This coming Tuesday Advanced Solar Electric will begin the installation of West Valley Christian Center’s new solar generating system. When complete, it will consist of around 150 solar panels generating just over 36 Kilowatts of electricity a day. This should be sufficient to provide about 80% of our electrical needs, thus reducing our carbon footprint by a like amount. And, since that electricity will be generated during the highest usage portion of the day, actually producing a surplus during that time, it will help to put off or even make unnecessary additional generating capacity using methods which pollute.
Why are we doing this? There are actually a couple of reasons, but the most important is that it allows our church to do something tangible to be good stewards of this planet our God has given us. We take seriously our responsibility before God and our fellow humans to begin reversing the damage we have done to our home.
In the coming months and years we intend on exploring other ways to lessen our negative impact on this world. I remember as a Boy Scout the admonition we always received when we were preparing to leave our campsites: leave it in better condition than you found it when you came. We want to do the same for this planet.
Pastor Ken
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Can't we all just get along?
So this past week a new movie was released – Expelled, a documentary by Ben Stein. And the response has been interesting to watch, and instructive as well.
The heart of Mr. Stein’s documentary is the recent tendency in some circles to discriminate against people in the scientific community who entertain the idea of Intelligent Design (ID). Intelligent Design is the suggestion that there are things in this universe that point to an intelligent designer rather than blind Darwinian evolution. In the movie, Mr. Stein points to several scientists who have either lost their jobs or their funding immediately after suggesting that more research into the possibility of ID having occurred.
I do not necessarily agree with the tack that the movie takes in making its case – the juxtapositions between people who disagree with ID and pictures of Hitler or Stalin remind me more of Michael Moore than Ken Burns. But, when the movie is done, Mr. Stein has done a pretty good job of showing that there does seem to be an attempt to silence those who are even willing to entertain the possibility of ID, at least in some circles.
But perhaps the most interesting response to this movie was the review posted on MSNBC.com (read it at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755/). In spite of the fact that the movie deals with ID and not creationism, the very first paragraph sets the movie up as defending creationism! And, in a display of the very intolerance decried by liberals today, the reviewer proceeds to call both the movie and Mr. Stein, “stupid,” a word sure to inspire intelligent discussion of the topic!
I, for one, would like to suggest that we would all be better served by a discussion of the facts rather than calling each other names. And that goes for both sides – I have been even more appalled by the name calling that has come from some in the church; after all, we should know better. There is a discussion to be had here, and in many other areas of what some have called the “culture wars.” Wouldn’t it be nice if we could actually discuss it as rational adults? Or, as has been said by many others, can’t we “disagree without being disagreeable?” Just a thought.
The heart of Mr. Stein’s documentary is the recent tendency in some circles to discriminate against people in the scientific community who entertain the idea of Intelligent Design (ID). Intelligent Design is the suggestion that there are things in this universe that point to an intelligent designer rather than blind Darwinian evolution. In the movie, Mr. Stein points to several scientists who have either lost their jobs or their funding immediately after suggesting that more research into the possibility of ID having occurred.
I do not necessarily agree with the tack that the movie takes in making its case – the juxtapositions between people who disagree with ID and pictures of Hitler or Stalin remind me more of Michael Moore than Ken Burns. But, when the movie is done, Mr. Stein has done a pretty good job of showing that there does seem to be an attempt to silence those who are even willing to entertain the possibility of ID, at least in some circles.
But perhaps the most interesting response to this movie was the review posted on MSNBC.com (read it at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755/). In spite of the fact that the movie deals with ID and not creationism, the very first paragraph sets the movie up as defending creationism! And, in a display of the very intolerance decried by liberals today, the reviewer proceeds to call both the movie and Mr. Stein, “stupid,” a word sure to inspire intelligent discussion of the topic!
I, for one, would like to suggest that we would all be better served by a discussion of the facts rather than calling each other names. And that goes for both sides – I have been even more appalled by the name calling that has come from some in the church; after all, we should know better. There is a discussion to be had here, and in many other areas of what some have called the “culture wars.” Wouldn’t it be nice if we could actually discuss it as rational adults? Or, as has been said by many others, can’t we “disagree without being disagreeable?” Just a thought.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Right to be Free
Freedom. Pro-Choice. Equal rights.
These are the terms our society embraces. Clearly we have freedom living in a democratic-republic. Still, freedom comes with responsibility and exceptions. One might say that person has free speech, but that freedom ceases when it jeopardizes the safety and well being of others in the pursuit of their own rights. For example, when someone exercises their free speech in a crowded theater by yelling fire when there is no fire; at that point, the person is criminally responsible for the panic and injuries resulting from the stampede.
Our freedoms do have limitations. I often wonder why abortion isn’t treated the same way as the illustration above. It is already considered—legally—double-homicide when an unborn baby is killed as a result of murder against the pregnant mother, and most scientists acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, despite arguments of viability, cognition, and such. It would seem that we have a moral double standard here. Hmmm!
My point in this blog is actually not to argue against abortion, or any other issue I might bring up, based on a legal or constitutional platform. Rather, I want to beg a rather important question: Are some of the freedoms our culture espouses to actually right? Regardless of having these freedoms (real or perceived), are they correct?
With all the rhetoric of freedom and equality and tolerance out there right now, the practitioners of what might be seen as morally questionable behavior by Christianity and other faiths or worldviews, seem to be preoccupied with the securing a place at the table over and above considering if such views are actually moral.
In a postmodern and often relativistic society, moral correctness has become an individual choice, subject only to the whims and notions of a person’s worldview, regardless of how that worldview is informed. I suspect that much of this subjectivism is fed by hedonism: Does it feel right or good?
Ah! Feelings… Perhaps emotion plays a bigger role in the issue than anything else. For example, homosexuality is a hot button issue. There are some who claim a bio-chemical cause to homosexuality, and maybe there is. It still doesn’t answer whether it’s right or not. The claimants might argue that it feels fight, or that they’ve always felt different & attracted to the opposite sex; therefore, it must by natural or as God designed it. This reasoning is based mostly on emotion and not on Scripture (though there are those who attempt to translate Scripture to support their views on homosexuality and other sins) or science.
So, we have a culture that promotes freedom based on emotional decision making and not the deeper truths of correctness. What would happen if people’s questioning and investigations led them to ask not what feels good, sounds good, or makes sense subjectively, and started asking “what is right?”.
Now, I must confess that my goal is not to target the big ticket sins that many Christians often do, like homosexuality and abortion, but these are perhaps the two biggest and best examples for my point. Rather, my goal is declare that the question of moral correctness is also relevant to each one of us on a personal scale as well. Look at me for example… I love food and am made fat for it. I am a confessed glutton. I have abused a good and natural gift of God and an essential freedom. I am just as culpable for my sin as anyone else, despite the media notoriety.
Sin is rooted in pride and self-autonomy to begin with, so it’s actually not surprising that people would substantiate their sins by leaning on emotion, feelings, or limited information. My goal is not to target the well known or the little sins of any one person or group. Rather, I simply hope to encourage everyone to consider not the freedom you have to do or choose things, but whether those things are objectively right, regardless of what it is. Blessings.
-Pastor Paddy
These are the terms our society embraces. Clearly we have freedom living in a democratic-republic. Still, freedom comes with responsibility and exceptions. One might say that person has free speech, but that freedom ceases when it jeopardizes the safety and well being of others in the pursuit of their own rights. For example, when someone exercises their free speech in a crowded theater by yelling fire when there is no fire; at that point, the person is criminally responsible for the panic and injuries resulting from the stampede.
Our freedoms do have limitations. I often wonder why abortion isn’t treated the same way as the illustration above. It is already considered—legally—double-homicide when an unborn baby is killed as a result of murder against the pregnant mother, and most scientists acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, despite arguments of viability, cognition, and such. It would seem that we have a moral double standard here. Hmmm!
My point in this blog is actually not to argue against abortion, or any other issue I might bring up, based on a legal or constitutional platform. Rather, I want to beg a rather important question: Are some of the freedoms our culture espouses to actually right? Regardless of having these freedoms (real or perceived), are they correct?
With all the rhetoric of freedom and equality and tolerance out there right now, the practitioners of what might be seen as morally questionable behavior by Christianity and other faiths or worldviews, seem to be preoccupied with the securing a place at the table over and above considering if such views are actually moral.
In a postmodern and often relativistic society, moral correctness has become an individual choice, subject only to the whims and notions of a person’s worldview, regardless of how that worldview is informed. I suspect that much of this subjectivism is fed by hedonism: Does it feel right or good?
Ah! Feelings… Perhaps emotion plays a bigger role in the issue than anything else. For example, homosexuality is a hot button issue. There are some who claim a bio-chemical cause to homosexuality, and maybe there is. It still doesn’t answer whether it’s right or not. The claimants might argue that it feels fight, or that they’ve always felt different & attracted to the opposite sex; therefore, it must by natural or as God designed it. This reasoning is based mostly on emotion and not on Scripture (though there are those who attempt to translate Scripture to support their views on homosexuality and other sins) or science.
So, we have a culture that promotes freedom based on emotional decision making and not the deeper truths of correctness. What would happen if people’s questioning and investigations led them to ask not what feels good, sounds good, or makes sense subjectively, and started asking “what is right?”.
Now, I must confess that my goal is not to target the big ticket sins that many Christians often do, like homosexuality and abortion, but these are perhaps the two biggest and best examples for my point. Rather, my goal is declare that the question of moral correctness is also relevant to each one of us on a personal scale as well. Look at me for example… I love food and am made fat for it. I am a confessed glutton. I have abused a good and natural gift of God and an essential freedom. I am just as culpable for my sin as anyone else, despite the media notoriety.
Sin is rooted in pride and self-autonomy to begin with, so it’s actually not surprising that people would substantiate their sins by leaning on emotion, feelings, or limited information. My goal is not to target the well known or the little sins of any one person or group. Rather, I simply hope to encourage everyone to consider not the freedom you have to do or choose things, but whether those things are objectively right, regardless of what it is. Blessings.
-Pastor Paddy
A Quick Thought on Atheist Attacks on Christianity
In my last blog I promoted a book by Lee Strobel that provides a well developed apologetic for Christians, especially in light of recent atheistic counter-claims to orthodox Christianity. This blog is a brief continuation on that theme.
In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says, “Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate… Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”
Wow! Faith is a mental illness and religion is a danger!
Now, we must define the terms here. You and I might define faith and religion separately. The Bible never said that Christians “live by religion”. But Dawkins obviously equates the two, whereas we would perhaps define religion as set of practices or a platform for faith expression. But faith itself is a deeper belief whereby we place our full confidence, despite the known and unknown. Dawkins himself is making a faith statement when he says that religion and faith are world evils. Apparently, he really believes this and so he is placing his full confidence in his worldview.
I believe that Dawkins’ real problem is with religion and religious structure, and not with “having faith”. Religious organizations, like any human system, will find avenues for corruption, so long as humans remain human. Unfortunately, when a few bad apples enter the religious basket, the whole lot seems to spoil for many people on the outside.
Let me argue then that the root of the problem is not religion (or faith) but fallen human tendencies, which unfortunately use religion as the platform for sin expression. And, the fallen ideologies that Dawkins sees as a function of faith and religion (rather than a disease to these), are not isolated to faith. In fact, many of the world’s most atrocious systems and philosophies have been secular, not religious. Was Carl Marx a devout religious man? Were the communist dictators he inspired men of faith? No. And what of Hitler, Pol Pot, and many others? Religion is not the issue… Sin will find expression in any human system.
Dawkins fails to recognize that it was Christians who risked their lives to care for people during the plagues of Europe. It is—even today—the Christian missionary who risks life and limb to bring the grace and goodness of God, often through acts of compassion, in the darkest parts of the planet. These acts of mercy and care are unarguably not evil, dangerous, or of impaired mental faculty.
So, have faith. You can rest assured that your faith is not an evil, and is only a danger to darkness. God bless.
-Pastor Paddy
In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says, “Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate… Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”
Wow! Faith is a mental illness and religion is a danger!
Now, we must define the terms here. You and I might define faith and religion separately. The Bible never said that Christians “live by religion”. But Dawkins obviously equates the two, whereas we would perhaps define religion as set of practices or a platform for faith expression. But faith itself is a deeper belief whereby we place our full confidence, despite the known and unknown. Dawkins himself is making a faith statement when he says that religion and faith are world evils. Apparently, he really believes this and so he is placing his full confidence in his worldview.
I believe that Dawkins’ real problem is with religion and religious structure, and not with “having faith”. Religious organizations, like any human system, will find avenues for corruption, so long as humans remain human. Unfortunately, when a few bad apples enter the religious basket, the whole lot seems to spoil for many people on the outside.
Let me argue then that the root of the problem is not religion (or faith) but fallen human tendencies, which unfortunately use religion as the platform for sin expression. And, the fallen ideologies that Dawkins sees as a function of faith and religion (rather than a disease to these), are not isolated to faith. In fact, many of the world’s most atrocious systems and philosophies have been secular, not religious. Was Carl Marx a devout religious man? Were the communist dictators he inspired men of faith? No. And what of Hitler, Pol Pot, and many others? Religion is not the issue… Sin will find expression in any human system.
Dawkins fails to recognize that it was Christians who risked their lives to care for people during the plagues of Europe. It is—even today—the Christian missionary who risks life and limb to bring the grace and goodness of God, often through acts of compassion, in the darkest parts of the planet. These acts of mercy and care are unarguably not evil, dangerous, or of impaired mental faculty.
So, have faith. You can rest assured that your faith is not an evil, and is only a danger to darkness. God bless.
-Pastor Paddy
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Is there an eternal soul?
A recent editorial in the LA Times by a mathematician claimed that modern science has proven beyond any real doubt that there is nothing eternal inherent within humans – no eternal soul. Of course, the first question that should arise for all of us is whether science is even equipped to tell us if we have an eternal soul. But let me suggest that the answer to that question really doesn’t matter. In fact, I suspect that he is correct. And if he is, then the choice for the human race is quite simple and quite stark. You see, most of the other religious alternatives, other than the monotheist religions and atheism, depend on an independent existence of the human soul, in order that they might migrate to the next life. But Judaism and Christianity in particular reject this concept. Rather they tell us that humans were created by God as a part of this universe. That should lead us to expect that we would be prey to the same second law of thermodynamics as anything else – and that would mean that eternity is no more possible for us than it is for this universe. But the Bible doesn’t stop there. Rather, we are told that it is God Himself, who exists outside of this universe and is therefore not subject to its laws, who will bring us back to life again. Now the Bible doesn’t say how He is going to do that – and I suspect that if it did we wouldn’t understand it anyway. For my money, Dr. John Polkinghorne may have the best answer, but the real point is that God is the one who will accomplish our resurrection. But is that more than just a hollow promise? It might be except for one thing – Easter! God raised Jesus from the dead with a new body but the same person. And He is going to do the same for you and I. Or as the Bible says, Jesus is the “firstfruits” of the resurrection from the dead. So, this Easter when the preacher says, “The Lord, He is risen,” you can give back the traditional response with a new sense of joy: “He is risen indeed!” And perhaps, under your breath, you can also repeat, “And so, too, will I be!” Happy Easter!
Pastor Ken
Pastor Ken
Monday, February 25, 2008
Why?
So it’s been awhile since I posted. I was out of town acting as a coach for a seminar for church planters. What a challenge! Not being a coach, but just seeing the commitment of those individuals and couples who were going to go into communities to bring the good news of God’s love, most of them with no salaries at all.
All of this has me asking myself what is going on in the US. I mean, at a time when Christianity is widely perceived as good news in most of the developing world, why is it that it seems to be dying in Europe and barely holding its own in the US? Oh, I know the typical explanations. Probably the most popular is that the increase of scientific knowledge has left fewer and fewer places for God to live. We no longer have need of an external power in a world where so much is explainable in natural terms. But somehow, that seems hollow to me. I mean, sure, we have been able to identify many of the natural processes in our world, but that is like saying that because I understand how my car runs – from the internal combustion process to the method of manufacture, that it is all naturally occurring and has always been here in one form or another. The fact is that this cosmos is a contingent existent – cause and effect are the order of the day throughout. Science has been able to follow the chain of causation back to just a few moments after it all got started to a thing called the “big bang.” Now, all of this is old news – but what it seems to say to me is that everything came from somewhere else. There must be some kind of uncaused thing or being that got the whole thing started.
Of course, none of this means that there is a God, let alone that Christianity is true. But that brings me to the thing that I just cannot get past – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As an historian, as well as a person who deals with people all the time, it is inconceivable to me that multiple people would have insisted that they had seen Jesus crucified, buried and then alive again when they were faced with torture and death unless it was true. I know that there were similar claims for others, but never were those making the claim faced with the kind of torture and death that the first generation of Christian leadership was. And yet, that first generation, and all subsequent ones, have all insisted that Jesus really rose from the dead and is alive to this day, and that faith in him makes a genuine difference in one’s life.
So what is going on? Some think that it is the unwillingness of people to give up their lifestyles – something they think would be required if they become Christians. Others say that the real deficit is in church attendance, not faith. I suspect that the latter is true. So why? Why do people not want to attend church anymore? I would love to hear from anyone who thinks they have an answer. In the meantime, keep the faith!
All of this has me asking myself what is going on in the US. I mean, at a time when Christianity is widely perceived as good news in most of the developing world, why is it that it seems to be dying in Europe and barely holding its own in the US? Oh, I know the typical explanations. Probably the most popular is that the increase of scientific knowledge has left fewer and fewer places for God to live. We no longer have need of an external power in a world where so much is explainable in natural terms. But somehow, that seems hollow to me. I mean, sure, we have been able to identify many of the natural processes in our world, but that is like saying that because I understand how my car runs – from the internal combustion process to the method of manufacture, that it is all naturally occurring and has always been here in one form or another. The fact is that this cosmos is a contingent existent – cause and effect are the order of the day throughout. Science has been able to follow the chain of causation back to just a few moments after it all got started to a thing called the “big bang.” Now, all of this is old news – but what it seems to say to me is that everything came from somewhere else. There must be some kind of uncaused thing or being that got the whole thing started.
Of course, none of this means that there is a God, let alone that Christianity is true. But that brings me to the thing that I just cannot get past – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As an historian, as well as a person who deals with people all the time, it is inconceivable to me that multiple people would have insisted that they had seen Jesus crucified, buried and then alive again when they were faced with torture and death unless it was true. I know that there were similar claims for others, but never were those making the claim faced with the kind of torture and death that the first generation of Christian leadership was. And yet, that first generation, and all subsequent ones, have all insisted that Jesus really rose from the dead and is alive to this day, and that faith in him makes a genuine difference in one’s life.
So what is going on? Some think that it is the unwillingness of people to give up their lifestyles – something they think would be required if they become Christians. Others say that the real deficit is in church attendance, not faith. I suspect that the latter is true. So why? Why do people not want to attend church anymore? I would love to hear from anyone who thinks they have an answer. In the meantime, keep the faith!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Thoughts on "Super Tuesday"
It is popular to complain that politics are dirty, that politicians are liars and that voting is a waste of time. Then, every once in a while, there comes an election where one or more candidates strikes a chord in the hearts and minds of a great number of voters and we see the kind of turnout we did yesterday. And yet, inevitably, the reality of competing interests reins in whoever is elected and less is accomplished than many thought and hoped would be. And so, a new round of disquiet and discouragement about politics sets in and people drop out of the “system.”
What does any of this have to do with being a Christian? Well, first, we have to understand just what the Bible says about government and our relationship to it. It comes as no surprise that democracy as we currently practice it in 21st century America has nothing in common with the kind of government Jesus and the disciples knew and lived under when the New Testament was being written. Ditto for Moses, David, and Isaiah in the Old Testament. Does that mean that the Bible has nothing to say to us? Hardly.
First, we have the principle from scripture that teaches us that government is a God-given concept. Of course, that doesn’t mean that every government is godly, any more than saying that creating humans was God’s idea and therefore every person is godly. Most scholars point to Genesis 9:6 where God says to Noah that, from that time forward, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,” as the first indication that God intends for humanity to institute sufficient structures to insure justice. Human government is a natural outgrowth of this concept.
In the New Testament we have a much clearer exposition of the role of Christians in relation to government. Peter expressed this most fully in 1 Peter 2:13-17 (NIV) 13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. In this passage we are clearly told that we submit to the governing authorities. Why? So that we might show that Christians can also be good citizens and because it is “proper.” Note also the reference to freedom in verse 16 – this is particularly important for we who live in our current society.
So what is our Christian responsibility in the electoral process? It seems to me that first we have a responsibility to do what we can to make it work. In our system we are in the dual position of being both government and governed. In this regard verses thirteen and fourteen above shed the most light on how to do this. The requirement to obey government except when it would mean violating God’s law is the first thing we learn. We are to “submit … to every authority.” That this does not mean in every circumstance is clear from the fact that the same Peter who tells us to do this also challenged the Sanhedrin when he was commanded to cease and desist from preaching Jesus – he not only challenged their authority to command what God had forbidden, but he answered his own challenge by going out and preaching. But the principle remains: we are to submit to the authorities. But notice also that Peter tells us also what the responsibility of those who govern is, as well: “to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right.” In other words, since in our American democracy those who govern are answerable to the people who elect them, we are required to hold those who govern responsible for doing the right thing! If I refuse to do my part, then I am abrogating my responsibility before God. What does that mean? That taking part in the electoral process is my responsibility before God.
This is why I have voted in every election I could, no matter where I was in the United States, since I was old enough to do so. And, it is also what has informed my standards for candidates. My bottom line is whether the policies of those running for office are likely to do the most good for the most people – whether they promote justice, including social justice. And it is why I cannot in good conscience ever cast a ballot for someone who is in favor of taking the lives of innocent human beings before they are even born, or of allowing others to do so. Are there nuances to that broad statement? Of course – but that is for another time. The point is, I cannot fulfill my responsibility before God as a citizen of the United States unless I vote – even if I have to hold my nose sometimes when I do! So vote in November, regardless of whether your candidate gets the nomination. It is the “Christian” thing to do!
Pastor Ken
What does any of this have to do with being a Christian? Well, first, we have to understand just what the Bible says about government and our relationship to it. It comes as no surprise that democracy as we currently practice it in 21st century America has nothing in common with the kind of government Jesus and the disciples knew and lived under when the New Testament was being written. Ditto for Moses, David, and Isaiah in the Old Testament. Does that mean that the Bible has nothing to say to us? Hardly.
First, we have the principle from scripture that teaches us that government is a God-given concept. Of course, that doesn’t mean that every government is godly, any more than saying that creating humans was God’s idea and therefore every person is godly. Most scholars point to Genesis 9:6 where God says to Noah that, from that time forward, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,” as the first indication that God intends for humanity to institute sufficient structures to insure justice. Human government is a natural outgrowth of this concept.
In the New Testament we have a much clearer exposition of the role of Christians in relation to government. Peter expressed this most fully in 1 Peter 2:13-17 (NIV) 13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. In this passage we are clearly told that we submit to the governing authorities. Why? So that we might show that Christians can also be good citizens and because it is “proper.” Note also the reference to freedom in verse 16 – this is particularly important for we who live in our current society.
So what is our Christian responsibility in the electoral process? It seems to me that first we have a responsibility to do what we can to make it work. In our system we are in the dual position of being both government and governed. In this regard verses thirteen and fourteen above shed the most light on how to do this. The requirement to obey government except when it would mean violating God’s law is the first thing we learn. We are to “submit … to every authority.” That this does not mean in every circumstance is clear from the fact that the same Peter who tells us to do this also challenged the Sanhedrin when he was commanded to cease and desist from preaching Jesus – he not only challenged their authority to command what God had forbidden, but he answered his own challenge by going out and preaching. But the principle remains: we are to submit to the authorities. But notice also that Peter tells us also what the responsibility of those who govern is, as well: “to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right.” In other words, since in our American democracy those who govern are answerable to the people who elect them, we are required to hold those who govern responsible for doing the right thing! If I refuse to do my part, then I am abrogating my responsibility before God. What does that mean? That taking part in the electoral process is my responsibility before God.
This is why I have voted in every election I could, no matter where I was in the United States, since I was old enough to do so. And, it is also what has informed my standards for candidates. My bottom line is whether the policies of those running for office are likely to do the most good for the most people – whether they promote justice, including social justice. And it is why I cannot in good conscience ever cast a ballot for someone who is in favor of taking the lives of innocent human beings before they are even born, or of allowing others to do so. Are there nuances to that broad statement? Of course – but that is for another time. The point is, I cannot fulfill my responsibility before God as a citizen of the United States unless I vote – even if I have to hold my nose sometimes when I do! So vote in November, regardless of whether your candidate gets the nomination. It is the “Christian” thing to do!
Pastor Ken
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
