Over the summer, I've been considering how my blog might evolve into a more general conservative Christian site. I've even tried to come up with a new name, thinking that "We Want a Christian President" was overly provocative and a turn-off.
But, during this past week, I've discovered through editorials written in The Washington Times, which accused evangelicals of religious bigotry against Mitt Romney (who is a Mormon), and the reaction of Huckabee supporters on Huck's Army, that there is still a great need for this site, explaining why a political candidate's faith is important, and why it is not hateful, irrational, or bigoted to hold to that position.
Some at Huck's Army believe that I am harming the effort simply by making such statements. In my opinion, some of them just haven't really chewed over what I'm saying (or simply disagree). Others are allowing the fear of being mischaracterized dictate what they will say. And some may even be placing political expediency and a misguided notion of ecumenism above the truth.
Of course, I think there is a certain level of discretion one should maintain; we shouldn't give our enemies fodder easy to twist and turn against us; and we should always speak the truth in love. But we should speak the truth.
So, WWCP will continue as WWCP for the foreseeable future. If I need a more general site to post my material on, I may create a new blog or return to Kingdom Advancing.
For now, I will post some of my recent comments from Huck's Army (an extra note can be found at the bottom of this post):
Other's comment: Religion has no place in politics and we must separate it and stick to the issues and character of the candidates. Romney's religion, whether it is Christian, Mormon, one and the same, should never come into play here. It should only be about the reasons Romney is not "ready to be commander in chief...or 2nd in command...."
My response: Does character not have some connection to a person's relationship with God? Obviously, we can't know that any public figure has a close relationship with God, but we can know that those who openly profess a false theology do not. This is not to say that a non-Christian can't have the outward expressions of good character. But I'd prefer for his/her character to flow from God.
Do one's positions on the issues not have some connection to their relationship with God? A true Christian should be guided by the Word and Spirit, and strengthened by them.
Do one's beliefs not have some connection with their readiness to lead? The case could be made that some religious beliefs are so illogical that one who holds to them cannot possess the judgment to lead.
Other's comment: Please don't disect the Mormon religion or any other religion on this website. The Rombots are just waiting to catch somebody who is doing that so they can put it all over the web. The Washington Times has hurt us enough for even implying that evangelicals are against Romney because he is a Mormon. What do you think John McCain and his campaign are thinking about all of this? Don't you think they might consider Mike a risk because of people who claim we are bigots? Commenting on somebody's religious beliefs is just a bad idea.It's not that you are doing anything wrong, just do it in your own mind..don't post it. Don't give anybody ammunition that might hurt Mike. Just about all of the people on this website don't like Romney because of his character and he cannot be trusted. Those are big reasons!
My response: I'm not dying to get into a critique of Mormonism. But when people on a conservative, greatly Christian site like this say that "religion should be kept out of politics," I have to speak up. When writers begin a tirade on evangelicals by saying that "Mormons are Christians, anyway," [as the opiner in The Washington Times did] I can't let that slide... The Bible tells us to "be of good repute," so that our revilers will be "put to shame." It never says, "For the sake of political expediency, avoid speaking the truth." Of course, there is a level of discretion. But I don't think we should hide what we believe.
Other's Comment: I agree with what many of you have already stated -- having a theological discussion is not helpful at this time. It would only feed into their belief that we are predjudice against Romney for his religion -- which we are not. It would be different if they were open to hearing different doctrine, and if it were one on one privately, but they are not open and it is public. In all respect, please reconsider no longer responding to this website:
II Timothy 2:23-26 NKJV "But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And the servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."
Please dont flank me ... just sharing the concern of my heart.
My response: I understand what you're saying, but I still don't get the logic behind "don't stand up for truth, because our enemies might twist the truth and use it against us." That's just not a good enough reason to be silent on an issue.
What I'm concerned about is the possibility that some well-meaning Christians will dust topics like these under the rug because they're inconvenient, because they don't want to be branded bigots, because they don't want to hurt the movement, because they don't want to think critically about this issue. I'm concerned that there may be Christians who would prefer to know nothing about Mormonism except that "Mormons are good people," so that they can have some kind of plausible deniability with which they can say, "I could care less about a politician's religion."
That's unacceptable for the church to so cavalierly dismiss a person's relationship with God--a person who they are using their God-given freedom and ability to put into a position of great power.
--------------
Allow me to add a few final thoughts: I am not advocating, and have never advocated, giving a candidate a leg up simply because he claims to be a Christian. Read the intro to my blog: "Not just in word, but in deed...Not just in deed, but in practice." My position has always been that a Christian candidate's faith should be reflected in his political positions, behavior, and speech. One also must look at a candidate's talents and experience. God does not gift all Christians with the wherewithal to run civil governments, and we should carefully consider whether a Christian candidate is qualified.
I've also held that there may come a time when a non-Christian candidate would be a better alternative than the professing Christian. But it would be very difficult for me to vote for either in that scenario, and, with John McCain's less-than-stellar appearance on issues of faith (See my post: Sitting in the Aisle?), I really hope he picks a strong VP.
Alasan Bermain Judi Kasino Online
-
Perekonomian agen bola terpercaya dunia tidak berjalan dengan baik. Biaya
hidup semakin tinggi setiap harinya. Oleh karena itu, setiap individu[...]
6 years ago
9 comments:
Amen, KA. You are right.
The only criticism I have of your blog is that you don't post more frequently. This can cause a decrease in interest. If I didn't think so highly of your writing, I probably would not have persisted in visiting over the last several weeks.
When I first began blogging, I was posting once a day. Now, I am down to less than once a week, so I am not suggesting you should post more often. I am just saying that you would probably get more traffic if you did. (I'm sure you already realize that.) Obviously, I would like you to most more, but please don't think I'm saying you are doing wrong by not posting more. We are all busy. The fields are white; there is much to be done.
I have a great desire for discussion with other Christians. I was enjoying discussion with a gentleman recently, but I think he may be too busy to continue. Do you know of any good places with civil and thoughtful Christian discussion? A Christian forum perhaps? Someplace not overrun by foul-mouthed heathens whose only purpose is to offend? My husband sometimes posts on an Amazon forum, but it isn't a place for people like me. There is too much hostility. I don't respond well to insults and ridicule.
I have barely acquainted myself with HucksArmy site. Is your name there the same as here? If this is a place you post more often, I would like to see it. And I would gladly add my voice to yours on these kinds of discussions, though perhaps there are already plenty of others standing up for what's right? Hopefully? At the very least, I'd be interested in reading the discussion in its entirety.
God bless you!
Yes, I know that posting more often brings the traffic up. During the primary season, there were times when I would get a lot more hits, due in large part to the fact that I was posting pro-Huckabee articles on Real Clear Politics and Huck's Army was then voting them up.
I agree that Amazon probably isn't a great place to have discussions. Occasionally, when I'm shopping there, I'll see the "related forum discussions," and there will be some post titled something along the lines of "another reason the idea of God is stupid," or something like that. And it will have hundreds of replies. Who has the time to do that all day? At some point, I concur with the commenter I quoted in this post, who referenced 2 Timothy.
My name is the same on Huck's Army. I don't know that it's a great place to have discussions like this, though, because, as I pointed out in the post, a lot of people on Huck's Army don't want to have this discussion. In fact, one of the threads was locked by a moderator, even though nothing bad was said (on either side of the debate).
Having said that, I'm not bashing the site. I really do like it, and it is a good place to keep up on some current events (especially related to Mike Huckabee).
I do comment there, but it's rarely as substantial as one of my posts, or even as the comments you read in this post.
That's disappointing. We NEED to have discussions in the Christian world. People are being slowly pulled away from truth. What moved me to join the HucksArmy site is that there was a thread started by a man asking if he is a traitor for supporting Huckabee while being homosexual. The idea popped up that being attracted to the same-sex isn't bad of itself, just acting on the attraction. I don't know your view on that, but I disagree. I wanted to express my thoughts, but by the time I got back the discussion had been dead for long enough, I thought maybe it was best not to revive it.
I think that is a dangerous belief. I would say that any sinful thing a Christian has struggled with before receiving Christ should diminish. Someone who desires to murder should not be constantly plagued by that after receiving Jesus into his heart. Someone with perverse sexual attractions also should not be struggling with that after becoming a Christian. It might take some time to change, but there should be a lessening of temptation. That is, unless the person is entertaining thoughts that feed the temptation, and we are not to do that. We are to keep our hearts and minds pure through Christ Jesus, to resist the devil and he will flee from us.
Obviously, yes, I think we should grow closer to Christ and progressively become more like Him.
Now, we all will still struggle with sin on this side of eternity, and we can slide back into old habits. But, generally speaking, we should be moving upward towards God.
I'm not sure what the definition of "attraction" is in this instance. If it means lust, then even if you don't commit the physical act, you are still sinning. If, however, it is simply a pull, or a tendency, that the person fights against, but continues to struggle with, then I would probably take a different view. The person needs to grow out of that, growing into God, or he/she needs to be delivered from that. But I don't think that I'd call it a perpetual sin or something like that.
As for Huck's Army, it is a good place for discussion in a lot of cases. But I think the members are afraid that, by talking so openly about theological issues in a very evangelical sort of way, they will promulgate the idea that Huckabee is only a candidate for evangelicals.
I was pretty distraught over the idea that same-sex tendencies are equal to opposite-sex tendencies, because I had never even heard of that view, let alone seen it agreed upon by several Christians. Now I realize that it is perhaps not as big a deal as I originally thought. I still see it as a degrading of truth, a chipping away to bring about more acceptance of homosexuality. I realize my view is very hard on “Christian homosexuals,” but I will not be persuaded except God show me. There is a great disease in churches today of overlooking and accepting sin in “God’s people.”
I’m blazing my own trail here, because I haven’t seen anyone else talk about it. There are tendencies that flow from our natural needs, and there are tendencies that do not. An inclination to kill would be unnatural. I am talking about people with a perverse desire to murder. I have never had that desire and am pretty sure it isn’t common. Murder does not lead to meeting any natural needs we have. Gluttony, however, is very common. We need to eat to live, and from that comes overeating. Eating is not wrong, so long as it is done in moderation.
In the same way, I think homosexual tendencies could be similar to murder tendencies and heterosexual tendencies could be similar to gluttony tendencies. A desire to eat is necessary for the preservation of our species, and heterosexual tendencies are necessary for a healthy marriage that results in procreation. Heterosexual tendencies can be acted upon purely, without condemnation from God. Homosexual tendencies can never be acted upon with God’s approval. For this reason, I don’t believe homosexual tendencies can be elevated to the same status as heterosexual tendencies. Homosexuals have given their hearts to Christ and gone on to be delivered. I think this is very important. A Christian with homosexual tendencies should not be resigned to having that trouble permanently.
I am saying that even having homosexual tendencies is a sign of a spiritual problem that needs to be fixed and can be fixed by the grace of God. These tendencies should be completely gone in a mature Christian.
Guess what? I just reread the whole thread and realized that people where not elevating homosexual tendencies to the extent I had thought. I think the first time I read it, I was skimming. Perhaps I just needed to get that point straight in my mind.
AND the original poster had homosexual tendencies IN THE PAST and was asking if he was a traitor for not supporting Huck's views on homosexual marriage. I'm glad I could correct myself before someone else did.
Happy Birthday KA!
Thanks, EC!
Lover of Truth,
I agree with you, and have even made a similar case in the past. See this post: http://kingdomadvancing.blogspot.com/2007/04/homosexuality-and-christianity.html
But I just wanted to make a clear distinction: first, there's the homosexual, who comes to Christ, knows homosexuality is wrong, resists temptation, and yet the tendency is still there at times, even if weakened, even if it comes and goes.
Then, there's the homosexual who "gets saved," but doesn't think homosexuality is wrong, refuses to give up the homosexual lifestyle, fights hard for their belief that homosexuality is okay, and continues to live in that lifestyle, even so far as being clergy in a corrupt, liberal church.
The former, in my mind, is (or can be) a true Christian. The latter? I really don't think so.
Post a Comment