIR liberties denied to them by not being able to marry. I don't think that it is the church's place to force our ideals onto them. Anthony Burgess argues for a broader point in his book A Clockwork Orange... forcing someone to do good by taking away the other option is effectively taking away their humanity. That only kind of applies here, I suppose.

To address the question of morality, what makes homosexuality amoral? For purpose of argument, I do not think that simply saying "because God says so" would be a sufficient reason. "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27) is an example of a mandate from God that, quite frankly, I see no amorality associated with. With this in mind, I cannot bring myself to consider the mere concept of homosexuality as amoral.

November 4, 2008 @ 5:25 PM

7. Aaron wrote:

I just posted this long response and submitted it to discover it didn't send. My internets are SO tangled.

November 4, 2008 @ 5:29 PM

8. PJ wrote:

Wow - thanks for the comment! Finally, some opportunity for dialogue!

I understand the argument of legalization, and I tend to agree, because I know that ultimately, a President and a Government are not responsible for morality. God says that His followers are foreigners and aliens here - and that means that the world won't see eye to eye with us because it doesn't see eye to eye with Him! If the world rejected Him, why would they do anything different to those who bear His name. Jesus Himself said that! So, I can understand the argument about legalization.

However, as one who is opposed to these things because God is opposed to them, I cannot with a clear conscience (just because this is my "right" as an American) vote for these things. If they tried to pass a law that it was fine for anyone and everyone to lie, I'd vote against that, too. Why? Because my desire to uphold the holiness of God trumps my rights as an American citizen.

With all this being said, I do NOT consider the primary goal of the Body of Christ to be the morality police for the world! We are to proclaim the transforming love and power and grace of Jesus Christ to the world - and He is the one who will produce the transformation in people's lives to push them away from sinful behaviors (like abortion, lying, greed, adultery, murder, homosexuality, etc).

You asked what makes homosexuality "amoral"? I don't believe it is. Amoral basically means it is neither moral or immoral. As much as I know that God can love those battling homosexual tendencies and can bring forgiveness and transformation into their lives, I also know that God very specifically calls homosexualty an "abomination". So, I guess I should have used that word instead of immoral. It is a sin, just as lying, greed, adultery, lust, murder, etc. It does not honor God. And that is not simply found in Leviticus, where many of the laws were of a different nature, it is also found in Romans, I Timothy, etc. It's not the unforgivable sin, but God's desire is that those who come to know Him and His love and grace will be transformed. His desire is to make us a new creation. And as a new creation, we get rid of those sinful desires (all of them) we once had before we came to know Jesus Christ.

Thanks for the discussion, man! It's good to hear from you!

November 5, 2008 @ 10:06 AM

9. Aaron wrote:

"
However, as one who is opposed to these things because God is opposed to them, I cannot with a clear conscience (just because this is my "right" as an American) vote for these things. If they tried to pass a law that it was fine for anyone and everyone to lie, I'd vote against that, too. Why? Because my desire to uphold the holiness of God trumps my rights as an American citizen.
"

I think you missed the point of my "Clockwork Orange" argument. If you take away the option for a person to do bad, what good have you done? If we advocated for all things in the same vein as lying to be outlawed, free will exits the equation.

I don't know about you, but personally, I would not want to live in that world.

November 6, 2008 @ 1:01 PM

10. PJ wrote:

Yeah - I never really got into "Clockwork Orange." I can't tell you much about it. However, from your description, it led me to think of the alternative, "Lord of the Flies." In that scenario, there are no rules, only free will, and it portrays what will ultimately take place in a society void of rules/boundaries/laws/morality.

Honestly, what I am most passionate about is the other part of my last post. I am here as a follower of Jesus Christ, not as a morality policeman. I am not here to right every social wrong. I am here to proclaim the grace and freedom that can only come from Jesus Christ. Only He can transform a life. So, I live according to God's Word, and I pray that other followers of Jesus Christ will live according to God's Word, too. It's more important to me that followers of Jesus live a life that honors God - not that we legislate morality. I can't bring myself to vote FOR same-sex union, abortion, etc - but I also realize that in the big scheme of things these secular laws don't matter all that much. What matters is that the transforming love and grace of Jesus Christ touches hearts and changes lives!

November 11, 2008 @ 5:28 PM

11. Aaron wrote:

I can agree with that wholeheartedly. The only thing that really jives me is that we have a modern day "Jim Crowe" scenario as far as gay rights are concerned. In 31 states, it's not considered a hate crime to kill someone for being gay. I think we can all agree on the point that this is DISGUSTING. We have come so far in America in the last 50 years, but we still allow this to happen, and many people choose to turn a blind eye to it.

I think that the point of legislating morality has a lot of relevance when talking about this (what you were talking about, not the first part of my post). What if the scenario changed from legislating morality to legislating faith? Take the Spanish Inquisition, for example... Spanish law mandated open conformity to the Christian faith. Failure to comply resulted in death. Is this right in God's eyes? Do the ends justify the means?

Don't get me wrong here... I would LOVE for the collective eyes of our nation to be opened to the glory of God's magnitude. I don't think voting against gay rights is the way to do it (abortion is admittedly a different issue altogether).

In the same vein, I really find a problem with many Christians being against gay rights on biblical premises, but then advocating conservatism in their tax policy. In his book Jesus for President, Shane Claiborne argues that Jesus would be for nationalized health care and redistribution of wealth, on the whole "Feed the poor, heal the sick" premise. I've heard the counter-argument that goes: "Well, that should be left up to the individual people. It's not the governments place to determine where our donated money goes." That is a sound argument, until you consider this: How can these people advocate this policy while saying at the same time that outlawing gay marriage IS the job of the government, on the same premise? This philosophy is incompatible with itself.

November 17, 2008 @ 10:56 AM

12. Me wrote:

In response to Aaron and PJ, if I may butt in, what rights do homosexual couples not have now that they will have should they become "married"? I believe most rights can be conveyed to same sex partners: hospital visitation, health care, property laws, etc.
Why must it be called marriage?

I, like PJ, do not want to outlaw all immoral things, But I have a problem with a group of people using the legal system to allege and demand normalcy to their extreme behavior. (Extreme meaning practiced by only 1-2% of the population.)
The gay agenda has been to advocate forcible acceptance of their behavior. I will resist.

November 21, 2008 @ 4:18 PM

14. todd wrote:

Why is the state involved in marriage in the first place? Marriage is between a man and woman and God. The only reason marriage has been abrogated by the state is for taxation and property purposes. While Christians complain about the State needing to get involved in marriage, I don't see the same concern for the State needing to get involved in baptismal certs.

How about you get a marriage cert from the church; if a church wants to give two guys a marriage certificate, that is between the church, the couple and God. If you want shared property rights, combined health care benefits, taxation and SS benefits, you get a civil union from the State.

Because while the argument has been on a gay couple getting the benefits of health care insurance, property rights, etc...turn the argument around. What about two elderly sisters living together. Shouldn't they benefit from property, taxation, healthcare etc that a married couple benefits from with regards to the State?

This post is not condoning gay marriage, but it seems that American Christians and those on the Right are wasting a LOT of effort on issues of little importance. How about Christians focus on the ease of getting a divorce or the fact that you can nearly get a divorce online or that ~45% (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html) of marriages fail in the US or better yet, the rights of the unborn.

While I oppose gay marriage, using the slippery slope argument as many do to lead to group marriage, deviant marriage, etc. is a straw man argument, imo. The slow decline and depravity of social culture is not because two guys can live together...culture should be looking more into ease of divorce or the fact that 70% of African American children are born out of wedlock.

Seems to me that there are bigger fish to fry.

December 10, 2008 @ 1:32 PM

Add a New Comment

Your Name:

Your Email/URL (Optional):

Your Comment:

Enter the code you see below:

 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.