Ok, fast forward to today. Certain christians are acting very much like Pharisees concerning politics. There has been a group of people who created a political agenda and said that if that agenda were realized then we would be a Godly nation. For example, gay marriage. Conservative Evangelicals (not necessarily a bad thing to be by the way) have said gay marriage is undermining traditional marriage, going against God's plan for families and just plain bringing us down. They created an agenda around this issue and have been working that plan for some time. I have no problem with the conservative political view on this issue except when it's used as litmus test for the sincerity of people's faith. I mean if you don't agree with that all the faults laid at the foot of the homosexuals then somehow your not a christian to a lot of conservative evangelicals. The issue with this type of agenda has been it's narrow focus on certain ways of being Christian and certain ways of expressing that in the public arena. This, to me, sounds an awful lot like the Pharisees. A focus on rules and a certain political agenda made up by people to decide who's in and who's out in Christianity.
My hope is that all this silliness is behind us in trying to use politics as a test for the sincerity of our faith. (although I doubt it is, I still have hope) I believe political stances are important and, in some cases, need to be strong. We must influence politics with our faith but we can't judge others because of their different opinions. Feel free to debate, persuade and fight for your view but not at the expense of ostracizing and hurting others faith. This might help us to understand a bit better what Jesus meant when he said in Luke 17 that it would be better to "tie a millstone around your neck, and be thrown into the sea, than to trip up one of these little ones".
4 comments:
Maybe, but is it really logically possible to transcend relations of exclusion? How else do we define things and produce meaning except by relations of exclusion. We define something, anything really, in part by what it is not. Therefore, it might be better to frame the issue as analyzing the various forms of in-group and out -roup in Christianity (their origins and empirical effects) so as to articulate alternatives that better advance the kingdom in the contemporary context.
In other words, there will always be outside ideas and outside people, but do we now have the best understanding of what and who that should be to advance the Biblical cause?
I just farted
did you at least light it on fire?
Real quick...Andrew I've been thinking about the comment you've left and it's much more theological in nature then even you might think.
You're right that we can't avoid exclusions and that's not so much the point of what I'm trying to say. You use the word "relations" and I think it's a good choice. It seems to me that Jesus is blasting people in the NT for relating to idols like narrow political viewpoints instead of relating to the living God. I think the point for us is to relate to God in Christ and make him our orienting paradigm. Anyhting else is really idolatry and ends up being divisive and judgemental in the end.
No, we don't have enough information to decide who's ina nd out but that's exactly why we need to relate to Christ, pursue him in all he brings to us and trust him to be the judge in the end. I have more to think about concerning this and I'll write more later.
Post a Comment