I realize that some of my past topics have been a bit controversial, and I have full confidence that this one will be even more so. I expect that those on both sides of this one will be unhappy with what I say here, so might as well dive right in.
Currently, same-sex marriages are not legal in the overwhelming majority of states. The question, I think, for Christians is, how should we vote on this particular issue? I am going to put off answering that until the end, for fear that people would cease listening to everything else I say (which happens in any forum at any time anyway, but maybe we can prevent some of it here).
I think, to start off, we should talk about what constitutes an acceptable sexual relationship. Biblically, I don't see any bones about the only time sex is acceptable is in a marriage relationship. This is consistent and I think pretty clear throughout the bible. God has said that sex is good and he wants us to enjoy it, in a loving, committed relationship. I think it is also clear that God has designed sex to occur between a man and woman. God sees that as the only acceptable marriage. I think as Christians, that becomes pretty clear.
I do believe that some are born homosexual. I think the only option for those people, if they want to follow God's will, is to live in celibacy. It is difficult, and I don't say that glibly. But after my own research and reading on the topic, that is the only conclusion I can come to. (I am not saying that everyone who is homosexual was born that way, I am just saying that some are)
So, for Christians I think it is clear, marriage should be between a man and a woman. If someone is homosexual, they should live in celibacy. Just as, someone who is not married should live in celibacy. That is what should happen in Christian communities. However, the United States is not a Christian community. I think as Christians, we should vote for equal marriage rights under the law for same-sex couples. I think there are quite a few arguments that support this.
I find it strange that some would say we should not legislate morality, then turn around and say that gay partners should not be able to share health care, or have visiting rights in the hospital. Seems to me like legislating morality. In addition, just because the law says it is ok, does not mean that we are saying God wants it to happen. Back to the topic of abortion, I think legally we should allow it, but ethically and morally we should condemn it. We should not practice it as Christians, but should allow it as a nation. Back to gay-marriage. I think ethically there is nothing wrong with giving equal legal rights to a same-sex couple as my wife and I enjoy. I think they should be allowed health care, I think they should be able to make decisions for each other, I think they should get inheritance.
I am not 100% on the arguments against it, none have made much sense to me so far, I'm sure someone reading can tell me why it shouldn't be allowed. I know one common argument is that it cheapens marriage. With a divorce rate above 50% in the church, we have no ground to argue about anything cheapening marriage. If our divorce rate was 10% or so, maybe, but I still don't think so. As Christians, the sanctity of marriage comes from God. If someone does not believe in God, then they will have different rules. (This may not make sense, if so let me know and I'll try to clarify)
Another argument is that some people would take advantage of this rule by saying they were married so that they could get benefits from it. But no one would ever do that with a man and a woman would they?!! I think this argument is absurd. Its not our job to try to make sure no one can live a fradulent life style. We just can't do that.
I see this issue as pretty clear cut. I think the gay community should have the same legal marriage rights as the straight community. I don't think God sees homosexuality as a good life-style, but that is an issue to be handled in the church, not on capitol hill. I'm not sure how great of a case I made, but I'm not sure how great of one needs to be made. Just because something is legal in our country does not mean that God wants it in his church. We should be loving and welcoming to the homosexual community. We should affirm them as people, just as we should affirm those who struggle with lust or greed or gluttony. But we should help them to see that God's plan for them is sex only in a marriage between a man and a woman. Bumper stickers and protest signs do not count.
11.17.2008
11.10.2008
Economics (continued)
I had no idea I had more than three people that read this, so I will have to try to think my posts out a little better. I think I have been lazy some in connecting dots in my head without connecting them in writing, so, sorry everyone. I will do better on that. I think my last post was a little sloppy in some ways, so I need to write more about that. Lyle, thanks for the thoughts, I will try to address those here too.
I mainly started the topic of economics because I am sick of hearing that Obama is a socialist. Now, there are several reasons this bothers me, the major one being that it is a fear tactic. Of course, he does have some "socialist tendencies." But that does not a socialist make. He has some plans and some things he would like to do which may be "socialistic." However, I think that is forcing a false dichotomy. Things are not either "socialist" or "capitalist." We do not live in a truly capitalistic society. Otherwise Walmart could do whatever they wanted and Bill Gates would not have had several huge anti-trust lawsuits. So, yes, the left is closer to socialism than the right, but that is like saying Colorado is closer to Spain than Utah. Neither is really all that close. Obama was not advocating that the American government solve everyone's problems, just as McCain was not advocating that the government let everyone do whatever they want with their money. I am obviously on the left side of things economically, but no one was madder than me when the bank-bailout happened. That happened under a Repub president. I don't see us turning into Soviet Russia because Obama was elected.
Further on that same topic, I did not grow up when the USSR was a large threat, at least when I was cognizant of it. Socialism was not an evil in my world growing up, nor was it an evil for most people under 30. We just don't remember it all. Our government did a great job of painting socialism as evil and capitalism as good during that time. Good or bad, that is the world many grew up it. So they of course continue to see socialism as an enemy and capitalism as a friend. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it becomes obvious when you look votes based on age. Another thing to consider, it is very easy to advocate for capitalism when compared with the rest of the world, you are very rich. Americans have every reason to think capitalism is great, look what its done for us. I wonder if we will be so cavalier about capitalism if it continues to hurt us as it has lately?
I understand the concern about Obama's charity, or lack thereof, but that appears to me to be a gross ad hominem argument. I have not looked at his totals of charity, nor do I need to. If a person who was clearly promiscuous told me that it is better to be in a married, monogamous relationship, would that take away the validity of their statement? Or if an abusive parent told me it is better to love and nurture your children, would that take away from their statement? I think not. I am certainly disappointed, if those numbers are accurate, but that does not change the validity of their opinions. I think we all think things are right that we do not necessarily practice. Furthermore, does that disqualify Paul or Jesus from speaking on marriage, because neither was married? I think not. Barak Obama is clearly neither, but the principle holds.
Now, I made the statement, or something close that "if we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all. let someone else do it." My point in that statement was not that socialism was good, but that was an obvious downfall of socialism. Just as the obvious downfall of capitalism is that the rich can do whatever they want. In a perfect society, everyone would work hard because that is a good thing to do. God wants us to be useful. However, Lyle I do question your reference about work in the garden. I just looked over Gen 1 and 2 and did not find a reference to work before the fall. I may be missing it, but I didn't see it.
There is in fact quite a bit in scripture that advocates socialism. Outside of the obvious New Testament church which was a de facto communist society, the Old Testament was the law of the land. It made it clear that part of the job of those with money was to help those without money. Again, the OT prophets compared not helping the poor to murder. There was no distinction between church and state at the time. When Israel was first a country, there was no king, it was simply a theocracy. God was the boss and people did what he wanted, or so the plan went. People were required to give a certain portion to both the church and to the poor. But I guess the constitution of the United States is more inspired than the OT? Na. We would never think that. Now, I do think there are certain levels of morality that must be legislated. We would not put up with it if our government said murder or stealing was OK. Further, when Christ said we would always have the poor, he was not resigned to that fact. In fact, most of the scholars I have read on it believe he is referencing the fact that the Jews were not obeying the command in Deuteronomy to help the poor.
I would also like to speak to the idea that God wants some to be poor and some to be rich. That would seem to me like favoritism, and James seems pretty clear that God does not practice favoritism. In addition, if we follow the logic that says that some are poor because they are irresponsible or do not work hard we would seem imply that God desires them to sin. Does God want anyone to sin?!! Now, the Bible certainly teaches self-responsibility, so much so that when Peter asked Jesus "What about John?" Jesus told him to worry about himself and follow him! If we are followers of Jesus, it is not our job to ask if people deserve handouts or not. It is our job to give handouts.
I feel this post getting long in the tooth, so I think I need to try to wrap it up. I do not think Socialism is inherently Christian. But I would say it is more Christian than capitalism. There is no such thing as a perfect government, and no political system is Christian per se. I just see that we are called to help the poor, and capitalism does not do that overtly. I realize that this is not incredibly well-thought out, but I am not getting graded on this. Its just a blog. So, I appreciate the dialog, and please continue it. I hope this can be a learning opportunity for me as well.
The last thing I want to respond to is this quote. "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." I think this particular quote has an inherent bias built into it. Of course religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals! The only reason any of us should have to help others is religion! If someone is secular, they have no reason to be charitable. Again, the best way to help the poor is debatable. Some say we need to help business and then business will help the poor, some say we need to give to them. Biblically, we don't see any "help businesses" type of thing. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help, but the only Biblical input we have is that it is our job to help the poor. For me, that includes voting for those that will increase government spending for the poor.
I mainly started the topic of economics because I am sick of hearing that Obama is a socialist. Now, there are several reasons this bothers me, the major one being that it is a fear tactic. Of course, he does have some "socialist tendencies." But that does not a socialist make. He has some plans and some things he would like to do which may be "socialistic." However, I think that is forcing a false dichotomy. Things are not either "socialist" or "capitalist." We do not live in a truly capitalistic society. Otherwise Walmart could do whatever they wanted and Bill Gates would not have had several huge anti-trust lawsuits. So, yes, the left is closer to socialism than the right, but that is like saying Colorado is closer to Spain than Utah. Neither is really all that close. Obama was not advocating that the American government solve everyone's problems, just as McCain was not advocating that the government let everyone do whatever they want with their money. I am obviously on the left side of things economically, but no one was madder than me when the bank-bailout happened. That happened under a Repub president. I don't see us turning into Soviet Russia because Obama was elected.
Further on that same topic, I did not grow up when the USSR was a large threat, at least when I was cognizant of it. Socialism was not an evil in my world growing up, nor was it an evil for most people under 30. We just don't remember it all. Our government did a great job of painting socialism as evil and capitalism as good during that time. Good or bad, that is the world many grew up it. So they of course continue to see socialism as an enemy and capitalism as a friend. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it becomes obvious when you look votes based on age. Another thing to consider, it is very easy to advocate for capitalism when compared with the rest of the world, you are very rich. Americans have every reason to think capitalism is great, look what its done for us. I wonder if we will be so cavalier about capitalism if it continues to hurt us as it has lately?
I understand the concern about Obama's charity, or lack thereof, but that appears to me to be a gross ad hominem argument. I have not looked at his totals of charity, nor do I need to. If a person who was clearly promiscuous told me that it is better to be in a married, monogamous relationship, would that take away the validity of their statement? Or if an abusive parent told me it is better to love and nurture your children, would that take away from their statement? I think not. I am certainly disappointed, if those numbers are accurate, but that does not change the validity of their opinions. I think we all think things are right that we do not necessarily practice. Furthermore, does that disqualify Paul or Jesus from speaking on marriage, because neither was married? I think not. Barak Obama is clearly neither, but the principle holds.
Now, I made the statement, or something close that "if we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all. let someone else do it." My point in that statement was not that socialism was good, but that was an obvious downfall of socialism. Just as the obvious downfall of capitalism is that the rich can do whatever they want. In a perfect society, everyone would work hard because that is a good thing to do. God wants us to be useful. However, Lyle I do question your reference about work in the garden. I just looked over Gen 1 and 2 and did not find a reference to work before the fall. I may be missing it, but I didn't see it.
There is in fact quite a bit in scripture that advocates socialism. Outside of the obvious New Testament church which was a de facto communist society, the Old Testament was the law of the land. It made it clear that part of the job of those with money was to help those without money. Again, the OT prophets compared not helping the poor to murder. There was no distinction between church and state at the time. When Israel was first a country, there was no king, it was simply a theocracy. God was the boss and people did what he wanted, or so the plan went. People were required to give a certain portion to both the church and to the poor. But I guess the constitution of the United States is more inspired than the OT? Na. We would never think that. Now, I do think there are certain levels of morality that must be legislated. We would not put up with it if our government said murder or stealing was OK. Further, when Christ said we would always have the poor, he was not resigned to that fact. In fact, most of the scholars I have read on it believe he is referencing the fact that the Jews were not obeying the command in Deuteronomy to help the poor.
I would also like to speak to the idea that God wants some to be poor and some to be rich. That would seem to me like favoritism, and James seems pretty clear that God does not practice favoritism. In addition, if we follow the logic that says that some are poor because they are irresponsible or do not work hard we would seem imply that God desires them to sin. Does God want anyone to sin?!! Now, the Bible certainly teaches self-responsibility, so much so that when Peter asked Jesus "What about John?" Jesus told him to worry about himself and follow him! If we are followers of Jesus, it is not our job to ask if people deserve handouts or not. It is our job to give handouts.
I feel this post getting long in the tooth, so I think I need to try to wrap it up. I do not think Socialism is inherently Christian. But I would say it is more Christian than capitalism. There is no such thing as a perfect government, and no political system is Christian per se. I just see that we are called to help the poor, and capitalism does not do that overtly. I realize that this is not incredibly well-thought out, but I am not getting graded on this. Its just a blog. So, I appreciate the dialog, and please continue it. I hope this can be a learning opportunity for me as well.
The last thing I want to respond to is this quote. "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." I think this particular quote has an inherent bias built into it. Of course religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals! The only reason any of us should have to help others is religion! If someone is secular, they have no reason to be charitable. Again, the best way to help the poor is debatable. Some say we need to help business and then business will help the poor, some say we need to give to them. Biblically, we don't see any "help businesses" type of thing. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help, but the only Biblical input we have is that it is our job to help the poor. For me, that includes voting for those that will increase government spending for the poor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
