From what I’ve found I’m not sure if these are largely against Romney, which could at this point be explained as getting a head start on the general election (though I doubt that), or actually pro-Gingrich. (Report in the Boston Globe, hat tips Stones Cry Out and American Thinker.)
I pointed out in a comment at Stones Cry Out that one of the reasons I, as a non-Republican (as opposed to left-leaning, which I’m not sure what it means) blogger have not commented on this practice is that I didn’t know it was happening. But I’ll go further here. I think measuring things by what people do and do not condemn on blogs is a very error prone idea. For me, at least, what I comment on is determined much more by how much time I had that day than by a broader level of interest. Yes, I will choose among the things that interest me most on any particular day, but since I don’t generally go back and comment on old stories, if I don’t have time for immediate comment, I won’t.
I’m an independent in a state with close primaries. When I lived in a state with an open primary, I only voted in those primaries for people I would support in the general election if they got on the ballot. I don’t approve of the kind of advertising referenced.
But I will also note that I do not approve of the bulk of campaign finance laws. In other words, I think free speech is free speech, and it should be especially free when campaigning. And if we don’t consider the voters capable of exacting that penalty, how do we expect people they elect to manage speech any better?
The original argument that this wasn’t a search was, in fact, quite ridiculous in my view, but I incorrectly reported that a warrant would be necessarily required according to this decision.
… that police put on your vehicle, according to the Washington Post. I welcome this ruling, and am very pleased to see it was unanimous.
In fact, I think the government agencies who thought they could get by with this should be ashamed of themselves, and the a unanimous court ruling shows how far outside “reasonable” they were.
I’m not going to be blacked out here, but I thought I’d just mention that I also oppose the bills (PIPA, SOPA) that are going through congress. Our representatives simply have no idea whatever what a reasonable burden is. Their view is that if a multi-billion dollar corporation or a large government agency could handle it, it must be reasonable.
As usual, a good idea (piracy prevention) gets implemented in a way that will place an undue burden on many and will chill the conversation online.
I think she has two excellent points, the first about the danger of thinking of oneself as a celebrity (evangelical or not!), and the second about the value of structured prayer. I’d add a note on the value of structured Bible study, which also forces one to leave one’s comfort zone and one’s own desires and to let God speak.
I sometimes watch Law and Order on TV (not faithfully), and I’ve often thought “how creative!” as one prosecutor or another invents a way to apply the law to something they’d like to “get” someone for. (Quite a sentence, but I’m going to leave it.) At the same time I’ve hoped real prosecutors in the real world don’t behave in that fashion, even though I know they do.
Here’s an example. According to The Economist, a marine biologist took advantage of the fact that some killer whales killed a gray whale calf. She moved quickly to photograph the feeding, including putting a rope through some of the blubber. She’s now charged with a federal felony for feeding the whales, as well as for lying to the police. Why lying? She provided them with her edited video when they asked for her video of the event.
We need better laws, better written, and we need better accountability for some of these prosecutors.
There’s a video that’s been making the rounds of the Christian blogs, in which pits Jesus against religion. Here it is:
There have been a number of posts that are critical of it as well, including a good one by John Byron, and a longer, but still interesting one at The American Jesus.
Another blogger I follow regularly, T. Michael Holcomb, has also created a video response, which is worth watching, though he gets into some more serious theological terminology:
I think that both the original video and the responses have some important things to say. But we do have a problem here, and it’s one of equivocation. We’re not keeping a consistent definition of religion. One responder notes that Jesus objected to legalism, not religion, but to the speaker in the video, legalism is inherent in religion.
I have little to add to the posts and videos I have linked. There is good religion and not-so-good religion. We should remember that the religion Jesus objected to (and did so as a Jew speaking of his own religion), was one God instituted in Hebrew scriptures. He opposed corruptions of it, such as legalism, but never said it was bad by nature.
At the same time, those very corruptions of religion, including legalism and the elevation of earthly authorities above God, are diseases that are rampant in American Christianity.
The institutional church needs to hear this and take action. If they can …
43 “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. (Matthew 5:43-45, NLT)
It appears that this message has not reached many Christians responding to a court order to remove a Christian banner from a Rhode Island high school. There have been treats against the 17 year old student who was the plaintiff. To get some of the tone of the remarks that aren’t legally “threats,” you might read this article. Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has collected some comments from Twitter (language warning!) in a post titled Crank Up the Christian Hatred.
What I find even more disturbing is the number of people who are willing to provide some sort of justification for this type of behavior. Again, you’ll find them in the comments with comments such as “What did you expect?” Well, since I have followed church/state cases for years, including one just in the next county, I unfortunately expect Christians to behave very badly, to yell, scream, whine, defy the law, threaten, and resort to vile language in response to being denied some public stage. But in another sense, I expect better.
And don’t get me wrong based on the text I quoted at the start. These Christians are not experiencing persecution. While they may no longer have a religious banner in their high school, a public place, they doubtless have plenty of churches where they can express their viewpoints, not to mention Twitter and the comments sections of their newspapers, where they can make incredibly unchristian comments while others say, “It’s just natural,” or something of the sort.
Jesus said to respond in a loving and kind manner when you are persecuted. There’s an Iranian pastor on death row because he will not deny Christ. He’s being persecuted. A young woman was given 40 lashes for converting to Christianity in the Sudan. She is persecuted.
But pampered Americans who have to pray in their homes, their churches, in restaurants, on the sidewalks, and in many, many non-governmentally sponsored events? Oh the deprivation! Oh the sorrow! Doubtless God will no longer hear us.
And there are easy targets to blame. Atheists. See how you can make an epithet out of it? So now we talk about how much we hate them because they did what? Because they limited very slightly the places where we can proclaim our message. We don’t get the government’s authority behind our religion? How will the gospel ever survive without the backing of Uncle Sam?
In a general sense it’s pathetic. The persecuted majority. I’d be laughing if it didn’t make me so furious. But that’s just as an American citizen.
As a Christian myself, it makes me deeply ashamed and embarrassed. Here we have a perfect opportunity to model the behavior that Jesus commanded. We could be right up front and say, “We don’t want to use the power of the government to pursue our agenda in any case. The gospel doesn’t need a captive audience guaranteed by the power of the police (the public school classroom and facilities). Christians should be defending Jessica Ahlquist. They should be happy that she’s thinking enough about faith to take a courageous stand as she has done.
And no Christian should excuse the behavior of those who threaten or revile any group of people, in this case atheists and the ACLU (convenient cultural tags for those who don’t go along with our “Christian” culture). We should make it clear that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. Note here that by “revile” I don’t mean “say they’re wrong.” I’m very clearly saying the people who made these comments are wrong. I think they should repent. I don’t think they should be subject to threats of violence, or obscenities, and what’s more I don’t hate them. Their behavior infuriates me. I hope they repent. I call on them to repent.
I’ve used the word “Christian” for people who behave this way simply because that is what they claim to be. I don’t believe in trying to make non-Christians figure out who the “true” Christians are. God gets to judge that. But there is nothing “Christian” or “Christ-like” about this behavior.
There are those who call people “Christians in name only” because of doctrinal beliefs. Well, people who behave in the way demonstrated on Twitter and the newspaper comments section are Christians in name only, much more so than anyone who denies some doctrine. There is nothing Christ-like whatsoever about their behavior.
And those Christians among us who realize this should proclaim it.
The greatest converting influence of all is a life which clearly and obviously is possessed of a power which can cope with the human situation in all its problems, in all its tragedy, and in all its pain. — William Barclay, Turning to God, p.41
Peter Enns has a good post on what we should expect to learn from the Bible, especially Genesis 1 & 2, regarding origins. Good, as far as it goes. The problem that I see is that too few interpreters are going all the way. He has a new book out on the topic, Evolution of Adam, The: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins which is available for pre-order on Amazon.com.
We need to hear a bit more talking about how one deals with sin and atonement in the context of evolutionary creationism. Perhaps he goes a bit further on that in his book, which I definitely intend to read.
I’m also editing two manuscripts on creation for my company, Energion Publications. Both will be released before summer. The first is on creation in Scripture, while the second deals with creation as a Christian doctrine. I plan to provide some quotes as work progresses.
Is the American Church in Prison? (2011/12/29) Christians in many countries face imprisonment, but is it possible the American is imprisoned metaphorically by our way of thinking? Eric Carpenter thinks we are, and suggests some things to rethink.
(1)
which is available for pre-order on Amazon.com.
Recent Comments