[Ohio]

Dear Peter,

I thought best to just periodically comment here in blue, leaving your post intact. I am simply trying to understand your views, stating some of my own, and hope this becomes readable.

Dear Ohio,

If it's not clear already, I will emphasize that my concern is more in how things are argued and the process in which they're argued - that is, the integrity of it - than it is on the ultimate conclusions.

It seems the process and the how for each (Christian) citizen will naturally differ. Each is applying their talents to reach differing goals. Some are content to simply vote, others prefer not even to do that. Some pray and some do not. Some are guided by scripture and some are guided by principle. Some write letters, some give messages, some are in the courtroom, some on committees, etc. Some attempt to follow the Lord step by step, others follow political agendas. Perhaps the only common ground here is to restrict present actions to the laws of the land while attempting to change them.

Here's the bottom line: if you're making an argument with integrity, as a Christian, you have to do so from an admitted and open standard (not a shifting one). Thus, you are either arguing for something based on God's standard which may or may not be provable in human terms, or you are meeting your fellow citizens where they are at and arguing based on a shared moral standard which is provable in human terms.

I'm not sure this is a restriction that Christians are willing to make. Most folks do not agree to a shared moral standard. This is why most defer to God's standard. There are grey areas here. The political process is so complex that homogeneity is an impossibility. Moral standards in our country are rapidly changing as we speak.

Let's look at homosexuality. It is clear in the Bible that it is a sin. We can agree on that. But so is hating your brother and coveting (I'm trying to stay in the New Testament, because OT arguments are really suspect and complicated given that we have a New Covenant). I don't see where, Biblically, Christ makes a distinction.

Many Christians will not limit their discussion to only the NT, since that removes the story of Sodom from the discussion. But you are right that hating and coveting are also sins, the distinction being that these are restricted to man's heart, and are victimless. I Cor 6.9-10 is often used as justification, but as you say, homosexuality is not singled out.

Given that, you have a few choices: 1) show me how/why/where God cares more about this particular sin and thus justifies focusing on it in secular politics; 2) if you can identify, in human terms, the detrimental effect on the American populace, describe those effects and argue them - any unbeliever can relate to such arguments.

Christian "focus" is more a reaction to a changing culture and legal sytem. New laws are being enacted almost daily, and existing laws discarded by liberal judges. Christians fear for their country and their children. It's obvious that the goal of the gay agenda is not bedroom freedoms. The Christian public tends to pick their battles and the attack on traditional family structure is now their priority. If the argument centers on one's "personal liberties," then God's laws are deferred to as the standard. It's amazing how research studies always confirm scientifically that God's plan in creation is best for the populace. Liberal social engineering "improvements" have never helped our physical health, psychological well-being, aptitude of our children, etc.

If you can't do the first, then your argument will be (rightly) called out as disingenuous. If you can't do the second - i.e. argue why same-sex marriage (in this example) is detrimental to society in secular terms - then you're arguing for a theocracy. But it won't even be God's theocracy (since you couldn't be consistent with God's standard in the first place).

Do you see what dangerous territory this can be?

The only time I see conflicts is when Christian behavior becomes hypocritical, e.g. the politician promoting family values gets caught in an affair, the pro-life advocate herself gets an abortion. I don't see the dangers of a so-called Christian theocracy in America. It is the role of government to mandate morality and not liturgy. (Here, however, the dangers from Islam are very real.) Liberal changes in legislation all fall under the guise of "victimless choice." But is an aborted fetus not a victim.

You have mentioned giving Christians "liberty" in engaging in politics according to their conscience. I am DEFINITELY an advocate of giving Christians liberty to engage according to their OWN conscience in the world. But what you are arguing is that Christians pass laws that govern OTHER Christians and unbelievers (e.g. I got no problem if Kerry R wants to restrict himself to "One Publication" - but don't pass an EDICT that puts it on me).

That's like giving "liberty" to the Judiazers in Roman's 14 to PASS LAWS about diet/sacrifices. That's not pursuit of liberty. That's pursuit of your vision of God's will being imposed on OTHERS. It's the exact opposite of the "liberty" Paul describes in Romans 14. There is no such thing as "liberty" to impose one's concept of God on others, no less with the force of secular law and police and sentencing behind it.

Here's my problem with this line of reasoning -- it takes minor ordinances that can't even be vetted within the church, and theorizes that they would become the laws of the land.

I am NOT saying the Bible gives LIBERTY to believers to be homosexual. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about secular American society. So that brings us back, again, to whether you purport to argue GOD'S STANDARD (good luck in not being hypocritical) or a HUMAN STANDARD with some "God approved" versus tossed in to justify your position in order to pass SECULAR LAWS FOR A HUMAN SOCIETY.

But I want to stress AGAIN, that is VERY DIFFERENT than expressing your views in the public arena - WITHOUT trying to get a secular law passed. One should ABSOLUTELY attempt to convince those around them of the truth. And share the gospel. And share their morals.

But that is different than PASSING A LAW which imposes a morality REGARDLESS of whether anyone's heart has changed.

That's not "liberty," that's the opposite of what Christ and Paul advocated for - EVEN THOUGH they agree with your moral convictions.

Any closer to getting where I'm coming from?

In Love, Peter

I'm slowly coming around to understand your views, but they're not persuading me. I definitely can see how political issues can divide a church, and have even witnessed it at times. For me personally, I much rather see politics out of the church, than to keep the church out of politics, if that makes sense. But that too is fraught with dangers since the message of the Savior's love gets lost in the shuffle.