I'm in Knoxville, TN (my hometown) this week for Thanksgiving, and I tracked down two stories with similar undertones. The way of the traditional media is fading fast. Writer's note: this post is a little dubious since I'm writing it on a blog, after all.
This first story from the Knoxville News-Sentinel mentions how many local television and print media outlets have had to lay off folks in the past several weeks due to the down economy.
This second essay is from Time Magazine and tracks how blogs and constant media updates shaped the Presidential election season. Essentially, blogs are making traditional reporting obsolete.
...[W]hile an article a day used to be a typical reporter's quota (or in the leisurely precincts of newsmagazines, an article a week), reporters are now expected to blog 24/7 as well. Not only that, they must perpetually update their stories, as in the old days of multiple newspaper editions. And they may well be handed a voice recorder and/or webcam and told to file audio and video too. Meanwhile, they are glancing over their shoulder and awaiting the Grim Reaper from HR with word of the latest round of layoffs.
So, traditional media is getting fired and blogs are filling the gaps and causing the downsizing in the first place. This is an interesting phenomenon, and one I don't necessarily like.
As a Christian and [at least I hope] a thoughtful human being, I truly care about truth. And truth is what is at stake in this phenomenon. Traditional journalism has a code of ethics and a general way about handling major stories with responsibility. Despite the biases of print journalism, it is generally of a higher quality of reporting and opining. I make no defense for television journalism, however (except for maybe 60 Minutes). Print journalism is supposed to care about the truth. Furthermore, the role of the newspaper disseminates better information than does television or blogs. One is not forced to chase link after link, but can handle all the information at one's fingertips. Newspapers are more thorough, accessible, and less image-heavy than the internet or the television. And unfortunately, the television and the internet generally have the presence of images without commentary so the images speak to their own truth (which is the essence of losing truth in the first place).
On the other hand, the proliferation of blogs has its positives. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit (see blog column on the left), wrote a book about the idea that blogs can take down traditional media by sharing the load amonst the little people (see An Army of Davids). Blogs are a watchdog of the traditional media, calling out its biases and reporting on the reporting. They do, however, break stories first often with misinformation because they have no journalistic standards. Rumors abound on the internet.
In sum, there are both positives and negatives to this movement, but in all I lament the decline of traditional journalism. There's something romantic and honorable about uncovering the truth. What do you think?
11/24/08
When Evangelicals are in the News....
Courtesy of the Constructive Curmudgeon blog, check out this article on a large evangelical church's endorsement of sex in marriage: seven days in a row.
The good: evangelical churches need to talk about, preach about, and take a strong stand on sex in our culture. The bible talks about it, and so should we. Our culture is so over-sexed- movies, tv, music, billboards, internet ads, etc.- that it is not a topic we should avoid. The addiction to pornography is a tremendous issue that affects many Christians. We should talk about it.
The bad: Seriously! Do we really need our pastors telling us to have sex for seven consecutive days? In the long run, this merely sounds like more cultural advice and not advice from Scripture. Even 1 Corinthians gives reasons for a couple to abstain from sex for a time. There are so many other components to marriage that seven consecutive days of physical intimacy hardly solves any marital problems. It may make us feel good about ourselves for a time, it may make us feel happy, but it's nobody's long term solution for following Christ or loving our spouse more. Furthermore, this suggestion from the pulpit provides a severe flaunt to the single crowd.
The good: evangelical churches need to talk about, preach about, and take a strong stand on sex in our culture. The bible talks about it, and so should we. Our culture is so over-sexed- movies, tv, music, billboards, internet ads, etc.- that it is not a topic we should avoid. The addiction to pornography is a tremendous issue that affects many Christians. We should talk about it.
The bad: Seriously! Do we really need our pastors telling us to have sex for seven consecutive days? In the long run, this merely sounds like more cultural advice and not advice from Scripture. Even 1 Corinthians gives reasons for a couple to abstain from sex for a time. There are so many other components to marriage that seven consecutive days of physical intimacy hardly solves any marital problems. It may make us feel good about ourselves for a time, it may make us feel happy, but it's nobody's long term solution for following Christ or loving our spouse more. Furthermore, this suggestion from the pulpit provides a severe flaunt to the single crowd.
11/17/08
Obama and the Meaning of Race
Ta-Nehisi Coates writes this interesting article in Time about what Obama's election does and does not mean for the black community.
[T]he very idea that Obama should transform African Americans into the black Waltons is flawed. It rests on the notion that the black community, more than other communities, is characterized by a bunch of hapless layabouts who spend their days ticking off reparations demands and shaking their fist at the white man. The truth is that the dominant conversation in the black community today is not about racism or victimization but about self-improvement....
The belief in Obama as a force for moral reform rests on another shaky pillar--the idea that people should get their values from what they see on television. This goes for entertainers and Presidents. Obama can't do the work of the family. It's not his job to buy your kid a belt or teach him to box. His job is to monitor this nation's nuclear arsenal, not your daughter's iPod.
I've always been fascinated by political and ethnicity issues. In the long term, I'd eventually like to pastor in an urban area among racial, socio-economic, and intellectual diversity. So I'm always interested when I white person tries to spin news about the black community. If there's anything I learned about being around African-American Christians, it's that I didn't know much. I agree with Coates that much of white opinion on the black community is developed through hip-hop and the television. Yet again, it's one more reason the television is no source of informed dialogue.
On a different note, I want to dispel the notion that racism has ended in America. Explicit and overt racism is going by the wayside, but implicit and unrecognized racism still exists. It exists every time a white person looks over their shoulder in protection because they know a black person is back there. It exists every time a white person is surprised at how articulate a black person is. It exists when white people label black people as "Affirmative Action" folks in colleges and work places.
Elaborating further, racism still exists when a white person gets annoyed at a Hispanic person when they don't speak English. It exists when people still use derogatory terms to describe those of Mexican descent. It exists in housing discrimination, in job applications, and still in the human heart. We are are a people hopelessly bent inward on the self, skeptical of others, and overconfident in ourselves.
All people are made in the image of God, all have fallen short of God's perfect standard.
[T]he very idea that Obama should transform African Americans into the black Waltons is flawed. It rests on the notion that the black community, more than other communities, is characterized by a bunch of hapless layabouts who spend their days ticking off reparations demands and shaking their fist at the white man. The truth is that the dominant conversation in the black community today is not about racism or victimization but about self-improvement....
The belief in Obama as a force for moral reform rests on another shaky pillar--the idea that people should get their values from what they see on television. This goes for entertainers and Presidents. Obama can't do the work of the family. It's not his job to buy your kid a belt or teach him to box. His job is to monitor this nation's nuclear arsenal, not your daughter's iPod.
I've always been fascinated by political and ethnicity issues. In the long term, I'd eventually like to pastor in an urban area among racial, socio-economic, and intellectual diversity. So I'm always interested when I white person tries to spin news about the black community. If there's anything I learned about being around African-American Christians, it's that I didn't know much. I agree with Coates that much of white opinion on the black community is developed through hip-hop and the television. Yet again, it's one more reason the television is no source of informed dialogue.
On a different note, I want to dispel the notion that racism has ended in America. Explicit and overt racism is going by the wayside, but implicit and unrecognized racism still exists. It exists every time a white person looks over their shoulder in protection because they know a black person is back there. It exists every time a white person is surprised at how articulate a black person is. It exists when white people label black people as "Affirmative Action" folks in colleges and work places.
Elaborating further, racism still exists when a white person gets annoyed at a Hispanic person when they don't speak English. It exists when people still use derogatory terms to describe those of Mexican descent. It exists in housing discrimination, in job applications, and still in the human heart. We are are a people hopelessly bent inward on the self, skeptical of others, and overconfident in ourselves.
All people are made in the image of God, all have fallen short of God's perfect standard.
11/15/08
Giving Circles
Giving circles are becoming more popular in America, as they are a way to increase and pool resources to make a difference in charitable contributions (from Time).
Much like investment clubs, giving circles consist of a small group of friends who pool their resources and gather--often over a potluck dinner--to pick charitable causes to donate to. Such circles have become especially popular among aging boomers looking for a way to bring meaning as well as fun into their retirement years.
I suppose this isn't really revolutionary. In Christianity, we call giving circles "The Church."
Much like investment clubs, giving circles consist of a small group of friends who pool their resources and gather--often over a potluck dinner--to pick charitable causes to donate to. Such circles have become especially popular among aging boomers looking for a way to bring meaning as well as fun into their retirement years.
I suppose this isn't really revolutionary. In Christianity, we call giving circles "The Church."
11/12/08
When the 1st Amendment is at Odds with Itself
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof," so says the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Together these phrases make up what is known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
There seems to be a current Supreme Court case where these Clauses seem to be at odds. From the article:
Pleasant Grove City, Utah, is asking the justices in arguments Wednesday to allow it to reject the donation of a display from the religious group known as Summum.
The Salt Lake City-based group wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the city's Pioneer Park, which is home to a Ten Commandments monument that was donated in 1971 by another private group.....
The case appears to raise questions of government favoring one religion over another, which is prohibited by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. But the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolved the dispute on free speech grounds.
So, either the government is establishing a religion or it allows free speech. Quite a conundrum.
The religious right might do some soul-searching on this one. For all those who want the Ten Commandments posted from the rooftops of all public office buildings, do you really also want this group doing the same thing?
The Summum say the Seven Aphorisms were given to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the Ten Commandments. Moses destroyed the tablet containing the aphorisms because he saw the people weren't ready for them, the Summum say.
So, which clause takes precedent?
There seems to be a current Supreme Court case where these Clauses seem to be at odds. From the article:
Pleasant Grove City, Utah, is asking the justices in arguments Wednesday to allow it to reject the donation of a display from the religious group known as Summum.
The Salt Lake City-based group wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the city's Pioneer Park, which is home to a Ten Commandments monument that was donated in 1971 by another private group.....
The case appears to raise questions of government favoring one religion over another, which is prohibited by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. But the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolved the dispute on free speech grounds.
So, either the government is establishing a religion or it allows free speech. Quite a conundrum.
The religious right might do some soul-searching on this one. For all those who want the Ten Commandments posted from the rooftops of all public office buildings, do you really also want this group doing the same thing?
The Summum say the Seven Aphorisms were given to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the Ten Commandments. Moses destroyed the tablet containing the aphorisms because he saw the people weren't ready for them, the Summum say.
So, which clause takes precedent?
11/11/08
Jesus for President
Political news has subsided for a while. The whirlwind of an almost 2 year long campaign for President is over. I'll probably steer away from politics on this blog for the time being. But in a fitting closing to the campaign season, I offer some church liturgy of what I think most of all about politics and faith. This is from the "Jesus for President" liturgy.
One: Hear our prayer.
All: Grant us peace.
One: From the arrogance of power
All: Deliver us
One: From the myth of redemptive violence
All: Deliver us
One: From the tyranny of greed
All: Deliver us
One: From the ugliness of racism
All: Deliver us
One: From the cancer of hatred
All: Deliver us
One: From the seduction of wealth
All: Deliver us
One: From the addiction of control
All: Deliver us
One: From the idolatry of nationalism
All: Deliver us
One: From the paralysis of cynicism
All: Deliver us
One: From the violence of apathy
All: Deliver us
One: From the ghettos of poverty
All: Deliver us
One: From the ghettos of wealth
All: Deliver us
One: From a lack of imagination
All: Deliver us
One: Deliver us, O God
All: Guide our feet into the way of peace
One: We will not conform to the patterns of this world
All: Let us be transformed by the renewing of our minds
One: With the help of God’s grace
All: Let us resist evil wherever we find it....
One: Today we pledge our ultimate allegiance… to the Kingdom of God
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To a peace that is not like Rome’s
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Gospel of enemy love
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Kingdom of the poor and broken
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To a King that loves his enemies so much he died for them
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the least of these, with whom Christ dwells
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the transnational Church that transcends the artificial borders of nations
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the refugee of Nazareth
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the homeless rabbi who had no place to lay his head
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the cross rather than the sword
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the banner of love above any flag
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the one who rules with a towel rather than an iron fist
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the one who rides a donkey rather than a war-horse
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the revolution that sets both oppressed and oppressors free
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Way that leads to life
All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Slaughtered Lamb
All: We pledge allegiance
One: And together we proclaim his praises, from the margins of the empire to the centers of wealth and power
All: Long Live the Slaughtered Lamb
One: Long Live the Slaughtered Lamb
All: Long Live the Slaughtered Lamb
--Excerpts from the “Jesus for President” liturgy.
11/10/08
Wait and See Approach
Given the reality that all humans are inherently broken and possess a disease called sin, it struck me as remarkable this election season for any Christian to be enthusiastic about any candidate for public office. But so it was.
And now that President-elect Obama will take the highest office, it strikes me again as weird that anyone would automatically ridicule Obama's first 100 days (see Rush Limbaugh). Or the opposite: that people already believe he will do everything he promised (see most Americans).
It seems to me that a critical yet hopeful approach would simply be to wait and see what happens. We're getting hints about how Obama will govern, and the kind of executive orders he would pass right away (from AP):
President-elect Barack Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem-cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
I'm waiting for now. As a moderate conservative, I find it hopeful that Obama had conservative-leaning advisors in foreign policy and economics. On the other hand, Obama might really govern from the far-left. Although he says he will hire high-profile Republicans and Independents to high-profile cabinet positions, I'm going to wait and see. Maybe he really will bring a different kind of politics, but I'm also still skeptical. All humans are sinful, and I shouldn't expect Barack Obama to be perfect. Even the most godly of Kings in the Hebrew Testament stumbled occasionally along their way.
On a different note, I've always followed national politics closely but have always been unsure on what exactly constitutes an executive order and why those particular orders do not need to be passed by Congress. Does anyone know?
And now that President-elect Obama will take the highest office, it strikes me again as weird that anyone would automatically ridicule Obama's first 100 days (see Rush Limbaugh). Or the opposite: that people already believe he will do everything he promised (see most Americans).
It seems to me that a critical yet hopeful approach would simply be to wait and see what happens. We're getting hints about how Obama will govern, and the kind of executive orders he would pass right away (from AP):
President-elect Barack Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem-cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
I'm waiting for now. As a moderate conservative, I find it hopeful that Obama had conservative-leaning advisors in foreign policy and economics. On the other hand, Obama might really govern from the far-left. Although he says he will hire high-profile Republicans and Independents to high-profile cabinet positions, I'm going to wait and see. Maybe he really will bring a different kind of politics, but I'm also still skeptical. All humans are sinful, and I shouldn't expect Barack Obama to be perfect. Even the most godly of Kings in the Hebrew Testament stumbled occasionally along their way.
On a different note, I've always followed national politics closely but have always been unsure on what exactly constitutes an executive order and why those particular orders do not need to be passed by Congress. Does anyone know?
11/4/08
America's Day of Days
Today is election day. I'm pretty sure you knew that. Two phrases always strike me as misguided.
First, every four years we are treated to something like, "This is one of the most important elections in our history." It's as if the political pundits forgot what they said four years ago. But the benefit of a Presidential system is that we get a chance to vote a person in or out every four years. Because of the 22nd Amendment, we never get a guy for more than 8 years. So, it probably surpasses historical perspective to say that any one election is more historical than another. It simply isn't true, and the pundits will be saying the same thing in four more years especially after dissatisfaction with Obama grows (this isn't a claim about Obama per se, but a statement of general truth that people become dissatisfied with all Presidential candidates because they simply cannot do all that they promise). But I wish to make another point as well.
Second, many people say that, "Everyone should vote." I do not agree. Now, I think everyone should have the right to vote (over the age of 18), but I do not think everyone should vote. Millions of Americans are going to vote today that honestly have little or no clue on the issues. They will vote for Obama because he is articulate, good-looking, an excellent communicator, and will "fix" the economy. For some reason, in the last 80 years when the country wants a fixed economy they turn to Democrats. There's a good reason, I'm sure, but it's probably not a reason I agree with.
Americans will also vote for McCain because he's "experienced," tested, a straight-talker, or appropriately tempramental. In either case, though, people are voting on things that do not matter, and thus they are uninformed voters. It is my stance that uninformed voters should not vote. So what constitutes an informed voter? One who reads from at least 2 different sources of news about political issues and stances of the candidates. This may be buttressed by watching debates and seeing television news pieces, but if the television is one's only source of political news, I consider that person uninformed. Quite simply, television news isn't exhaustive enough to give good news. Here's an example of informed voting: when I voted today there were a myriad list of local/state judges and officials that I simply did not cast a vote for at all. In many cases, one could not even find political information at all as these candidates didn't have websites. Since I didn't know, I didn't vote at all, Democrat or Republican.
My stance is not that more people should vote, but that less people should vote. In our television age, more elections have been decided by charisma and money than any other factor. Since Kennedy, the candidate whose spent the most has won every election. This election will be no different. Does that reassure you in America's democracy?
So, don't vote today if you don't know.
First, every four years we are treated to something like, "This is one of the most important elections in our history." It's as if the political pundits forgot what they said four years ago. But the benefit of a Presidential system is that we get a chance to vote a person in or out every four years. Because of the 22nd Amendment, we never get a guy for more than 8 years. So, it probably surpasses historical perspective to say that any one election is more historical than another. It simply isn't true, and the pundits will be saying the same thing in four more years especially after dissatisfaction with Obama grows (this isn't a claim about Obama per se, but a statement of general truth that people become dissatisfied with all Presidential candidates because they simply cannot do all that they promise). But I wish to make another point as well.
Second, many people say that, "Everyone should vote." I do not agree. Now, I think everyone should have the right to vote (over the age of 18), but I do not think everyone should vote. Millions of Americans are going to vote today that honestly have little or no clue on the issues. They will vote for Obama because he is articulate, good-looking, an excellent communicator, and will "fix" the economy. For some reason, in the last 80 years when the country wants a fixed economy they turn to Democrats. There's a good reason, I'm sure, but it's probably not a reason I agree with.
Americans will also vote for McCain because he's "experienced," tested, a straight-talker, or appropriately tempramental. In either case, though, people are voting on things that do not matter, and thus they are uninformed voters. It is my stance that uninformed voters should not vote. So what constitutes an informed voter? One who reads from at least 2 different sources of news about political issues and stances of the candidates. This may be buttressed by watching debates and seeing television news pieces, but if the television is one's only source of political news, I consider that person uninformed. Quite simply, television news isn't exhaustive enough to give good news. Here's an example of informed voting: when I voted today there were a myriad list of local/state judges and officials that I simply did not cast a vote for at all. In many cases, one could not even find political information at all as these candidates didn't have websites. Since I didn't know, I didn't vote at all, Democrat or Republican.
My stance is not that more people should vote, but that less people should vote. In our television age, more elections have been decided by charisma and money than any other factor. Since Kennedy, the candidate whose spent the most has won every election. This election will be no different. Does that reassure you in America's democracy?
So, don't vote today if you don't know.
11/3/08
Online Confessional
Some churches, and even secular places, now provide the ability to confess sins online. It seems like there may be both positive and negative elements in this.
The positive element is that our sinful culture is at least admitting its wrongdoing. We are a sinful, selfish, self-indulged people, and at least many of us know it.
The negative element is that it isn't really confession. There is no absolution for sins, because those sins are not presented to a person made in the image of God. A computer is not a human. So, the best this can offer is psychological absolution. I don't want to mimize this, but it isn't the type of confession outlined in the book of James (chapter 5). Sin should also be confessed directly to God (Psalm 51). But, confessing sin to a computer or to other people doesn't go as far as it needs to.
The positive element is that our sinful culture is at least admitting its wrongdoing. We are a sinful, selfish, self-indulged people, and at least many of us know it.
The negative element is that it isn't really confession. There is no absolution for sins, because those sins are not presented to a person made in the image of God. A computer is not a human. So, the best this can offer is psychological absolution. I don't want to mimize this, but it isn't the type of confession outlined in the book of James (chapter 5). Sin should also be confessed directly to God (Psalm 51). But, confessing sin to a computer or to other people doesn't go as far as it needs to.
11/1/08
A Systematic Theology of Political Issues
Before I graduate seminary, I have to construct a doctrinal statement of all that I believe on several major systematic doctrines: revelation, sin, creation, Trinity, Jesus, etc.
In that vein, I've kind of begun a personal venture to construct a systematic theology of various political issues. Where do I go in Scripture to find different reflections and contributions to various political issues of our day? This has been my endeavor, and it is a joint venture that I am doing with my Sunday school class at church. What issues does God care about? How do we prioritize those issues? So, I've begun this process, and my beginning stages are below. They fall in order of how I think a Christian should prioritize issues. So, a Christian engagement is the logical first place to begin, and then I begin with life issues, etc. What else would you add to this list? How else would you rearrange it?
1. Christian affirmation of the role of government
-Romans 13:1-7- God institutes civil govt., respect authority, pay taxes
-1 Pet. 2:13-17 - Same as above, honor the king but fear God first.
-1 Timothy 2:1-7- Pray for leaders in order to live peacably amidst turbulence
-Matthew 22:21- Jesus says we give to Caeser what is his
-John 18:36- Jesus' kingdom not from this world but....
-Matthew 6:9- it affects this world significantly (and can through civil govt.)
-Belgic and Westminster Confessions on Civil Government
-1 Sam. 8:4-21- Humans can and probably will abuse power in high govt. office, but it still exists
2. Life, Shedding of Innocent Blood
-Leviticus 18:21- God condemns infanticide
-Deuteronomy 19:10- Do not shed innocent blood (could this include in war?)
-Ezekiel 35:6- same as above
-James 1:27- Caring for the most helpless in society- this especially includes the unborn, but may also include the unborn's mother that lives in poverty. Might this also include those without healthcare and can't afford it?
-Gen. 1:27, Gen. 9:6; James 3:9- ALL humans are made in the image of God and ought to be protected
3. Justice and Righteousness Issues- Immigration, Healthcare, Homelessness, Taxation. (I want to eventually provide more specific ramifications on each issue, and other issues not included here)
Isaiah 2-12- What is God’s ideal for civil rule via the Messiah's rule
a. Is. 9:6-7- God will rule peacably with justice and righteousness
b. Is. 10:1-4- Unjust laws on the poor, oppressive decrees, deprive poor rights, robbing widows and orphans, (I believe God will severaly judge those who passed Oklahoma’s anti-immigration law back in January; I believe God will also severely judge creditors, pay-day lenders, and some insurance companies for how they prey on the poor)
c. Is. 11:1-4- The poor and needy matter in God’s rule
d. Leviticus 20:7-21- Sexual ethics are important to the civil govt.
e. Daniel Carroll's book on the bible and immigration
4. Environmental stewardship
-Gen. 1:26-28- Humans must steward the earth well
-Gen. 2- Adam commanded to tend to creation
-Jubilee (I still need to compile various texts here)- The land gets a break from work
-Psalm 19:1-4- God speaks through creation
5. Character of the Leader
The entire books of 1 and 2 Kings, Isaiah, and Daniel
So, help me out a little bit.
In that vein, I've kind of begun a personal venture to construct a systematic theology of various political issues. Where do I go in Scripture to find different reflections and contributions to various political issues of our day? This has been my endeavor, and it is a joint venture that I am doing with my Sunday school class at church. What issues does God care about? How do we prioritize those issues? So, I've begun this process, and my beginning stages are below. They fall in order of how I think a Christian should prioritize issues. So, a Christian engagement is the logical first place to begin, and then I begin with life issues, etc. What else would you add to this list? How else would you rearrange it?
1. Christian affirmation of the role of government
-Romans 13:1-7- God institutes civil govt., respect authority, pay taxes
-1 Pet. 2:13-17 - Same as above, honor the king but fear God first.
-1 Timothy 2:1-7- Pray for leaders in order to live peacably amidst turbulence
-Matthew 22:21- Jesus says we give to Caeser what is his
-John 18:36- Jesus' kingdom not from this world but....
-Matthew 6:9- it affects this world significantly (and can through civil govt.)
-Belgic and Westminster Confessions on Civil Government
-1 Sam. 8:4-21- Humans can and probably will abuse power in high govt. office, but it still exists
2. Life, Shedding of Innocent Blood
-Leviticus 18:21- God condemns infanticide
-Deuteronomy 19:10- Do not shed innocent blood (could this include in war?)
-Ezekiel 35:6- same as above
-James 1:27- Caring for the most helpless in society- this especially includes the unborn, but may also include the unborn's mother that lives in poverty. Might this also include those without healthcare and can't afford it?
-Gen. 1:27, Gen. 9:6; James 3:9- ALL humans are made in the image of God and ought to be protected
3. Justice and Righteousness Issues- Immigration, Healthcare, Homelessness, Taxation. (I want to eventually provide more specific ramifications on each issue, and other issues not included here)
Isaiah 2-12- What is God’s ideal for civil rule via the Messiah's rule
a. Is. 9:6-7- God will rule peacably with justice and righteousness
b. Is. 10:1-4- Unjust laws on the poor, oppressive decrees, deprive poor rights, robbing widows and orphans, (I believe God will severaly judge those who passed Oklahoma’s anti-immigration law back in January; I believe God will also severely judge creditors, pay-day lenders, and some insurance companies for how they prey on the poor)
c. Is. 11:1-4- The poor and needy matter in God’s rule
d. Leviticus 20:7-21- Sexual ethics are important to the civil govt.
e. Daniel Carroll's book on the bible and immigration
4. Environmental stewardship
-Gen. 1:26-28- Humans must steward the earth well
-Gen. 2- Adam commanded to tend to creation
-Jubilee (I still need to compile various texts here)- The land gets a break from work
-Psalm 19:1-4- God speaks through creation
5. Character of the Leader
The entire books of 1 and 2 Kings, Isaiah, and Daniel
So, help me out a little bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
