Grudges Can Be Undone
by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 02/28/2008 at 8:55 AM
America has sometimes been compared to Babylon in its indulgence and tolerance for sin. But in a CT essay, Tim Stafford says American culture is more akin to Samaria than Babylon. We live in a culture that does not ignore Christianity but views it with suspicion.
The problem is not that my religion is strange. The problem is that my religion is familiar. Like Samaritans and Jews, Christians and non-Christians have a partly shared worldview (our Western traditions, which include the Bible), a shared point of origin (Christendom), and well-defined points of contention (the exclusivity of Christ). We are familiar with what each other believes. We're suspicious of one another. So we start off with a grudge.
Stafford offers an example of the strong reactions religious activities can evoke.
This is what happened when a new church in my city applied for a zoning amendment. I expected plans for a small neighborhood church to be met with attitudes somewhere between warmth and indifference. What erupted instead was organized hostility. Residents drew up and circulated petitions. Large crowds turned out at both planning commission and city council meetings. The brief speeches permitted for those opposing the church went on for hours because so many had something to say. Many complained about traffic (on Sunday morning?), safety, and noise. But the underlying sentiment seemed clear: We don't like churches, and we don't want one in our neighborhood. As one man told the planning commission, "I didn't move into this neighborhood in order to have a church within walking distance."
Diversity and tolerance are high societal values, and Christianity -- with its "one way" claims -- naturally grates against that. Tolerance has come to mean affirming others' beliefs as equally valuable and valid -- something believers cannot do. Stafford offers advice from Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, on interacting with Samaria.
Keller recognizes that certain language pushes the power-and-superiority button at the heart of the Samaritan grudge. We may know the way, the truth, and the life, but what is gained by announcing it so brashly?
Instead, Keller seeks to repair the grudge by focusing on the distinctiveness of Jesus and Christianity -- the humility and gentleness of Christ. After all, Jesus Himself, humbly interacted with the Samaritan woman and skillfully diffused her combatant comments. Stafford concludes:
More than requiring skillful communication, living in Samaria requires patience and love for the long haul. No one can change a grudge by direct assault. You have to outlive it, and look for fresh opportunities to begin anew. You have to love the people on the other side of the grudge.
Jesus clearly did. He honored Samaria for all time when he chose a Samaritan for his parable of neighborliness. (Who do we choose for our illustrations of virtue?) He sent his disciples to Samaria to announce his resurrection (Acts 1:8). Philip the evangelist obeyed and had a great response. "There was great joy in that city" (Acts 8:8).
Which suggests that grudges can be undone.
1. Matthew said the following at 10:38 AM on Feb 28:
I went to a few lectures by N.T. Wright this week, and he said that "tolerance is a cheap Enlightenment parody of love." I think that this post hits on that theme and offers the great counterbalance to tolerance-- not a brash affirmation of the truth (though we need to affirm the truth strongly and without shame), but love, which is far superior to tolerance.
Underneath this is the Nietzchean idea that all truth claims are power grabs; we have to reckon with the fact that outsiders will perceive our truth claims like this. Sadly, sometimes they are and we need to repent of this. Jesus preached strongly against this, reminding us that our confidence in Jesus' truth and power is informed by His jaw-dropping humility.
This isn't easy. It's a strong temptation when we have the truth of Christ to beat people over the head with it (and when you're dealing with true Christians, sometimes you *do* need to beat people over the head with it.) But, as Stafford says, you have to outlive grudges and hostility with love, patience, humility, and grace. And the only way to get those is to humbly ask our Father and study His ways.
2. |)/\\/E said the following at 10:44 AM on Feb 28:
Here is a valid link to the article " This Samaritan Life."
3. Christina said the following at 10:44 AM on Feb 28:
That's interesting.
I spend a lot of time wiht non-christians, and whenever I let it out that (1) I have bible study one night or (2) I'm going to a Christian Concert, the question immediately brought forth is..."Oh...your religious..." in that attitude that almost suggests that they don't know how to view me anymore.
They either begin feeling uncomfortable, discouraged (cuz sometimes they are guys already interested in me), or outright hostile. On occassion, I come across a few that can see that my beliefs were present the entire time they knew me and they see that them knowing doesn't change the person they came to care about.
Its interesting and disheartening. I mean, I'm not willing to compromise my beliefs or keep it a secret, but when a guy is demonstrating any interest in me or I'm enjoying time spent with others, as soon as that question comes up, I cringe. Because I know that the reason they're asking is because they are not...and in the relevant scenario that means I can't entertain any thought of a potential relationship...and that my answer may change how they view me...
But the nice thing is, God can use that relationship and that truth to change how people view him. I know God doesn't need me to make his truth known, but it can be kinda cool when he does...
4. Khalil said the following at 10:45 AM on Feb 28:
Matthew 5:16, 1 Peter 2:12.
If we live lives like those we are called to live, we have our witness and the means to live peacefully with those that view us with suspicion. I know we can't control the actions of others, but we are responsible for how we live our lives. Unfortunately all it takes is a few bad people or experiences to ruin the reputation of the whole.
5. Margaret said the following at 12:51 PM on Feb 28:
I don't know how you all feel about Joyce Meyer, but here is a link to her program that aired this morning:
http://www.joycemeyer.org/OurMinistries/Broadcast/
TV/Archive/20080228.htm
This is one of my favorites of her episodes. Starting at 18:25 she quotes Matthew 11:29-30 and Galatians 6:1-2. If more people payed attention to passages like these, I doubt we'd have a fraction of the strife and contention, and we would be able to be truly effective witnesses of the Gospel.
There is a right time to speak out and correct others. But more importantly, we need to love.
6. Rich said the following at 11:15 PM on Feb 28:
I think no matter how loving, humble, and gentle we become, the world will still continue to see us as intolerant. As one Boundless blogger said a while back (I forget who), talking about sin is a tough sell, yet its necessary to gain an understanding of salvation.
Of course, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't focus on being loving, etc, nor that we should give up the game and just preach about happiness and all the parts of Christianity the world likes...it just means that we should always keep in mind that the world's attitude of Christians, on the whole, won't change much. In fact, biblically, it will get a lot worse.
...So, while we can improve in many areas, no need to beat ourselves up to the degree I'm seeing in many Christians today.
7. JB said the following at 11:19 PM on Feb 28:
I think Tim Stafford is being too charitable when he says that it's Christianity's universal truth claim that causes postmodernists to be suspicious of Christians. Sure, truth claims are one way of asserting power and this may be significant, but let's be honest - plenty of Christians really are out to acquire tangible political power. This blog is attached to one such group. Conservative Christianity is popularly seen, I think accurately, as trying vigorously to be able to tell people what they may or may not do. They want to determine who may or may not marry, to keep schools using abstinence-only education that does not work, to ban federal funding of stem cell research, to place limits on women's health care, and on, and on, and on. And they're largely successful in doing so.
You don't need to resort to an analysis of postmodern philosophy to see why Christianity makes others in our society nervous and suspicious. Political conservative groups have done plenty to bring our faith into disrepute.
8. Sarah P. said the following at 12:29 PM on Feb 29:
JB: Politics is supposed to be a balance between different interest groups. That's what keeps the country free. Whoever doesn't have his or her own voice prevail is going to feel put-upon, no matter what.
The fact of the matter is, the reason that conservative Christians are pushing to legislate these matters is that they are things that used to be taken for granted until portions of the culture began pushing the "understood" boundaries. So we Christians are trying to set the boundaries in stone. Will it be helpful? I'm guessing, probably not in the end.
The really interesting thing is that the public school system was started by activist Christians in Massachusetts back in 1832, because they felt that poor kids were not getting a proper moral education. So the Methodists and Unitarians decided to mandate schooling, often at first at gunpoint, because the parents didn't want their kids to go. Schools were originally supposed to be the way, as Horace Mann explained, to "train up children in the way they should go, so that when they are old they will not depart from it."
The puzzle - we can't leave government to the non-Christians, but yet we can't legislate morality from the top down.
9. Matthew said the following at 4:12 PM on Feb 29:
Rich,
I think it's appropriate to engage in a little bit of beating up on ourselves because:
a) Humility is utterly important in evangelism.
b) the Church has committed many sins in this regard and has either made power grabs or has been used by others in their power grabs (see the 2004 election.)
c) Christians who have been in the Christian subculture for a long time rarely realize how they and the institutions they hold so dear look to the outside world. I've met very few Christians who honestly acknowledge what was wrong in how conservative Christians responded to homosexuality in the last 25 years or recognize that there is some truth to the claim that Christians use morality to make power plays.
To summarize, we ought not be ashamed of speaking the truth, but we should be ashamed when speaking the truth (or speaking something close enough to the truth to deceive others) is used to bash people over the heads and get political power.
Sarah P, I'd recommend reading some more of Keller's work on how culture changes (if you haven't already), as he has a lot of really helpful insights on more effective ways to change a culture.
10. Rich said the following at 7:09 PM on Feb 29:
Matthew,
I agree that "beating ourselves up" can have its benefits, *given a certain definition on what "beating ourselves up" means.* I agree that we've done wrong in the area of grabbing power in the past (though the whole 2004 election thing is debateable...could you be more specific on what you are referring to? since I don't know exactly what you are referring to, I'm going to hold off on commenting on that until you write more detail.).
However, I don't see a lot of Christians "bashing people over the heads." Of course, some (Fred Phelps) do it, but I don't see it happening writ large, especially to the degree that the world and some Christian commenters say it is. What I do see is Christians engaging in lots of social service (which is a GREAT thing), and timid Christians who are afraid of sharing their faith for fear of being labeled someone who "stuffs the Bible" down others throats. Most Christians I know don't share their faith much at all, or if they do, its only the parts of Christianity that don't draw much ire ("Jesus loves you and wants you to have a wonderful life."). I also see lots of apologizing going on. I think we're apologizing and focusing on not being offensive enough, almost too much. I just see/feel a different general zeitgeist in Christian circles than those who insist we keep on groveling.
I'm willing to consider the possibility of you and I running in totally different circles (I live in Southern California).
11. Rich said the following at 1:40 AM on Mar 1:
One (or two) more thing(s):
If non-believers have negative views about us because we think we're right and others are wrong, that's not always such a bad thing. Even those who possess those negative views think they have it right! Exclusivity can be expressed more or less winsomely, of course. Oftentimes, its expressed in a way that is not understandable to non-Christians (which needs to change), but thinking and speaking that Christianity is right and other religions are wrong isn't bad...Part of our witness can be dialoguing with others to help them understand this. I'm not specifically responding to anyone here, just making a general point that I feel needs to be brought up.
Secondly, what Christina said begs a question: so what if people don't know how to treat you when they find out you're religious? In my opinion, its not good or bad, and it doesn't mean they've come to those attitudes via negative interactions with "Fundie" Christians; it just is what it is...Maybe they came to those attitudes because they don't want to bend the knee to Christ, and your mere presence grates up against their fleshly independance. People have reacted like that to Billy Graham (when they interacted with him in person), for heaven's sake, and he's about as humble as it gets! As Christina mentioned, that pretty much nixes the possibility of a romantic relationship, but otherwise we ought not lose any sleep over it (Christina, I'm not suggesting you are losing sleep, but I know some out there are discouraged by such reactions and I'm directing this comment towards them.).
12. Jenny said the following at 9:28 AM on Mar 1:
Regardless of method of presentation, God's truth will always be offensive to some. Removing its offense necessitates weakening its power and message. I am not referring to obnoxious, repulsive and rude methods of evangelism. I am referring to God's truth in its purest form. It will always be a stench in the nostrils of those who will not believe due to hardness of heart.
13. Rachael said the following at 9:39 AM on Mar 1:
Rich's comments are interesting. A popular trend seems to lie in being culturally relative in a gracious manner. Perhaps this trend is more prevalent in certain geographical locations or communities, as Rich might agree (10). However, even in cases when believers are graceful, humble, and peaceful, likely there would be unbelievers who would take the gospel as a stench (Rich noted that people have even reacted negatively to Billy G.). We definitely should seek to be humble and gracious in speech and deed. However, if there are people who already tend to be soft and gracious, an over-focus on this might make them even more timid.
That being said, yes, of course people can repulse and be sinfully motivated. In Acts 16, a girl followed Paul & co. around for many days saying that they are servants of God and that they were proclaiming "the way of salvation". Paul was very annoyed and commanded the evil spirit to come out of her. Clearly, she was not drawing attention to Paul and the others from pure motives. And a stop was put to the behavior.
Remember also that God can even work through wicked people, and that he works all for the good for those who love Him and are “called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28). Also remember Phil. 1:15-18, where Paul recognizes that people preach Christ from different motives (envy, rivalry, good will/love). But somehow, in vs. 18, he writes, “whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.”
Even when people repulse, though, it is important to remember that God is still ultimately in control and that He knows those He has called. Thankfully, if God has called someone to Himself, Christians and pseudo-Christians cannot rob them of His gift.
14. Matthew said the following at 12:40 PM on Mar 1:
Rich,
Thanks for responding. I think that what you perceive depends very much on what you are reading, listening to, or seeing. If you're listening to the voices of the "seeker sensitive" or their more liberal counterparts, you're not going to hear much bashing-over-the-head. If you read worldnetdaily, listen to FotF, or go to certain churches that my formerly Christian friends went to (which were otherwise "seeker sensitive," a movement that I have great distaste for), you'll find a great deal of unbalanced God-tinged conservative-politics-all-the-way nonsense that treats politics as the big fight that we're all supposed to be participating in. Getting "our guys" into office, intelligent design, family marriage amendments, and restrictions on abortion are subtly or blatantly promulgated as the means to the end of redeeming America. This rhetoric is still very strong and I hear it all the time. So does the rest of the world.
We have to stand against this stuff, and "beating ourselves up" is probably the wrong way to put it. I think that graciously preaching and teaching that cultural renewal, service to others, humble engagement in politics and civil service, and ultimately individual and community renewal by Christ is the way to heal our land. We have to preach and teach against power-grabbing and not be afraid to call it out because it is idolatrous adultery of the Church seeking power as Her lover and not Christ.
I, personally, will admit that I am not that good at witness. I need to be bolder in what I say, but more often I need to be more consistent in being a good student and friend to people so that when I do speak, my words are backed up by my actions. I think the Church needs to do the same.
p.s. Just to clarify, I do personally believe that restrictions on abortion ARE necessary and very much worth fighting for.
15. Matthew said the following at 12:45 PM on Mar 1:
Responding to the "other" thing you mentioned-- I totally agree with you there. I've always personally believed that we need to be as unoffensive as possible in our evangelism so that the offense of the Gospel (that you are a sinner and need to believe in Jesus to be saved) will be the strongest thing piercing non-Christian's hearts. If people don't like us because we preach an exclusive Gospel, that's very good. They can take their offense down to hell with them if they don't repent. If people don't like us because we preach an exclusive Gospel along with an exclusive political philosophy and exclusive cultural mores... that is not good.
16. Rich said the following at 12:32 AM on Mar 2:
Matthew,
There's lots in your responses I can agree with...without getting into too much detail, its wise not to make politics our savior; it has a limited role. There can be solid conservatives in every branch of the fed. and st. governments, and the country can still be going down the tubes. We cannot and should not try to usher in the reign of Christ (in the milennial sense) through politics.
That being said, though, perhaps I should get into details, because that argument needs to be nuanced. Clearly (and, judging from your "p.s" remark, you'll probably agree), being politically active is a Christian virtue, not vice. The Great Commission doesn't just extend to individual souls, but to the culture and the physical world as well. As you mentioned, we do need to fight for the innocent unborn...this needs to happen in many arenas in our culture, politics being one of them. If I can help get a law passed that will save a whole class of people who are otherwise defenseless, why should I balk at that in the name of Christian humility?
Also, while laws on the books certainly can't save a person, and they can't bring someone from spiritual death to life, they still have a role to play in the redemption of a culture. By having certain laws on the books, some lifestyles/points of view/worldviews can seem more or less plausible/acceptable. That's one reason why, I suspect, why much of the gay and lesbian community is so politically active and so "battle ready" when it comes to laws that appear to the uneducated eye as small and inconsequential. They understand the concept of a chess match. I think this is one reason (among many) why youth, both inside and outside of the church, are more accepting of homosexual lifestyles.
In a word, laws affect the plausibility structure of a culture--what the culture finds reasonable/unreasonable. What we approve of and disapprove of is in part expressed through our laws. All this, in turn, is the atmosphere that we witness in. So in an indirect way, laws can make it easier or harder to bring someone to Christ...They can make it harder or easier for a person to leave harmful lifestyles (or even want to leave harmful lifestyles). Yes, I know, the Holy Spirit is more powerful than any law and can bring anyone to Christ. No obstacle is too tough for Him! However, that being said, God in His sovereignty allows human laws to still make a tangible difference.
17. Khalil said the following at 8:54 AM on Mar 3:
A Christianity Today article that is relevant (IMHO) to this discussion.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/001/5.65.html
18. Matthew said the following at 1:15 PM on Mar 3:
Rich,
Certainly, I agree with you that human laws can make a cultural difference and here is where I guess one's political philosophy becomes more or less the deciding factor in making these decisions. However, the effect that the law can have is minimal, especially in a case like marriage and homosexuality where marriage is already profaned.
We'll take the issue of marriage because we've been batting it around, and I think it's a good example of where Christians are co-opted by the Republican party on what I consider to be a peripheral issue to help the Republicans win power, especially in 2004 (which is what I was referring to above.)
Over the past few years, I have come to be one of the youth in the church you describe who "accepts" homosexual lifestyles. I now see homosexual lifestyles to be just as sinful and depraved before God as any other kind of fornication, adultery, pornography, and whatever other sin against God's holy institution of marriage. I think all of those sins and perversions of marriage that involve two consenting adults should have the same punishment under the law.
I have never understood why banning homosexual marriage would make homosexual behavior more "acceptable," one would think that if you want to make homosexual sins less acceptable in our culture by rule of law you would ban homosexual behavior outright. I have also never understood why banning homosexual marriage would protect "the sanctity of marriage" since evangelicals with their 50% divorce rates are doing a stellar job dragging the name of marriage through the mud already. There's no sanctity in marriage to protect under law; it's like building a fence around your house when the thieves have already been getting in through a bunch of tunnels.
Perhaps some of this is because I tend to lean libertarian on a number of issues. I think that with a few exceptions, most homosexuals would like to be able to live their sinful lifestyles in peace and love their families. In a free and democratic society such as ours, I do not see where I have the right to restrict their freedom in such a way. I also think that the Christian Right's energy would be much, much better spent making heterosexual marriage more sanctified and fighting issues where others really ARE getting hurt, like abortion, peace, fighting poverty in ways other than just throwing money at welfare recipients etc. etc.
19. Rich said the following at 10:26 PM on Mar 3:
Matthew,
It looks like we have at least some common ground as to Christians needing to be politically involved. Seems like we have the basics down. If we talked about it, we'd probably agree that the conservative movement has lost lots of its punch and a tad of its compassion. Lots of what you see coming from conservatives, even when we're right (I say "we" b.c I'm a conservative), is a bit shrill. William F. Buckley made that point a lot before he passed away.
Our difference lies in certain cases, specifically, homosexual marriage. Here are my "two cents:"
1) You and I have different definitions of "accept." When I say "accept," I mean that one accepts homosexuality if one sees it as a viable alternative lifestyle to heterosexual monogamy in marriage; its just fine to live homosexually...ok with God, etc. Its not sinful or harmful. Be who you are. Your definition is a lot more strict than mine.
2) Its important to note that, strictly speaking, conservatives aren't trying to "ban" homosexual marriage. This makes it seem as if conservatives started this. Instead, marriage has *always* been defined as that between a man and a woman ever since this country was this country. Homosexuals want to change the definition, so they (I hate to speak in "us vs them" terms and in "battle" terms, but I'm too lazy to move around it with my words.) are starting the conflict. This is their right, but they must present good reasons to change the definition. A few words about love and freedom is not good enough, because at the end of the day, that's not what its really about.
3) This is really about *acceptance.* Those who argue for the legalizing of homosexual marriage understand that marriage implies the acceptance of the public. That is one thing marriage does, bottom line. Those who argue for the redefinition of marriage have said as much. This is about much, much more than the freedom of homosexuals loving their families. As far as why small (or large, in this case) laws would make homosexual behavior more or less acceptable in the culture, keep in mind that its a cumulative thing. One thing leads to another leads to another. Not all slippery slopes are real, but this one definitely is--if not, then gay/lesbian political activists wouldn't be so aggressive for every small political battle and victory.
4) In fact, homosexuals, right now under the law, have the same freedoms as I. I cannot marry anyone I love. I have the freedom to marry a woman over a certain age that is not my relative. Everyone has the same restrictions in this country. Yes, keeping marriage b.w a man and woman is a restriction, but its not unreasonable, b.c marriage is a concept/institution that means something specific. If not, before too long we'll have problems restricting it much at all without resorting to special pleading.
Here's an illustration from Greg Koukl that bears this out:
Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, "Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have." No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.
5) You might say, as you do above, that marriage is already in bad shape. Your argument here seems to be "we should allow x behavior legally because we allow y behavior legally." But how does this follow? Try applying that consistently. You can't. Should we open the gates because a few thieves are getting into your house (to borrow your analogy)? As a teacher, I understand that when it comes to classroom management, if I think that way, the loonies will be running the asylum in my class pretty soon. Just because we've made some mistakes with marriage in the past does not justify making more mistakes and allowances. Yes, marriage is in bad shape due in part to divorce, but why make it worse?
--Well now...this discussion has gone quite off the rails, hasn't it? :)
20. Matthew said the following at 1:44 PM on Mar 4:
Rich,
It has, and it doesn't look like it'll ever get resolved anyway. You've made good arguments (and I hope I have, too) but they're just not convincing. To you, fighting for marriage protection is worth the cost and to me it's not. So I say this to ask, may we respectfully end the discussion here?
21. Matthew said the following at 1:53 PM on Mar 4:
I do want to say, though, in response to point #5 (and only because I feel like my argument was misperceived) that I'm not falling into the sunken cost fallacy here. The reason why I say, "marriage is already in a disastrous state, thus we shouldn't fight back against gay marriage so hard" is because I honestly feel like the energy & political capital that we spend is not worth it. It's directing our concern about the sanctity of marriage in a direction that won't fix the problems we do have. With the meaning of marriage already eroded a legislative solution won't do much to help now and could easily be undone in 10 or 20 years even if we were able to pass, say, a federal marriage amendment.
22. Katie B said the following at 3:25 PM on Mar 4:
Rich and Matthew; I think our major problem, as christians in general, possibly politics and education in specific, is that we are real good at telling people what we think is right and wrong, but not why. We can say that homosexual marriage is wrong and should be banned, but who says why? Because its sin? that isnt going to cut it for people who disagree with us on what constatutes sin and who God is. Even if Homosexual marriage is banned outright, all we have done is succeding in the battle for behavior while losing the battle for heart. We in effect can turn the whole country into surly, passive agressive teenagers who abide by the rules only because they dont want punishment. How does that compare with the ministry of Jesus? What so many of us fail to do is put aside the battle for behavior and focus on heart. When Christ changes peoples hearts toward himself and his plans, behavior follows. But a simple outright ban of any sin accomplishes absolutely nothing in Christs mission for the world.
23. Leah said the following at 10:11 PM on Mar 4:
JB- Is there something wrong with Christian groups trying to gain political power? Republican, Democratic, Labor, Greenie, Liberal groups all try to gain political power because they feel they know the right way to run the country. Doesn't that apply to Christians too? It's totally ok for Christians to get involved in politics, as long as they are honest about their Christianity and don't try to deceive anyone.
Matthew- we should fight hard against ANY thing that is wrong. And gay marriage is wrong.
Jenny's comment #12 is completely 100% right. Paul says himself that the world will hate us and hate the truth of the gospel. The world is under the control of Satan and has a hardened heart to the gospel- of course they will be offended by it! This should not surprise us, and we should not put it down to obnoxious, ungracious evangelism methods (although those are still the culprit sometimes!)
24. Rich said the following at 12:13 AM on Mar 5:
Matthew,
Ok...will do.
However, I do feel the need to respond to Katie...
Katie,
I actually *did* give the *why.* Sure, the reasons were bare-boned and lacked some details (such is the nature of blog responses), but they were reasons. I gave arguments, not just assertions. Actually, to be more specific, I gave a series of responses to traditional lines of arguments for the legalization of homosexual marriage. These weren't merely offensive (as opposed to defensive) claims; they were mini-rebuttals. Also, I didn't just say that homosexual marriage should be banned b.c its sin. I gave arguments not from the Bible, not religious, that both believers and non-believers can agree upon.
Secondly, about your concern that we may win the battle for behavior but lose the battle for the heart: in some respects, this is a legitimate concern. We must be wary, as we previously discussed, of putting too much hope in politics. No problem with that line of thinking there. However, you miss a few things in your argument. For starters, you prove too much, not too little. You say "a simple outright ban of any sin accomplishes nothing in Christ's mission for the world." What's the point? That we shouldn't try to ban sin? Apply that consistently (murder, numerous sexual sins, stealing, etc.) and without resorting to special pleading. Second, banning of certain sins *does* accomplish things in Christ's mission for the world. It can't regenerate a heart or anything like that, but no one, including me, claims it can. It can make things in our culture better. It can provide an atmosphere where the good can flourish. For proof of that, just look to the life of William Wilberforce. (I also have reason to believe it makes the gospel sound more or less reasonable. I'm talking about a culture's zeitgeist here...but I don't have space to develop that fully now). We can't ban all sin, nor should we want to. Banning ALL sin WOULD have detrimental affects for the Kingdom. But keep in mind what I said earlier: we have a *cultural* Great Commission, not just one for souls. We are to redeem the cultures we are in and fight to restrain evil and harm. This includes, but is not limited to, political action. It is up for debate whether or not arguing against homosexual marriage is an instance of this, but this doesn't mean that the whole enterprise (of politics) is worthless. Also, its true: grab the heart, and behavior will follow. It is also true, however, that behavior can influence and inform the mind and heart. Example: there was a time in which slavery seemed reasonable to many Americans. Now, thanks *in part* to political action, it is reprehensible to us. This is not an argument for relativism; its an example that confirms behavior can influence the mind/heart. It doesn't influence perfectly, but it does help.
Ok, so things don't go even further off topic, this is my last post on this thread. Signing off...
rdb
25. Matthew said the following at 8:38 AM on Mar 5:
Leah #23,
I said I was done here, but you want to keep going-- first, in response to what you said to me, if we fight against ANY thing that is wrong as you say, we should criminalize adultery, fornication, divorce except in certain cases, etc. Obviously we have to draw a line somewhere as to what we seek to ban and what we don't.
To your comment directed towards JB, I will say this: there is nothing wrong with Christians holding office, however, throughout history Christians have been seduced by political power and lied to by Satan about how it is how they will accomplish the victory of Christ in the world. That is rank idolatry and so Christians must be very careful about their political engagement, especially when we consider that there are forces on the right and the left that want to use our Christian inclinations as political tools.
Christians are NOT another group like Republicans, Democrats, Greens, etc. and our struggle is not against them. We seek cultural renewal like Rich described and sometimes that involves political action, however, to simply seek political power as the means to renew our culture and get America to repent is simply foolish, unbiblical, and ineffective.
(sorry JB, I think that you and I disagree on this so I wanted to give a response that is more reflective of why conservative Christians are wary of Christians seeking power.)