It is time to vote, but
how can we do that without being judgemental?
Doesn't voting mean I have to make a judgment? Sure does.
Well shouldn't I feel guilty for having the audacity to judge? NO!
Wow we Christians miss the point so often. OK let's break it down. God would not give us the awesome privilege of voting for our leaders if he didn't want us to make informed decisions about who would be better for leading.
Is it ok to use my Christianity and belief in God when making my decision. YES!
Our relationship to God gives us our world view, we would be foolish not to take that into account. Do your duty, make an informed decision and cast a ballot.
What about the separation of church and state?
That is all about the Government not impeding your right to worship. There was never an intention of the founding fathers to say; "We made this experiment in democracy because of religious persecution across the pond, but when you vote, check your beliefs at the door."
But that is not the judgment we are supposed to avoid. The kinds of judgement we should beware of is the assumption of unspoken motive, or the placement of the eternal soul, these are the judgments that we have not only no ability to know, but no authority to pronounce.
So how does that look exactly?
Well first, it is OK to believe that what you believe is right.
As a matter of fact it is good to believe that your thoughtful, prayerful, time of seeking God's truth and wisdom has not left you completely ignorant.
Where we get into trouble is when we say that anyone who doesn't vote the way I do or think the way I do is ignorant or stupid, not a Christian, or is on their way to eternal damnation. It could simply be that God is not finished dealing with them or me yet, and by the way, he may allow them to vote differently because he wants to teach them, or me something.
OK, so how do I co-exist with someone who I disagree with?
Should I be quiet about my opinion?
Rather than being quiet, be sensitive to God and the other people you might discuss things with. Cover your thoughts and feelings with Gods grace and love.
If the other person is not able to be as graceful as you are in discussing these things then love them more and be sensitive to their feelings and positions your opinion is not dependant on anyone elses approval.
Know that some people don't have a sense of humor when it comes to these issues, on the other hand humor can come in very handy when discussing with some on the other side of issues.
As far as elections go there are many verses in the bible that talk about God being in control, the heart of the king is in the hand of God, God places the rulers on the throne etc. etc. So know that God is in control. That doesn't mean that God won't put a corrupt politician in charge. Remember lots of those kings God placed on the thrones beheaded Christians. But that is not the point. The point is God will place the person on the throne that he needs to accomplish his plan. So whether God chooses a person who is good or bad is irrelevant. Our responsibility is to serve God, and love people no matter what the circumstances are.
So in closing; generally a political or religious position that is opposite of yours is not a threat to you, and it is not your responsibility in most cases to correct. Remember you are responsible to people not for people. You are called to love the other person regardless of their handicaps, race, views, and positions. Open healthy dialogue where possible. Be eager to listen for the positions and arguments that you hadn't thought of. Never be dismissive of another person, that implies pious judgement toward them. Pray for those you disagree with, nothing changes our heart toward someone more than praying for them and constantly pray for humility, wisdom and peace. The bible says "They will know we are Christians by our love." That doesn't mean we will always agree, as a matter of fact, it is easy to love those we agree with, it is loving those we disagree with that really sets us apart.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
One thing I know for certain after 24 years as a hairdresser and years in ministry is, all of us have issues. I am an adult child of an alcoholic with A.D.D. who struggles with depression. I view my issues as gifts that prepare me for success every day.
Blog Roll
Posts
Blog Archive
About Me
- Ross Woolf
- I am a cosmetologist with 24 years in the industry. Besides standing behind the chair I am a Husband, Dad, Bandleader, Singer, Poet, Leader, and Follower.
5 comments:
Hank Speaks Out on Barack Obama's Twisting of the Scriptures
From the time that Barack Obama burst upon our collective consciousness he has demonstrated more than a passing interest in biblical theology. On the one hand I've been taken by his eloquence and his willingness to speak forthrightly about his personal religious convictions. In fact he well said that "the majority of great reformers in American history were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their causes. So to say that men and women should not inject their personal morality into public policy debates is a practical absurdity." And I think that's well said. It's correct.
On the other hand, I am very troubled by Obama's twisting of the biblical text.
It's one thing to take issue with the Bible. It's quite another to overtly mischaracterize the message of the Bible. In his "Call to Renewal," a keynote address to religious leaders, he made at least three such mischaracterizations. He said:
"Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w
Well, to begin with, in that clip Obama said that Leviticus suggests slavery is okay. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. Far from extolling the virtues of slavery, the Bible clearly and categorically denounces slavery as sin. I've written about that in detail in Bible Answer Book, Volume 1.
\His second mischaracterization is far more subtle. While he's right in suggesting that Leviticus characterizes the eating of shellfish as an abomination, he is wrong in isolating this injunction from its biblical context. If he had an adequate appreciation of the rich tradition of biblical Judaism I think he would have been far more restrained in his characterization and I dealt with that subject in principle in an article that appeared in the Christian Research Journal called "President Bartlett's Fallacious Diatribe." It was an article I wrote on the television show West Wing.
His third mischaracterization is perhaps the most egregious and easy to dismiss because nowhere does Deuteronomy suggest stoning your child if he strays from the faith. You will not find that anywhere in Scripture. It is a clear mischaracterization of what the biblical text actually says.
To begin with the son in question is not an adolescent guilty of nothing more than slamming doors. The son described by Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy is old enough to be morally culpable of extravagantly wicked behavior. It's the kind of behavior that threatens the health and safety of the entire community.
The parent's desire in the context of this passage to spare their own son serves as a built-in buffer against an unwarranted or frivolous enforcement of the law. Likewise, ratification by the elders precludes a precipitous judgment on the part of the parents. Thus, the standard of evidence prescribed by the Mosaic Law exceeds that of modern jurisprudence. For Obama to claim the moral high ground over the Scriptures is the height of hypocrisy. For over three decades Western society has sanctioned the systematic slaughter of children, guilty of nothing more than being unwanted. Worse still, Obama did not have the moral conviction to vote for the civil rights of the partially born child.
Mischaracterization serves a purpose, though. it reminds us that we should learn to read the Bible for all it's worth. If we genuinely believe that God has spoken the attendant question for all of us should be "What has God said?" I think in our society if we can counter these kinds of objections we can use them as springboards or opportunities to lead people to Christ. If we can't, these kinds of objections which are circulated on popular television shows and on the internet are leading people away from the faith. If you heard me the other day, a man called up and asked me questions like this because his son was now walking away from the faith because he didn't think there were credible answers to questions like this. It is incumbent upon Christians to always be ready to give an answer, to do it with gentleness and with respect, but to do it. Don't let the question remain unanswered as though the historic Christian faith doesn't have a credible answer. It's why I answer questions on the Bible Answer Man broadcast and why I wrote the Bible Answer Books. We want people to be able to counter these kinds of mischaracterizations, whether they come from the highest realms of political leadership or a person in a grocery store. We need to know that the Christian faith is not for obscurantists who lost their brain somewhere in the narthex of the church. The Christian faith stands the test of time. It's credible, it's reliable, it's defensible and ultimately it is the way to have a relationship with the living Lord of the universe.
JB:
What is really bothersome is that most Christians don't seemed bothered by Barack Hussein Obama's biblical and constitutional twistings. Listen in his own words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pckELECTION 2008
Obama rips U.S. Constitution
Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'
Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.
In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
(Story continues below)
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."
JB:
This election is different than any in which I've participated. There is more at stake here than supreme court justice appointments and fiscal responsibility(which are themselves very important). This election is about preserving the USA and our Constitution as we know them.
Well said J.B. My purpose in writing this was to open dialogue and reduce villafication toward those we dissagree with. To allow unfettered conversation, causing movement of the intrenched, captive mind. In other words take the focus of each other and put it back on the issues which should be able to be discussed without the kinds of judgements that cause us to shut off communication. I am a Jesus lover, I want people to know that it is ok to take that into account when I vote. It colors my world view. I too believe that this election is the most important of my lifetime, and it is the frustration of not being able to talk about the issues with a dissenting opinioned person without being dismissed simply because I see things differently, that caused me to write this entry. So I guess my prayer is;
Lord have mercy on our country, place the person you want in charge in the White House, for whatever your purpose is. Open lines of communication with those that dissagree with me that I might reason with them. Let them ask so that I might have the opportunity to be ready with an answer for the hope that lies within me. Let me be content with you on the throne should I not be happy about the election. And most of all no matter who is elected, may I serve you better, and love others deeper, with the same love you love me with, and be more effective in sharing the gospel that gives us hope, peace, and eternal communion with you.
That was not anonymous that was me Ross. Guess I just pushed the wrong button.
Amen.
It is clear this election process has meant a lot to you, and I respect your desire to discuss the issues with a, “dissenting opinioned person without being dismissed” simply for seeing things differently. I also appreciate your comment about opening the lines of communication with those that you might disagree with so as to be able to “reason” with them. To reduce “vilification”, allow “unfettered conversation”, thereby “causing movement of the entrenched, captive mind”.
You write your frustration comes from feeling dismissed for having differing views. Is it possible a portion of your audience is equally as frustrated in that their views are not as clearly defined as yours? Or perhaps you should consider the measure of ability of the party with whom you are attempting your debates. A wise man once told me frustrations can often stem from the expectations we have of others. Have you ever considered you may be attempting to open up your cerebral political discussions with the wrong audience? Could your expectations be set a bit too high on some levels?
You talk about wanting to “open lines of communication with those that disagree with (you) that (you) might reason with them”. Am I to infer from this comment that the “them” in this scenario are unreasonable? You want open and free dialogue to allow for “movement of the entrenched, captive mind”. I read these words and have to question what exactly is your intent? Is it your position to engage in dialogue to understand differing viewpoints or are you attempting to debate with them in order to reshape their views to align more with yours? You’re dealing with a cynical mind here, so be mindful of your choice of wording:-)
Inasmuch as I would like to believe non-judging dialogue between two opposing views can exist, my life’s experiences, to date, have taught me otherwise. My aversion to discussing matters which I hold to be private (i.e., politics, religion, etc…) have been shaped as a result of those experiences. However, with that being said, I will offer you a glimmer of hope for the future. Although some of the choice verbiage you used in your blog caused me to question your true intent, deep down inside I do believe and trust the sincerity of your desire to engage people in healthy non-judgmental dialogue. I just need some time to reshape my own thinking a bit more.
So, until the time comes when you and I can sit and discuss or debate the minutiae of those issues we disagree on, I beg your patience, request you keep your expectations to a minimum and allow your frustrations to be minimized.
Post a Comment