I'm a Minneapolis-area GTO-driving bass-and-northern-fishing God-fearing brown(and silver!)-haired green-eyed politically- and socially-conservative ex-sinner, ex-smoker blue-collar middle-class ecstatically-married tech-school-educated dad, step-dad, and grandpa with an older brother and a younger sister. Did I miss anything...?
Michael J Fox has been appearing in political ads asking people to cast their votes in favor of candidates who support stem cell research. I've loved Michael as an actor since he was on the show "Family Ties", and all through the "Back To The Future" movies, and I feel for him as he struggles with Parkinson's Disease. Now, I have little doubt that if he saw a small child about to be hit by a car, Michael wouldn't think twice about risking his own life to save that child. But these ads strike me as so very selfish. It's like looking at many unborn babies and saying, "Look at me suffering! Surely all of you won't mind sacrificing your stem cells and lives so that researchers will maybe be able to find a cure for me."
I don't have Parkinson's, thank God, but I like to think that if I did, I wouldn't sink to that level.
Any of my regular readers will know that... Okay, "Either" of my regular readers will know that...All right! So I'm the only regular reader of my blog (and sometimes even I don't read it) But as such, I'm aware that one of the things I've been wrestling with in my effort to decide how (or whether) to separate my politics from my spirituality, is the fact that you can't legislate morality. Any moral change that is going to have eternal significance has to come from the heart. But does that mean that legislation is necessarily insignificant?
Galatians 3:11 says, "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith'." But again, does that mean that legislation is necessarily insignificant? The question I'm getting at is, if no one is justified before God by the law (or, "works of the law") and justification is only achieved through faith, then what good does the law do? The law of God reveals sin, and our need for grace. But what about the laws of man, our civil laws? Do they do anything besides maintain order in our society?
Driving deeper, to the root of my question: Is someone who avoids say, stealing, any better off in the eyes of God if his reason for not stealing is only to stay out of jail? (Before you answer, read Galatians 3:11 again.) If that same person did steal, would they be worse off? Or is guilty guilty, so apart from faith he's condemned either way? Talk about damned if you do or damned if you don't!
If our civil laws have no bearing on righteousness, and their only purpose is to keep order in our society, then it's easy for me to separate politics from my religion. It's two different worlds. I want to say there's more to it than that. Stepping away from laws for a minute, and speaking more from a morality standpoint, I've said before that I appreciate the taboo that surrounds such things as abortion and homosexuality because it makes those things a harder choice. You have to think about whether you're willing to endure the pressures society will put on you if you choose that path. From this angle, I can say it makes it harder for someone to sin. Which is good- right? Yes, if my definition of sin is doing things that are immoral. But that brings us back to the question at hand: If the reason a girl takes her baby full term is only because she doesn't want to face the parental or religious or peer pressure associated with abortion, did she avoid sin by giving birth? Maybe this would be a good time to read the verse from Galatians again.
Let me remind you at this point that I'm fanatically prolife, and this question is only hypothetical. Obviously, there is a great benefit to her going full term. Namely, her child lives!
I keep going in circles in my mind with this question. The best we can hope for from legislation is to promote works-righteousness, which saves no one. But works-righteousness must at least be somewhat better than works-unrighteousness. And now we're talking self-righteousness. True righteousness comes from God, apart from works of the law (be they good works or bad works). So my highest priority has to be carrying the gospel, which can lead to true obedience, righteousness and life. But if God is my life, I can't say "Okay, now I'm going to turn off the religious part of my life and turn on the political part." The two really are components of me. The God part is always on, and it affects the political part. But what I'm learning from Greg Boyd is to not let that flip-flop to where politics starts directing my view of who God is.
I drifted. The question is, "Does obedience count for anything before God if it's not driven by faith?"
I'm not Mac Hammond, so I won't get in trouble the way he did.
"I ENDORSE MICHELE BACHMANN"
And if you've heard of her, you know why. (At least if you've heard of me too, then you know why.) Despite all my recent talk about separating kingdom values from earthly politics, sometimes there's a candidate you just have a hard time disagreeing with. I'd vote for her twice if I could. I said, "If I could!" I live in a pretty conservative district anyway, so I almost wish I could cast my vote in a district where it would be needed more.
About 4 hours ago, I mentioned that Arizona sucks. That was before I knew they'd blow a 23-3 second-half lead at home. Who loses a game in which their opponent turns the ball over six (yes, "6") times?
A: The Arizona Cardinals.
Does that remarkable 4th-quarter comeback make Chicago great? Again, heck no. It means that they're just good enough to beat a team that sucks so bad they can blow a 23-3 second-half lead. And yes, I'm a little bitter because I thought my second-place Vikings might gain half a game on the first-place Bears.
To be honest, I'll cut the Cardinals a little slack because I figured they'd get beat a lot worse than they did. I said they'd lose tonight and they did, but they made a game of it. But ouch.
Wow, it's been a long time since I posted last. Too long. Guess I haven't had much to say. Anyhow- Everyone's been raving about how magnificent the Chicago Bears are, except me. Look at who they've played: They blew out the Packers (who suck) They blew out the Lions (who suck) They just barely beat my Vikings (who don't really suck, but they're not that good. They blew out the Seahawks (a good team, but Shaun Alexander was out) And they blew out the Bills, who lost to the Lions this week (who suck).
Are the Bears good? Yes, undoubtedly. But are they great? Heck no. It's all in the schedule. Oh, they'll beat Arizona tonight (who also sucks by the way) but we won't know how good they really are until they play the Patriots. Or maybe the Giants. Check back THEN for either gloating or an apology.
It wasn't too long ago that I wrote about a book I was reading that had the potential to change the way I look at a lot of things (Greg Boyd's "The Myth Of A Christian Nation"). As a part of that post I mentioned my regret at telling a gay family member that their partner was not welcome at our family camping trip. I thought that allowing the partner to join us might have given us a chance to share the love of God with them, rather than "shutting out the sinners" which I couldn't see Jesus doing. By the time I wrote that post the couple had split up, so I was really writing in retrospect. Theoretical. Hypothetically.
Yesterday that same family member told us that they've met someone new, they're dating again, and that this is the most wonderful person you could ever hope to meet. Good grief.
Needless to say, we're distressed by this news. And it's so incredibly awkward! We want to be happy for them, because they've found someone who makes them happy. But how can we be?
We want to be supportive, but we can't be. I haven't yet figured out how to even be in the same city without either appearing to bless their relationship, or running them off with a long pointy finger. Family is supposed to be a safe place, away from the battle, where you can find unconditional love, comfort and support. I think we need to be that place, and I think we have been. But man, it's getting tough.
It would be the easiest thing in the world (for a part of me) to forget about the words I wrote in that other post, and whip out that long pointy finger. But we also shun the "God hates fags!" model of evangelism. I think my challenge will be to find a way to *not* endorse their lifestyle, while at the same time leaving the light on for them at the door to heaven.
