On a recent vacation my wife and I visited a branch of Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church located in Galveston. The service began with the personal testimony of a man who spoke only of how he faithfully gave 10% of his income to the church, despite personal hardship. The story, naturally, ended with him telling of how his income had stabilized and God had provided him with more money than ever before. The testimony was followed up by a long sermon about financial planning. Christianity seemed to have taken a back seat to a study of capital growth. Perhaps I just caught the church on a bad week, but I left the service turned off by the notion that God is a means to personal wealth or power.
In recent years it has become fashionable for some Christians to view their success in the world as a result of God's blessing. The adherents to this doctrine warn against the dangers of money, and then apparently reverse ground and state that God will reward the pure of heart with success in their worldly endeavors.
The notion that God rewards his faithful servants with greater success and prosperity is a comforting thought. I wonder, though, if financial gain, personal power, and overweening pride in one's faith might not pose a trap for some. Should churches elect elders based upon the amount an individual is able or willing to tithe. Should a minister's qualifications include the ability to create multimedia megamillions? Should any minister of God's word build his church by constantly preening the egos of his flock with soothing words that their monotary pleasure is God's will as long as they give and have a pure heart.
Could it be that our wealth is a result of, cold-hearted greed, a manic work ethic, and our Capitalistic system and has nothing to do with God at all?
My Blog List
21 comments:
Hey lequino! It's been awhile since we exchanged ideas back at the Panhandle Truth Squad.
The first post of your new blog is on a very interesting topic. Let me share a few of my thoughts.
Like you, I have some real problems with "Prosperity Christianity" (sometimes known as the "Health and Wealth" gospel). It all sounds so appealing, until something like the Virginia Tech massacre happens. Then people are at a loss to explain how this fits into such a theology.
In the midst of the debate about why a loving God would allow something like Virginia Tech to happen, I wrote the following on another blog:
IMHO, the purpose of prayer is not to get what you ask for, but rather to grow closer to God and to understand Him better. This can be done in conjunction with studying God's Word and includes meditation (on who God is), introspection (about who we are), and thanksgiving (for what God has already provided us), as well as petition (asking God for things and for protection).
In the process, sometimes God changes our circumstances, but more often He changes us. That's the real power of prayer.
Little did I know then how prophetic those words would be. A few short days after I wrote them, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer (I'll be having surgery on August 6). The peace that I've experienced since then is worth so much more than any monetary gain or even a clean bill of health.
My prognosis is very good, but even if it wasn't, the most important thing in my life is my relationship with God through his Son, Jesus Christ.
As far as tithing is concerned, my wife and I have done so for years, and we have a comfortable life financially. But that's not why we do it. We tithe because God asks us to in his Word, and obedience is another way to grow closer to God. ("For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." - Matt. 6:21, NIV)
If I've learned anything in my 57 years on this earth, it's that God isn't a financial advisor, he's not a health insurance policy, he's not politically conservative or progressive (I know that last one may be hard for you to take, lequino :)). God is ... God! And getting to know him, not on our terms but on his, is the greatest adventure anyone can experience.
I couldn't agree more. God is neither liberal or conservative. Why then do so many conservatives link their faith to politics. You must admit that many Christian organizations have tied their wagons to the Republican party.
Back in December of 2005, our old friend Spacedark asked me the following question:
CT, I go to a Methodist church. I'm an expecially faithful Methodist because I go at least every other Sunday! But, if I didn't-- and only had contemporary Christianity as it currently presents itself in the public sphere to look at-- what on Earth would there be to recommend it as the peaceful, loving belief system it claims to be?
Here's a link to my answer. (You can browse it later if you wish; otherwise you'll exit this thread and won't be able to get back without re-entering the comments).
In reviewing what I said back then, you'll notice that most, if not all, of the activities I cite could be considered progressive: teaching English to immigrants, caring for the mentally challenged, feeding the homeless, etc.
That being said, let me address your question:
Why then do so many conservatives link their faith to politics. You must admit that many Christian organizations have tied their wagons to the Republican party.
(cont'd)
The answer as to why many individual Christians and Christian organizations have tied their wagons to the Republican party is twofold: 1) the role of government; and 2) the current definition of "tolerance" among progressives.
Re 1): I can't speak for all conservative Christians, so I'll address this as it pertains to myself. It's my belief that followers of Christ should practice the kind of mercy that Jesus did when he walked the earth. But that mercy should be extended through the Church, rather than government, in order to practice the greatest of all acts of mercy: bringing souls to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. It's to that end that I tithe. If more Christians did, the government wouldn't have to intervene.
To be sure, the Church has abdicated this role in the past, and the government has picked up the slack, usually through the leadership of Democrats. But all things being equal, I feel the government is better suited for more traditional roles like fielding a standing army and fixing potholes. Democrats tend to believe that the government should be all things to all people. That's a profound philosophical difference.
(cont'd)
Re 2): The Bible teaches that "[i]f it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:18 NIV) This is the traditional definition of tolerance, namely: respecting and protecting the rights of others, even if they're different than you; learning from peoples of different cultures, backgrounds, etc.; accepting people of different races, creeds, and nationalities. There are other verses that exhort us to be tolerant (e.g. Ephesians 4:2; Ephesian 4:32; Colossians 3:13; Galatians 6:10).
But many progressives hold to a postmodernist definition of tolerance, what Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler call "The New Tolerance" in their book of the same name.
According to this definition, it's not enough to "live and let live," the "new tolerance" demands that because truth is relative and a product of a person's culture, other beliefs and lifestyles should be validated, celebrated and held as equal to ones own. Those who don't are frequently labeled as bigots by progressives.
In order for me to be true to my faith, I have to take Jesus at His word when He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:5-7 NIV). Not a way, not a truth, not a life. Not some people come to the Father apart from Me.
If I truly believe this, I would be remiss in the extreme to say that all religions are equal. I can and do respect other faiths, but to tell others that Christianity is just one of many ways to heaven is to deny the central tenet of my faith.
Likewise, there are actions, behaviors and beliefs that are clearly defined as sin in the Bible. To practice them (as opposed to occasionally commiting them through ones own weakness) is to miss out on God's perfect will for your life, even if you've accepted Christ as your Savior.
I've found that Democrats are tolerant of all people - except when it comes to someone who's moral convictions are based on Absolute Truth. Again, another profound philosophical difference between me and the Democrats.
Lequino, I hope this helps you understand why so many Christians choose (albeit reluctantly at times) the Republican party. Republicans are far from perfect, and it seems as if it's gotten worse in recent years. But at least for this Christian Republican, the philosophical divide between me and the Democrats is just too great.
I respect you and love you as a brother in Christ, and I may even share some of your political views, but I don't see myself changing party affiliation any time soon.
I think you've ascribed a great deal of tolerance to the Republican party that far too often doesn't exist. You can't see that Progressives have a concept of absolute truth as well.
In my opinion the absolute truth Progressive practice is much closer to the one practiced by God himself.
The main moral error Republicans make is that they fail to recall the many warnings in the word about judging others.
Regressives, as I sometimes like to label Neocons, have in many cases based their support of Republicans on two moral issues.
The first, abortion, will remain a sticky problem for lawmakers, because of constitutional issues.
Democrats have taken a lot of heat for this court decision, because they acknowledge that part of real personal freedom requires that sometimes we accept that people will make aweful choices when faced with problems which directly affect their person. Progressives do not like abortion and most see it as murder. Even so, should we criminalize the actions of a desperate woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Perhaps it is best to allow God to sort it out and not interfere.
The other moral issue Christians have hung their hat upon is homosexuality. Progressives do not celebrate this lifestyle, they merely acknowledge that for some it seems quite natural. Unfortunately for Neocons sexual lechery seems to be a widespread human condition and certainly not one exclusive or even more prevelant among Progressives or homosexuals. Neocons excuse all forms of sexual lechery except homosexuality.
Neocons also excuse
Distortion of facts -- and you say Bill Clinton set a bad example. How about starting a war based upon cherry picked facts, outing individuals who contested those facts. Neocons are directly responsible for the mess in Iraq, the death of at least 80,000 (I count the Iraqi deaths too, they're people in my mind despite their religion), an estimated 7.5 million rendered homeless, and a country in ruins. And we like to say Saddam was bad.
Most importantly for our conversation is the profound moral disconnect Repulicans have regarding business and it's profoundly evil affect upon our society.
The inventor of capitalism, you might say, is/was Adam Smith. He said himself the theories behind free market are based upon greed. Republicans are the champions of this system. They are world class, literally, purveyors of economic spoil and greed. When I spoke of earmarks in the initial post I should have added the note that almost exclusively Republican money goes to the wealthy.
Republicans forget the basic law of Gods word regularly in that they support their own. Government money should never go to the already wealthy, any other conclusion speaks of a skewed moral compass as far as the bible is concerned.
Once one makes this realization, then one must realize one cannot support a political party of and for the rich and maintain a healthy relationship with God.
Unfortuantely our churchs are filled with just such men. Men who spend their lives telling themselves their riches are appropriate and God's will. They are not. Our country's riches are the result of greed, the willingness to use others for profit.
I'll end with a request. Please don't regale me with any more pompous observations about how you have an absolute sense of what is right and what is wrong. I want to make it perfectly clear. I believe our entire society is rotten to the core and most of it comes from business and the constant appropriately named rat race, which makes us all servants to gold.
Witness how you rationalized the verse about not making gods of silver and gold. The verse is literal. We worship silver and gold six days a week in this society...make no mistake about it.
Silver and Gold are the real gods in a Capitalist society and the champions of Capitalism are...Republicans.
Please don't regale me with any more pompous observations about how you have an absolute sense of what is right and what is wrong.
I'm sorry I left you with that impression. I don't have an absolute sense of what is right and what is wrong. What I do have is an absolute source of what is right and what is wrong: the Holy Bible, which I hold to be the inspired Word of God.
My understanding of the Word is imperfect, tainted by my own prejudices and sinfulness. That's why I believe the most important thing I can do is approach God's Word humbly and prayerfully on a daily basis and let God reveal its Truth to me.
Please be patient with me; God isn't finished with me yet!
At the risk of commiting the same transgression of offering "proof-texts" that I warned about, I'd ask you to consider the following verses about gods.
Do capitalists worship wood and stone, too?
Do capitalists worship wood and stone, too?
I want to apologize for this sarcastic remark; it wasn't very loving and did nothing to move the discussion forward. Sarcasm, it seems, along with self-righteous pride, are just a couple of "gods" that I need to overcome.
But I don't apologize for explaining scripture with scripture.
And I never meant say that the love of money is not a hindrance to our relationship to God. As I wrote before:
Your quote of Exodus 20:23 is appropriate, but I believe that "gods of silver or gods of gold" refers to idols in general, not just the love of money.[Emphasis added]
There are plenty of other scriptures that make your point (e.g. love of money is the root of all kinds of evil; it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven). I'll leave it to you to find chapter and verse.
But to imply that greed is the only hindrance to our relationship with God gives those who worship other idols a free pass.
I'm curious about another thing (hence the name): If capitalism is so bad, what's your alternative?
Clearly Capitalism works well in most cases. I only suggest we acknowledge that an open market doesn't work well for every aspect of our society.
Education, for example. Many Republicans, men who've made great gads of money through their greed, basically, now seem to think we can solve the problems with education by changing what is a basically a socialized system, the public schools to a more privatized system. Private school interests have lobbied endlessly for vouchers, a system that would turn our current system into a for profit mess. Do a little research on the Milwaukee schools and read a few of the horror stories about how things have worked out there if you're interested.
In a for profit school system children can be lost in the shuffle. If we want a country where every child receives an education, socialism works best.
You probably have guessed I'm leading up to socialized health care. Clearly we pay too much for health care in this country. Twice as much per capita as the nearest industrialized nation. Health insurance companies are the real culprit in this equation, and have chunked out millions to point out the weaknesses of socialized health care.
The disadvantages of socialized health care have been grossly overstated. Do people have to wait for care from time to time in the Canadian and French systems of care. Yes. Do people with serious pressing conditions have to wait though...no. In fact individuals with those types of conditions receive care that is equal to that found in the U.S.. Would socialized health care result in higher taxes. Yes, definitely, but it wouldn't have to bleed us dry if our leaders would stop spending such insane amounts of money on the military. And wouldn't it be nice to know, as a Christian, that everyone could get health care, without worrying about the bill.
Honestly I'm sick to death of insurance agents who pocket six figure salaries, while great numbers of people weigh in their minds if they can afford to see a doctor. A Christian nation would forget about the profits to be made from health care and demand that everyone have easy access to a doctor, without worrying if they can afford to pay.
So, in my opinion, Capitalism doesn't work when it comes to health care. Socialism is better.
I don't suggest we replace Capitalism in most areas of our economy. Like virtually all Democrats, I'm a strong believer in the efficiencies of Capitalism. What we've done in this country; however, is make saints of Capitalists. We've glorified a greed driven concept into something almost holy. This glorification of mone has seeped into our churchs. If you're worried that our country could fail because of moral collapse, you might include the love of money in there somewhere. glorifying greed, as if it has something to do with God, is ridiculous, and that seems to be where we're at. Adam Smith knew it, Herbert Hoover knew it...both men were staunch Capitalists...both men also acknowledged that greed makes capitalism work.
I think many Republicans have forgotten the fact that Capitalism is a system that runs on greed. As you noted the bible is filled with warnings about money.
I recall Tom Delay stumping on CNN following the downfall of Ken Lay, the Enron mogul convicted of fraud. Delay said nothing of the evils perpertrated by the exectives of Enron but spoke only of how he knew Lay to be a good Christian man who didn't deserve such bad treatment by the courts. Delay honestly seemed to think Lay hadn't done anything wrong, despite the fact that Enron stripped the retirement funds of thousands, and basically caused a lot of suffering because of their greed. Before his death I also read some comments by Ken Lay himself. The man seemed baffled that anyone would consider his actions evil. When Lay died of a heart attack a few days before entering prison I wondered if he might have finally seen some of his own evil and found that truth about himself too stressful to bear.
I won't belabor the point any further, but is it possible you could see that the interests behind preventing socialized medicine in this country may be doing so not because they feel our current system is best, but rather because they fear their profit margins will be severely damaged if we change? Isn't it possible that greed is preventing us from doing what is right in this case?
Curious please feel free to post any of your own ideas on this in the main forum. I'm not seeking to make this blog about Democrats over Republicans. Perhaps you have ideas about ways that Democrats and their policies have failed to come up to the moral standard found in the bible. I would enjoy reading those and might even agree...lol.
Do a little research on the Milwaukee schools and read a few of the horror stories about how things have worked out there if you're interested.
I'd heard about Milwaukee's voucher system, but I wasn't too familiar with its track record, so I took your advice and "did a little research." This is what I found. Maybe you can direct me to a good horror story site, because I couldn't find one.
In a for profit school system children can be lost in the shuffle.
That might be true, but not all private education is for profit (e.g. parochial and Christian schools). We sent both our girls to a Christian school all the way through 12th grade and found that they were far from "lost in the shuffle." The small classes, dedicated teachers, and consistent discipline allowed them to thrive academically.
If private schools are so bad, why do rich people send their kids there almost without exception? And why do you want to deny poor people the same choice that rich people have?
If we want a country where every child receives an education, socialism works best.
Having lived for a year in post-communist Poland, I can tell you that no one I met was ever nostalgic for the days "za komuny" (under communism). There's an old Polish joke that goes something like this: Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's just the opposite.
In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, years of trying to create the "socialist man" were an utter failure, because any attempt to change mankind from without (as opposed to within) is always met with resistance. Christianity changes hearts from the inside out.
And as far as Ken Lay and others of his ilk are concerned, I can't look into their hearts. But I do know that Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21 NIV)
When Jesus truly touches a person's heart, lives are changed - something that no political system can ever do.
How about this site
with about forty links citing bad schools and studies that show students in voucher schools do no better than students in regular public schools. You must have had to search hard to find the site you listed because I couldn't locate it through a search engine...again...typical. I could list about a dozen others but I'm sure it wouldn't change your mind.
As for private schools I haven't a thing in the world against them, but I do think it's terribly unfair for private schools to be allowed to pick and choose their students without any regard to state or federal oversight, while public schools must bow to every ridiculous idea that any politician that comes down the pipe happens to like.
My other objection to private schools is that typically in such schools the teachers are even more grossly underpaid than they are in public schools.
If private schools get state and federal money they should have to answer to state and federal authority just as public schools do. And I warn you, that would happen eventually. Have you considered that aspect of vouchers. I bet not.
Vouchers are just another way for the rich to unbalance the scales in their favor. They do nothing to improve student performance, though I suppose many parents will like them because they get the feeling they are controlling someone else, namely teachers. Everyone likes to feel like they are in control, even if it means someone else, namely teachers, must suffer for it.
By they way, if you can find a teacher's union out there that supports vouchers I'll shut up about the whole thing.
As for your comment about Poland, it's just ridiculous. No one is suggesting we change our entire political system to Socialism.
Finally I figured you would find a way to skirt around Ken Lay's actions. I don't know what was in the man's heart either. But I do know the bible says "As you have done unto the least of these so too have you done unto me" Maybe you think it's okay to play fast and loose with the retirement funds and financial portfolios of others, but I think it's morally corrupt. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on that one and let God sort it out.
You must have had to search hard to find the site you listed because I couldn't locate it through a search engine...again...typical.
Did you try "milwaukee school choice"? It's the first hit after the local business results.
I've got more to say, but as the adage goes, no time to say it at the moment. Maybe I'll continue this evening.
Finally I figured you would find a way to skirt around Ken Lay's actions.
I addressed my ignorance of who he was; the record is clear about what he did, and it's obvious that his actions were horrendous. It's one thing to rip people off on a small scale (that's bad enough), it's another thing altogether to rob large numbers of people of their life's savings.
We'll never know if Ken Lay would have reputiated his actions, because he died before he had the opportunity.
Lay's actions were comparable to those of Jim Bakker, who likewise destroyed the lives of probably thousands of people, only to use their hard earned savings to fund his lavish lifestyle (remember the air conditioned dog house?), build a theme park, and pay off the woman with whom he committed adultery. The difference is that Jim Bakker later wrote a book entitled "I Was Wrong" in which he admitted that he had sinned. Would Ken Lay have repented? We'll never know.
Jimmy Swaggert is another interesting case. Caught with a prostitute, he tearfully confessed on national TV. Caught a second time, he said that God told him to tell everyone to mind their own business. A few weeks ago while channel surfing late one night, I was absolutely dumbfounded to see Jimmy Swaggert, still "singing for the Lord" (though thankfully not preaching).
All of these men committed crimes in the eyes of the state and sinned in the eyes of the Lord. But which of these three do you suppose Jesus was thinking of when he said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven"?
I don't know what was in the man's [Ken Lay's] heart either.
And yet you said this:
When Lay died of a heart attack a few days before entering prison I wondered if he might have finally seen some of his own evil and found that truth about himself too stressful to bear.
I hope you're right, because if he went to his grave convinced of this own innocence, at the very least he had some serious explaining to do before the Throne of God.
Ironically, it seems to me that you're more willing to give Ken Lay the benefit of the doubt than I am.
Re: Vouchers
I could list about a dozen others but I'm sure it wouldn't change your mind.
What makes you so sure? When I asked you to "direct me to a good horror story site" I was being honest. I wanted to see both sides of the story.
It seems to me that the Milwaukee private school voucher program has had mixed results. Just on the evidence we've both posted, it would also seem that established private schools (especially parochial and Christian ones) have fared better than the fly-by-night private schools that have sprung up just to cash in on the vouchers.
I absolutely agree that there should be accountability, for public as well as private schools.
And I agree that the strings that are tied to vouchers are problematic. Holding schools accountable for academic excellence is one thing, but my biggest concern is that the government may want to dictate the world view to which a school holds. All other things being equal, there's no advantage to sending your children to a Christian school as long as they get the same world view as they'd be getting in public school.
And as far as teacher pay is concerned, that's what I meant when I wrote about "dedicated teachers" - those who are willing to take a cut in pay to teach in an environment that reflects their values.
In a perfect world, private school teachers would receive pay that's equal to their public school counterparts. But we haven't had a perfect world since the Fall (and I don't mean last autumn, either).
First of all your site was clearly written by some number crunching Republican wonk trying to make it look like the Republicans have been less culpable in wasting our tax dollars. It's a myth Curious. I won't disagree with your assessment that Democrats have been guilty of wasteful spending, but that site is just a bunch of bull.
Congressmen vote against bills for any number of reasons, including partisan politics.
Answer these questions for me.
Why did the Republican controlled Congress set records for pork spending the last six years running? Did the crafty Democrats somehow manage to slip their earmarks in despite the valient efforts of the wonderfully responsible Republicans writing the bills?
Next question.
If the Republicans were so concerned with earmark transparency, why didn't they pass a bill like the Democrats just did requiring such transparency? Were they in control of both houses of Congress or were they not?
Finally here is a site that actually posts the amounts of earmark money spent and the individual districts and the legislators responsible for said earmarks.
You, like so many other Republicans have a near psychotic need to hold on to the notion that Republicans are more responsible when it comes to our national budget, but it's a lie. If Republicans are so responsible in their management of our tax dollars why the years of debt piled up during the Reagan, Bush the elder, and Dubyah years. I'll explain it in very simple terms. If Democrats like to tax and spend, Republicans like to borrow and spend. Which is a more responsible attitude? Which sends a better message to our children? If you think Borrow and spend is better then you're a fool.
Here's a nice little chart showing the amounts of pork spending since 1995. Looks like it's gone down this year...hmmm...how could that be with those irresponsible Democrats in charge...gosh. Looks like the pork spending was much lower during the Clinton years. Hmmm how could that be? (I'm being sarcastic in case you don't get it.)
I'm wondering why you posted your latest comments about earmarks under the "Prosperity Christianity" post, as opposed to the "Republicans and Christianity" post, where we first started discussing earmarks.
I tried looking for what I wrote before and had to open two tabs just to follow the debate. If it's confusing for me to follow, it's got to be confusing for you too, and even more so for anyone who's come to the debate later.
A friendly suggestion for the future: You might want to give your posts names that better describe the topic (e.g. "Christianity and Earmarks") and when you feel like discussing a new topic, start a new post (e.g. "Christianity and Abortion" or "Christianity and Homosexuality" - both of which are embedded somewhere in the comments).
But I digress.
Regarding your statistical table, I find the graph and bar chart underneath it a little easier to read. Same data - different format.
Reviewing this data, it seems to me that it generally confirms what I wrote before:
Democrats abused earmarks in the 1970's and '80's, but from 2003 until the beginning of this year, Republicans took the practice to heights (or depths) never dreamed of by the Democrats.[Emphasis added]
Two more observations: 1) The major period in question (1995 through 2006) spans the most recent period of Republican control of Congress and shows a constant increase of projects (peaking in 2005) and a near constant increase in spending (the years 1998 and 1999 being outlyers). It seems the amount of spending and number of projects reflect the Republicans' learning curve; the longer they were in power, the more they got the hang of this whole earmark thing. Which seems to support another comment I made:
I don't know what happened to the fiscal constraint promised in the "Contract with America" except to say that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...
It would be interesting to see similar data on the 40-year period preceding this (i.e. the last period of Democrat majority). The absolute numbers would of course be lower in both categories, but would there be the same kind of constant upward trend? I'm not saying there would or wouldn't - just posing the question. If you can find such data, I'd be glad to comment on it.
2) The reason the statistics for 2007 are so much lower than for 2006 should be obvious - we're only in July of this year!
One last comment, and then I absolutely have to go to bed (it's 20 minutes to midnight!).
I'm having a hard time understanding your reactions to my comments. You seem to vacilate between perceiving me as "a good Christian man kind of like my own father" and some kind of crazed ideologue ("You, like so many other Republicans have a near psychotic need to hold on to the notion that Republicans are more responsible when it comes to our national budget").
For the record, I'm a Christian first, a conservative second, and somewhere down the line (after Denver Broncos fan and opera affectionado), a Republican. When I post links to information on such topics as the Milwaukee voucher system or earmarks, I do so to add to the debate, not to defend or attack any political party. I know this may be kind of a novel position in the blogosphere, but winning isn't nearly as important to me as learning and growing. It's that old Hegelian thing: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
I suppose there's nothing I can do if you want to occasionally attack the straw man you've set up. Maybe you need me to be one of those "Evangelical Pharisees that have usurped the Republican party" so you can debunk me.
The original concept of this blog is what drew me to it in the first place: "In this forum I hope to discuss the ways religion and politics do mix, and how that brew affects our society."
Let's not turn it into just one more politically partisan blog.
It's already 31 past midnight Saturday. Hopefully you've had more sense than me, and you'll be reading this sometime during the day on Saturday. Have a great weekend and when Sunday rolls around, "[l]et us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching." (Hebrews 10:25 NIV)
Let your relationship with the Lord direct your political opinions, not the other way around. And I'll try to do the same.
Grace and peace,
Curious Texan
You're right on every word Curious. I do want the debate to be about how religion and politics mix. You're judgement is sound.
By the way I'm not always polite when I argue politics with my dad either. (I learned from him) So I apologize for loose canonizing (lol). I've just grown so tired of the notion coming from some Republicans that their ideology is somehow more "Christian" than the ideology of the Democrats.
Good advice on the blog organization as well. I'm learning as I go.
And as far as teacher pay is concerned, that's what I meant when I wrote about "dedicated teachers" - those who are willing to take a cut in pay to teach in an environment that reflects their values.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha freaking ha!
I hope you can understand-- given your faith in Capitalism and the very premise of private school vouchers (not to mention the many extremely qualified and dedicated teachers with whom I work in the dark Satanic public schools) -- how your statement reduces me to hysterics and tears, not necessarily in that order.
Post a Comment