Casting ballots on Election Day in the basement of Zion Lutheran in Waterloo, Iowa.
When you vote, I hope you take your religion with you into the voting booth. Take your Bible with you, too. Or a cross. Or ask your pastor if you can borrow the church’s processional cross for the occasion. Get your neighbors to carry the processional candles and someone else to carry a large Bible, and you’d have one heckuva procession.
Well, leave the processional pieces at home.
But I’m serious about the Bible. Or the cross. Or what those things represent — faith. Take your faith with you into the voting booth. Our Lord Jesus has claim over your whole life. Not just your Sunday life. Not just your religious beliefs. But over your whole life. Even over your civic life. And your voting.
Now, voting with faith is not as easy as comparing Jesus’ stance on the issues with those of the candidates. For one, Jesus is pretty silent on matters of bond initiatives, debt-to-GDP ratio, or the relative authority of federal, state and local governments.
And furthermore, even if we could tease apart Jesus’ stance on issues of great importance, and if we could figure out how those issues translate into public policy — a task that has stymied Christians for millennia — Jesus is more than a list of issues.
Jesus is Lord over our lives. And this Lord is one who, in his own life, gave of himself for the sake of others. As such, voting with faith is not issue-oriented voting at all. Instead, voting with faith is voting that is focused on our neighbor.
When we vote, we should vote not our own interests but instead the interests of others, especially the interests of the poor and marginalized, those with whom Jesus especially identified.
So the question is not, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” but rather, “Are my neighbors in need better off than they were four years ago?”
To be sure, we will disagree as to which policies will better achieve the goal of improving the life and lot of our neighbors in need. That is fair. The means by which conditions are improved for our neighbors in need could vary widely — from private sector charitable efforts and job creation, to increased government benefits alleviating the suffering of the poor, to a combination thereof. How we understand these issues will help us determine how we vote.
Yet the barometer is the same: How is my neighbor in need doing? It is this question of concern for our neighbor that is central to how Christians are called to vote. Voting with our neighbor’s needs in mind can even lead us to vote against our own interests, if we understand our interests in terms of our needs, property and income.
In his explanation of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments, Martin Luther makes extraordinary claims about our calling to our neighbor. Not only are we not to murder or steal from them, but we are called to “help and support [our neighbors] in all of life’s needs,” and to “help [our neighbors] to improve and protect their property and income.” Our call in these commandments is not to be concerned with our own needs or property or income, but to be concerned about the needs, property and income of our neighbor, especially our neighbor in need.
So, too, in the voting booth. Our calling is not to vote our own interests, but the interests of others. We’ll each do this in different ways, since we understand how the plight of our neighbor can be improved in distinct, and even contradictory, ways. Keeping our neighbors’ needs in mind, Christians will vote for Republicans or Democrats, Libertarians or Greens, Independents or write-in candidates. Christians will not be a unified voting bloc. And while this might be a messy and politically unsatisfying result, there is nothing neat and tidy and politically satisfying about faith in Christ.
For Christ is the one who dined with the wealthy and the poor alike. He is the one who built his church on a man who would betray him three times. He is the one who was arrested and executed by the state and who rose again in defiance of the state and of nature itself. He is the one who called a persecutor of the church to become its most ardent advocate. There is nothing neat and tidy and politically satisfying about faith in Christ.
But our call is not to fit seamlessly into a political box, or to vote in a politically satisfying — or victorious — way. Instead, our call is to vote with the needs and interests of our neighbors in mind, so that through our vote we might help and support them in their life’s needs.
Chris Duckworth is the senior pastor at Grace Lutheran Church, an ELCA congregation in St. Paul, Minn.
You might also want to read:
Resources for an election year
The end of elections is nigh!
What the church can learn from the presidential primary
I respectfully disagree. To use the voting process in such a pietistic and theocratic manner does a disservice to the whole issue of what the political process is all about. The voting process is by its very nature a project based on self-interest. In this way the public voice speaks in a thorough and authentic sense, imo.
Thanks for your post, Chris! Serving the neighbor does indeed extend to how we vote.
If we are to truly vote for our neighbor’s benefit, we would have to vote to take all of the money from the rich and give it to the poor. Otherwise we would be considered selfish. We would have to vote to have stores provide free gasoline, clothing and food. We would have to vote to have free healthcare (whoops already done that). We would have to vote to disband the military. Otherwise we would not be considered peace makers. We would have to vote this way because if we didn’t we would not truly be a good neighbor now would we? Unless Christ Jesus Himself is running; it would be difficult to find anyone who will benefit every neighbor. No matter how you dice it up, voting to help any neighbor is voting against some other neighbor.
Ah, yes, we do end up with some odd interpretations when words of goodwill are twisted to fit into the political pigeonholes of suspicion.
No odd interpretations. What is being misinterpreted is Luther's words about the referenced commandments in the opinion above. The neighbor for Luther was very near to him and when the neighbor is addressed per Luther one knows who one is talking about. In the interpretation above to vote with the neighbor in mind is to vote with a nameless population in mind.
A nameless neighbor (think population) is not to vote for one's neighbor who is next to him/her. I would venture to say that if Luther were alive today in our democratic society he would think differently in terms of how to love his neighbor.
I just don't think the above opinion-piece is being faithful to the political process.
Of course we all vote for what we believe is best for ours and our brother’s wellbeing by proxy. But when it is said we that should specifically vote not for our own wellbeing (because we must obviously not be in as much need), but for those that are worse off than us, it’s not a twisted political pigeonholes of suspicion to say that we are talking about. We are talking about voting for something that will help those in need. And if the vote in question succeeds; where does this help come from? Not the voter as an individual, but from the collective of all voters whether they were in favor or not. Why is it so noble to vote your neighbor into wellbeing with the wealth of others? It's not. The poor will always with us; best to joyously help them ourselves and lead by example. For what reward is there taking from the unwilling in the name of our Lord?
Thanks for the comments, all. My two - or seven - cents, in response to your thoughtful comments.
Faith doesn't necessarily fit nicely into the political process. That's a corollary of this piece, I guess. Voting with our neighbor's needs in mind is indeed quite difficult, and it even messes with the established political process.
I once heard a military chaplain tell other chaplains that their duty to God will conflict at times with their duty to their commanding officer. He told his subordinates that if they didn't feel such a conflict at times, they should get out of the business of being a military chaplain. I think the same kind of conflict exists, inherently, in being a Christian in our (or any) society. We're going to feel a sense of conflict between our loyalty to democracy, political process, capitalism, and our faith. And if we don't, perhaps we should ask, "why not?"
And in the 21st century, where I am made "very near" to people I've never met across this country and even the globe (thanks to the internet and globalization) I'm glad to expand any understanding of neighbor that Luther may have held. Luther bought his shoes from the cobbler down the street, whom he knew. My shoes are made by laborers in Singapore. Also, I interact, on a regular basis, with over 1000 people spread over several countries, via Facebook. Anyway, Jesus, in Luke 10, seems to re-define neighbor in a way that has nothing to do with proximity or class or clan or any other type of shared, given characteristic, but instead with a relationship of care.
Last thought: I believe that we are called to use whatever we have for the benefit of our neighbor, and particularly for our neighbors in need. Among those things that we "have" is our vote. Just as we are to use our money and time and voice for the needy, so too should we use our vote.
And, I believe, we fail miserably at living into this neighbor-orientation most of the time. That doesn't mean that we neglect to teach and to strive for it, however.
What this article brings to my mind is the issue of school funding. There is a large group of eldery and retirees in my area. They no longer have or never had children thus they consistently vote against school funding measures. The local schools started to lay off teachers, shutter schools, and consolidate the students into the remaining schools. Class sizes increased into the 30+ range. A vote for your neighbor might have saved a teacher's job or prevented a child from having to sit in a class of 39 students. A vote for your neighbor might keep the tiny branch of the local library open, allow the senior center to keep providing services, continue the after school program for latchkey kids, and stop cuts to mental health services. There is much good to be accomplished if we vote with our minds and our hearts.
Ah, yes, Justfluttering, you are right that the vote could be construed that way; however, let's also play this game a bit--particularly in light of Davey's suggestion that a vote "for" one neighbor might very well be a vote "against" another neighbor.
I have a few retirees and elderly folks in my congregation. Not a few of them live on a fixed income and many more saw what little investments they had take a major hit in the great recession. A vote to increase taxes would mean a vote for perhaps more than a few of those elderly folks to have to cut back even more on very, very tight budgets. A vote to increase what they pay in taxes would further deplete savings intended for medicine, housing, and food.
Now, in no way am I discounting that some of those elderly folks could afford such an increase. Some folks have plenty to spare; yet, there are just as many who don't.
So, closing schools or suffering seniors? Pick your poision. It would be nice if it were clear cut. In all honesty, my view is not that we "vote for our neighbor" but vote for what we discern to be God's will, paying particular mind to our what our Christian faith says concerning loving God with all our heart, mind, and spirit and loving our neighbor as ourselves. After all, all commands rest on just these two.
The full citation of the love your neighbor law is:
Love your neighbor AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF. No self-interest there, I suppose.
I think it is you and the writer of this article who are twisting words of scripture. Love your neighbor as conceived here is a pious feel-good attitude that focuses not on specifics but on the general schema of things. It carries no weight and costs nothing. Love your neighbor without the full citation (as yourself) is simply the modern church's way of playing a political game when all it boils down to is self-interest anyway.
The socialist / Keynesian systems are in a slow motion train wreck. Voting ourselves and our neighbors an easy, carefree life will not end well. We have lived beyond our means for decades and now we will be "forced" to live with much less. At some point the youth will figure out that they are stooges laboring away to support the lifestyles of the elderly that voted themselves in an excellent retire gig complete with free healthcare. And even trying to reduce the debt obligation for future generations will send progressive and liberal politicians home for a permanent vacation. How moral is that? When will the elderly vote for the wellbeing of their younger neighbors?
At some point Atlas will shrug, and the voting will be a fond memory.
The vote had nothing to do with the man. The problem is the party.
Interacting by Facebook or any social network is not caring for the neighbor. In fact, the internet has further increased the isolation that many of us feel who know that to care for the neighbor means more than a Facebook howdy y'all. The Gospel of Luke 10, as referenced, is the story of caring for the neighbor in a very concrete way and that is the only way the neighbor is authentically loved ...concretely, not anonymously nor at a distance. It is the direct encounter with the other as a subject and not as an object.
What do ELCA members think about mark hanson's support and alignment with Dan Savage?
Davey and Readsletertoo,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You've brought some careful challenge to a discussion, that as you argue readsletertoo, ought not be vague.
The truth is love is not a vague feeling--love is found in action. And a legitimate question for the thinking Christian is how do we show love towards God and our neighbors in concrete ways today.
I do believe we as a nation are slowly headed into a fiscal train wreck. But Keynsian's in particular don't deserve all blame. Two political parties and economists of many stripes deserve blame imho.
Some imagine that the youth of today will be the Atlas who will shrug, but I am not so sure. In fact as I look at young people I see many younger than me (I'm 38)who don't want to drop the ball. Why? Because of their motivation--love not of the self but of God and the other. This is the one possibility that I never saw Ayn Rand deal with in Atlas Shrugged. It possible for a creative person--a capitalist who makes things and makes money--to be motivated by something other than greed.
As a repentent sinner I know that something besides greed and self-interest can motivates someone to really live. Daily repentence of greed and selfishness are the key not to disproving Rand's theory but to our cultural survival. I give thanks to God that in Christ we are new creations who can daily seek to love God and neighbor.
Maybe it's naive to think that Christians have a true calling, an external motivation, to daily live out their faith by loving their neighbors as they love themselves--or maybe the church is actually part of the solution to the problem by reminding us again and again to love God above all and our neighbors as we love ourselves.
Pax, John
PR John,
While I agree that some folks can be motivated by more things than just greed; greed and self-interest, by nature, foster a much more efficient path to prosperity in the world of industry. While being cold blooded and at times detestable; self preservation frees a person to eliminate nonproductive aspects of one's product without the debilitating agony of guilt. And while greed is a sin to be castigated in the Christian world; it is impossible to outlaw. So what were are left with should be to not promote greed, but harness it's monetary excesses for the good of all. Jesus spoke many parables about money and investing money for profit. While I know he was comparing money to faith or what have you; He was not adverse to making monetary profit, just loving the monetary profit.
Personally, I want a bunch of self-interested, greedy people out there who have a plan to make millions over night. And I hope they need a bunch of poor saps to exploit to achieve their goal. And I hope they hire me. The more I make; the more I give. But I will never advocate for taking money from one person and giving it to another. I will do the giving myself or it won't get done.
Before Christians should vote to for other people's wellbeing; they should make 10% contributions a mandatory requirement to be a member? Then watch all the nice, motivated do gooders head for the door. Would that be greedy?
Google Keynes vrs. Hayek….2 very funny and informative short YouTube videos
Chuck,
What does the good Bishop have to say about the "Paragon of morality" Dan Savage?
Luther's two kingdom ethic is one of the most authentic and honest renderings of how life within God's creation operates. If one by nature disparages God's left hand management of his own creation via retribution then we are usurping God's own judgment of things. We turn the tables on God and believe (and act) as if we can run God's creation better that he. To do so is to remain in sin and so retribution is the only answer God has at that point. This is one of the points of Luther's treatise The Bondage of the Will. Sinners (even repentant sinners) live among other sinners and God has provided God's law for the purpose of managing sinners. If one takes the route as if others are somehow saved and forgiven by fiat (when in fact Christ's death on the cross was offered for and to sinners....for sinners to believe that they are forgiven places them in the dimension of faith however. But they are not automatically forgiven outside of the faith relationship) again we are faced with the dilemma as to how to act. Luther's understanding of person-outside-office vs. person-within- office is key here.
Davey,
the question for Jesus was not about making money or having money but finding contentment for your soul.
Jesus wouldn't take issue with someone making millions for making something good or serving others well--but there's a point at which just making millions for the sake of making millions doesn't have value. And that's where Jesus was especially blunt in his teaching about money.
Earthly treasures do have a place and value. As a dad I seek to provide for my family. I insure myself to protect them if I become disabled or die--but earthly treasures other than faith, hope, and love are worthless at the end of our time on earth.
Ask in a chemo unit who's feeling good because of their possessions, it's likely no one says, "Money and things give me comfort right now." A few might sigh in relief that their family will be provided for by insurance and investments--but most won't say that their possessions offer comfort for their souls.
Now ask them if they have faith in God and you'll find that many know joy in the midst of suffering. Consider the story from Mark 10:17-27. Jesus met a rich young man. He asked what he had to do to inherit eternal life. The man was pious. And Jesus told him to sell all that he had give the proceeds to the poor and come follow him. He was invited into the joy of the kingdom in that moment and he went away sad--why because he loved his things.
The question isn't is money evil or good--the question is are people evil or good. I pray that through God's Word we find moral direction to seek out the good of othrs.
Pax, John
Readselerttoo
You point out well how God uses natural consequences of human actions in punitive ways; there are frankly ways that God uses natural consequences to bless us too.
The Christian in the midst of this fallen world finds freedom in Christ. We have freedom to make choices even as others might make destructive choices we are free to answer God's call to choose life. We choose life by our conduct.
Some might think such a choice is foolish --but here's where hope breaks in--we can live today like eternity and heaven matter. The old Norwegian hymn Behold the Host Arrayed in White states the mystery of this all very well. "On earth there work was not thought wise, but see them now in heavens eyes."
pax, John
Words are one thing deeds are another. One can say anything, but the proof is in actions. My own experiences in church have been a mixture of good and evil. When does one get to witness justice to those that acted inappropriatly and in a church?
Pr John,
You seemed to have drifted off topic. You morphed into a sermon that I whole heartedly agree with.
You said:
“I pray that through God's Word we find moral direction to seek out the good of others”.
But that’s really not what we are talking about is it? This post is not talking about “praying” to find moral direction for the good of others; it’s talking about voting one’s own moral direction and imposing it on some far off faceless individuals, for the good of others. Do you thing Jesus would be enthused by that? Answer: no. Jesus wants personal sacrifice, with love, for the benefit of not only the ones you help, but for yourself also.
Jesus was proud of the women who gave 2 cents because it meant much more to her than a million dollars meant to a rich man. Jesus didn’t say she would be better off taking money from others so she could give more. He blessed her personal sacrifice. This is what we need more than voting for others to take care of the poor.
Peronal sacrifice, not forced collective sacrifice; this is what pleases God.
Davey
You were the first person who responded to my concerns.
I don't take lightly. You may be faceless. The important point is that you care and care deeply in what is taking place today in the Lutheran Church.
Thank you for welcoming me here. It's good to be able to get out what you don't have any control over and hear what others have to say about it. thank you Judy
good point about the poor widow...she relinquished all she had just like Jesus relinquished his life to have the capacity to take upon himself the sins of others via the cross: "...he (Jesus) was made to be sin who knew no sin so that we might become the righteousness of God in him(Jesus) ala 2 Cor. 5.
But we must remember this reconciliation that Paul tells us in 2 Corin 5 is From the Father and through the Father and for the Father. It was the Father's will not Jesus' will as Jesus tells us at Gethsemane. Jesus tells us He came to do His Father's will not His will. He became sin who knew no sin out of obedience.
You’re very welcome JOYster,
I do care very much for the direction of not just the Lutheran church, but in Christendom as a whole. I know you and many, many others (myself included) have been dismayed and even angered at resent events within the church. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water here. I know it’s hard, but dwelling on injustice is not healthy. Sometimes charity is the prescription of the day. Birds of a feather flock together. Befriend likeminded people and comfort each other, while remaining faithful to your principals in love.
Chuck,
Is it good theology to drive a wedge between God the Father and God the Son? They are either one God or they are not. It was Jesus’ humanity that questioned the will of the Father, not His divinity.
Jesus says: "The one who has seen me has seen the Father."
(The Gospel of St. John 14:9)
Davey,
you make a good point about the Widow's might; Jesus rightly held her up as a model. In faith she gave and he little gift of a few copper coins was trully greater than anothers gift of much more gold or silver.
I am not sure if this story relates to "forced collective sacrifice" (taxes?) as they are used for the care of our neighbors. This phrase has more in common with Ragnar Danneskjold's character in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged than Jesus' teachings in the 4 Gospels.
Jesus was purposefully vague about taxes in Mark 12:17. Asked directly about paying taxes to the empire Jesus asked a question back, "Who's picture is on the coin." "Caesar's" the people answered back--and Jesus told them render to Caesar what belongs Caesar and to God what belongs to God.
We ought to have vigorous debate debate about how taxes are used; but its clear that taxes are a vital to sustaining the society we depend upon each day.
Luther touched on this, in his Large Catechism as he pondered the petition in the Lord's Prayer, "Give us this day our Daily Bread" --
Although we have received from God all good things in abundance, we cannot retain any of them or enjoy them in security or happiness unless he gives us a stable, peaceful government. For where dissension, strife, and war prevail, there our daily bread is taken away, or at least reduced.
Luther had a pretty basic idea. Good government and a peacable society aren't guaranteed. Honestyly look at the world today; how many nations are in a state of civil war or unrest? Luther views those who govern as having a ministry, a calling from God, to provide for a stable peacable society for those they govern. But it takes resources to govern. Luther was rather pragmatic when he wrote,
It would therefore be fitting if the coat-of-arms of every upright prince were emblazoned with a loaf of bread instead of a lion or a wreath of rue, or if a loaf of bread were stamped on coins, to remind both princes and subjects that through the office of the princes we enjoy protection and peace and that without them we could not have the steady blessing of daily bread. Rulers are worthy of all honor, and we should render them the duties we owe and do all we can for them, as to those through whom we enjoy our possessions in peace and quietness, since otherwise we could not keep a penny. Moreover, we should pray for them, that through them God may bestow on us still more blessings and good things.
Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000, c1959) page 430.
Was Luther wrong to argue for the moral good provided by an orderly government?
Having a good goverment and voting in our neighbors best interest doesn't answer fully the calling to love our neighbors, near or far, as we love ourselves. But eliminating the resources used to govern wouldn't answer Jesus calling to love our neighbors either. When Jesus was asked, "Who is my neighbor" in Luke 10:29-37 he told the story of the Good Samaritain.
People of faith are clearly called to help the hurting. Saddly there are limits of what well meaning Christians can do to care for the poor and hurting--and there are limits to what well meaning civil servents can do too. In some cases individuals and congregations step in very well to care for their neighbors in need--and in others the resources needed are far greater than a congregation on it's own could produce.
Pax, John
JOyster,
I don't know your story but many people have been hurt by churches and more specifically those who took advantage of their office of ministry.
In God's time there is justice -- sometimes seen on this earth and other times not seen by us. And there is forgiveness for the repentent who come to terms with what they have done.
Pax, John.
JOyster,
I don't know your story but many people have been hurt by churches and more specifically those who took advantage of their office of ministry.
In God's time there is justice -- sometimes seen on this earth and other times not seen by us. And there is forgiveness for the repentent who come to terms with what they have done.
Pax, John.
Wow, Luther seems to understand that Government is not the provider of bread, but the provider of an environment where bread can be made and consumed. He fell short of implying anything that would lead even a communist to believe that governments were for any other reason but to keep the peace so we can have our bread.
Luther was right to argue for the moral good provided by an orderly government, but that’s not what we are talking about is it? Good government is one thing and omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, Omni-generous government is quite another. We all want good government, but I do not like a government that will take my money (that I have to pass drug tests to work for) to buy radio and television adds to promote using food stamps to people who don’t have to pass a drug test to collect. Food stamps are for those in desperate need; people should first turn to their family and church and only use government handouts as a last resort. I do not like a government that will not enforce the laws of the land, or breaks the laws of the land. Do you think Luther would like the idea of a government giving automatic weapons to foreign nationals like our government did during operation “Fast and Furious”? If we are going to vote to help out someone; shouldn’t we vote out the people who provided the means to kill hundreds of Mexican people and one of our own border guards?
What astonishes me Pr John is we have examples of what our future is going to look like right before our very eyes. Look at the city Detroit. Once a thriving model of a 20th century city brought to it’s knees by their government’s policies. They kept voting themselves bigger and bigger pieces of the pie until in the end no one wants to live there anymore. California, where I live, is going down fast. We are losing population for the first time in history. Illinois; same thing. Very soon after the takers outnumber the makers’ things begin to decay very quickly. I believe this last election marks that point. People will no longer “vote the bums” out because they didn’t do a good job. There are too many people that are now dependent on said government to risk losing their livelihood. Meanwhile we have the government TSA debacle where they were taking paid vacations in Vegas. We have government wasting billions by investing in green stuff; we have the post office going broke; we have Amtrak going broke; etc, etc, etc….
If you are going to vote to help your neighbor I would suggest voting for smaller government. The risk of not doing this could be very bad for our neighbors.
That was meant for John, an unlikely pastor ...sorry
Davey, thanks for engaging in such an extended dialogue. I'm glad to hear your ideas and thankful that you are so receptive to mine in conversation.
Your reading of Luther is spot on--but your earlier reference to what seem's like Rand's idea of taxes as "forced collective sacrifice" is freightening. Taxes, which are used to provide for our common defense and general welfare, aren't inherently or intrinsicly evil--taxes in such case are trully good--but the revenue collected can most certainly be abused and misused. Elected and other governmental officials are sinners and can most definitely misuse the resource entrusted to them by the people.
And here's the point where Christians are called to be sound voices in this nation speaking on behalf of our neighbors as well as ourselves. Be bold and name the abuses--but naming abused doesn't mean walking away from the republic. Naming abuses is the first step and sometimes the easy step on the road to solutions.
It's easy to make noise critical of abuse--but there's much more for all of us in the republic to gain by encouraging our elected representatives to make significant change.
You and I agree about the dire straights of our fiscal house, but I think we see different ways forward. And here's where I'd invite you to further conversation as citizens concerned both with current issues and the needs of coming generations.
The government waste you name is not new; such scandals have been part of our republic from the start. The scale of future unfunded entitlements however is without precidence and ought to really get us all talking about what to do next.
As we look forward I am not entirely pesimistic about the ability of this nation to move ahead together;
1) Historically the US had a higher debt to GDP ratio at the end of WWII. Economic growth and taxes were both key to paying off the debt. It happened before--perhaps it can happen again.
2) Our nation has survived for 225 years by balancing collective interest and self interest. Neither pure libertarian or collectivist ideas have ever worked for for our nation over the long haul. It's been a balance act all along--keeping 2 very different tendencies in our national psychy in check.
3) most American's unknowingly live within the tension between collectivism and individualism very well. When the chips are down the true strength of this nation comes out individuals will pull together and when the mission is done return to their individual lives.
4) we have this surprising ability to adapt and rebound in the face of challenge (ask the Axis powers of WWII if the American people can adapt)
Maybe you see things differently. I'm curious to hear
Pax, John
Pr John,
Sorry for frightening you Pr. Collecting taxes to pay for government services is necessary and noble. What is evil is when the government spends so much that it risk the wellbeing of it's citizenry. We are there now.
1) After WWII America was the only economic powerhouse in the world. Now there is China to compete with and we owe them well over a trillion $$$ and counting. We are barrowing $4,000,000,000 per day. Many of our companies find it easier and more profitable to do business in china. I just lifted a 300lbs manhole cover today that said made in India. How can they make 300lbs manhole cover and ship it thousands of miles, and sell it in California cheaper than we can make it for ourselves?
2) I agree with that Pr, but now, even our most conservative opposition party would considered "liberal" in days of old. So the whole political system has moved left. We have no truly conservative, low spending politicians or people who will vote them in.
3) I hope / pray you are right on this one. I see some good signs out there. When tough times came in the past, we were a much heartier brood and much more prepared to make our own clothes, work on our own cars, grow our own food…etc. Now we are finding out during times like hurricane Sandy what happens when our credit cards don't work, our computers don't work, no gasoline. We used to be the world largest exporter of oil until I think the late 60's; now we can't take care of our own needs. These things will affect us much more than our ancestors.
4) The face of war has changed. Our enemies have no uniforms, no artillery, no tanks, and no ships, no planes (except for the ones they barrow and fly into our buildings) and yet we are spending trillions and getting nowhere. We go to help them have a free society and they are shooting us in the back. The Arab Spring is not what the press billed it as. We are helping people who hate us and will turn on us as soon as they don't need us anymore. Germany and Japan were at least a civilized nations that would not cut off their nose despite their face.
Is Israel safer or better liked? Do you not think war is coming? This is a different world today Pr.
I enjoy our dialog and respect you opinion also. Thanks….
Davey, how was that driving a wedge? My point is rooted in scripture, not human reasoning as you state. One God, three divine but separate persons. The Father reconciled us to Him through Jesus. Look at John 3:16. John also makes this distinction. God loves us so He sent Jesus to die for us so that we could be cleansed and reconciled to Him. Basic stuff - no wedge.
Chuck,
I don't believe that God the Son was questioning the will of God the Father. I believe that Jesus' temptation in the garden was not God questioning the will of God; it was Jesus' human frailty and fear of what He clearly knew, was about to befall Him. Jesus came to earth for the specific reason of the cross. To say He started to have doubts does not make sense to me. It seems like separating the will of the first and second persons (let alone the third person) of the Trinity; which by all accounts should be identical……that’s all.
I'll write back tomorrow. You say not to protect yourself? Just let everybody beat up on you and you turn the other cheek? Do you really think one should just walk away without a cry for help. And where does
one go for help when the SYNOD says so what?
Davey, Jesus was not questioning His Father's will. I did not say that nor anything close to.that. Where did I say He had doubts? Jesus' hesitation in Gethesame had nothing to do with fear or his human condition. It was simply based on His Love for the Father. He knew he would be separated from the Father and impute our sin. He was hesitant and sweat blood because he dreaded being separated and bearing the wrath of the Father whom He loves so much.
God had doubts? The God who spoke and the universe leapt into existence had doubts? The God who knows the end from the beginning had doubts? I'm not picking up what you're laying down chuck. I guess we will have to just agree to disagree….
Joyster
I don't know your story and can't speak to what your dealing with in your situation. Over 13 years as a pastor I've met many who were hurt by the actions of church leaders and members. I've never encouraged anyone to just take abuse and keep taking abuse.
I'd encourage you to keep perspective: some misconduct deserves a call to the police immediately--and other misconduct won't be resolved in such a manner.
While it's true that Jesus said turn the other cheek; he also told us to go one to one to confront those who wrong us. Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17 is laying out a plan that has a goal: restoration of the lost not determining a winner and a loser.
If you go one to one and your brother or sister has not been restored he told us to bring witnesses as the next step.
I can't speak to the specifics of your situation but I encourage you to keep perspective. If a situation is criminal in nature please report it immediately. If it is not seek good council how to move forward.
peace to you, John
We are closing the comments to this blog post as the thread has moved off topic. If you are not familiar with our community policy please follow the "Community policy" link below. Thank you for your interest in LivingLuthran.com