Five Statements about Politics That Are Obviously True

April 15, 2010

I do a fair amount of reading about how Christian faith should shape a Christian’s involvement in politics. Based on my reading, I’ve come to five conclusions that I think are obviously true.

  1. God is not a Republican.
  2. Jesus is not a Democrat.
  3. The Holy Spirit is not a moderate.
  4. The church in America exists to make better Christians, not better Americans.
  5. America is not the kingdom of God.

What do you think?

26 Comments | Politics & Culture | Permalink
Posted by georgepwood

“Fear the Boom and Bust” a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem

February 6, 2010

Everything you needed to know about modern economics in one rap anthem…

 

Leave a Comment » | Current Events, Politics & Culture | Permalink
Posted by georgepwood

This Is No Picnic for Me Either, Buster

September 7, 2009

President Obama will speechify to K-12 students tomorrow.

Some conservatives have accused the president of attempting to indoctrinate students. I think that’s a bogus criticism, and if you read the speech, I think you’ll agree. It’s boring.

My problem was with the initial Department of Education suggested lesson plans for kids who watch the speech. One suggestion was to ask the students how they could help the president. My suggestion? Tell him to leave the country well enough alone. I doubt that’s the kind of help the president is seeking, however. Thankfully, the D of E revised that suggested lesson plan.

A couple of lines stood out to me: “We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.” You’re quitting on your country? Is the president accusing bad students of being…unpatriotic?

Or how about this one: “And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country. The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.” Uh, I’m as patriotic as the next guy, but I found this statement more than little bit creepy. When you give up on yourself, you give up on your country? Surely our beloved president jests…

My favorite line was a personal story the president told about his mother tutoring him at 4:30 a.m. When he complained, his mother said: “This is no picnic for me either, buster.” After reading this speech, I know how she must’ve felt.

Here’s a link to the speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

1 Comment | Politics & Culture | Permalink
Posted by georgepwood

The Deification of Youth and Imbecility

July 27, 2009

Comedian Craig Ferguson gets it right…

5 Comments | Interesting, Politics & Culture | Permalink
Posted by georgepwood

Stop Spending Our Future

April 8, 2009

This video by Reason puts the Obama Administration’s spending into historical perspective.

1 Comment | Politics & Culture | Permalink
Posted by georgepwood

Imagine the Potential

January 23, 2009

Leave a Comment » | Politics & Culture | Permalink
Posted by georgepwood

The Winds of Change

January 15, 2009

 President-elect Barack Obama once said that change doesn’t come from Washington, it comes to Washington.

Reason.tv questions whether Obama’s personnel choices follow the right preposition.

Leave a Comment » | Politics & Culture | Permalink
Posted by georgepwood

A Liberal Case Against Assisted Suicide

March 5, 2008

Over at First Things, Wesley J. Smith summarizes the liberal case against assisted suicide contained in Liberalism’s Troubled Search for Equality by Robert P. Jones:

Jones contends that assisted suicide, whatever its liberty claim, profoundly violates the superseding liberal principle that all lives are to be equally protected, since some suicidal persons will receive facilitation,and others prevention, some better care than others, some could be coerced through economic circumstances into not being a “burden,” etc. This being so, and since equality trumps liberty whenever they conflict, Jones argues that assisted suicide should not be legalized—much less made a constitutional right—particularly given the profound social inequalities faced by the seriously ill, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Moreover, their exclusion of religious voices in the public square, rather than helping society determine the right, actually renders egalitarian liberals unable to “hear the real voices of the disadvantaged it promises to champion.”

Leave a Comment » | Politics & Culture | Permalink
Posted by georgepwood

Diversity: A Christian Perspective

October 10, 2007
 
In various passages, the New Testament clearly speaks of a diversity of spiritual gifts within the body of Christ (e.g., Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 27-31; Eph. 4:11-13; 1 Pet. 4:7-11). Diversity is also a buzzword in contemporary American society. How do the New Testament and contemporary American concepts of diversity compare and contrast?
 
First, it should be noted that the two concepts are talking about two different things. To oversimplify things, the New Testament concept deals with what people do, while the contemporary American concept deals with who people are. In the New Testament, spiritual gifts are divine abilities to accomplish a given task for the common good, such as preaching, teaching, administration, and generosity. In contemporary America, by contrast, diversity usually has to do with one’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.
 
Second, while diversity as such is a qualified good in the New Testament, it is considered an unqualified good in contemporary American society. What do I mean by a qualified good? I mean simply that in the New Testament, diversity is good up to a point.
 
Diversity of spiritual gifts is good, because each gift contributes in some way toward the body of Christ. In the same way, diversity of race or ethnic backgrounds in the church is good, according to Ephesians 2:11-22, because it demonstrates the power of Jesus Christ to effect peace between different people groups. Diversity of opinion on matters of Christian freedom is good, according to Romans 14:5-8, because Christians can agree to disagree about, for example, what they eat and drink. But it is only a qualified good, because exercising Christian freedom without love causes harm to weaker brothers and sisters. Christian freedom, in other words, is about personal rights qualified by responsibilities to other people.
 
The contemporary American concept of diversity does not include these qualifications. One has the unqualified right not to be discriminated against because of one’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. Now, I think we can all admit that this concept of diversity based on equal rights is a compelling one with numerous benefits. Indeed, to a certain extent, it is the fulfillment of the Golden Rule. If we do not want to be discriminated against, we should not discriminate against others.
 
But this leads to my third point, which is the problematic nature of the contemporary American concept of diversity from a Christian point of view. Let me give you an example. Religious organizations—such as churches, faith-based charities, and parachurch ministries—must think and act in ways that are consistent with their creeds. Further, they must hire employees who think and act in ways that are consistent with their creeds. If a church hires a pastor, for example, it should be able to determine whether his beliefs are orthodox and his behavior consistent with biblical teaching. (The same is true of a synagogue hiring a rabbi and a mosque hiring an imam, or an atheist advocacy organization hiring a leader.) The problem is that since the contemporary American concept of diversity is rights-based, there can be a tension between what the church must do and rights based on diversity. For example, if an evangelical church fires a pastor who has come out of the closet, has it violated his rights to be protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Many lawyers believe so. The First Amendment, which enumerates the right of the free expression of religion, seems to conflict with the rights flowing from diversity.
 
What this illustrates, it seems to me, is that for the Christian, diversity has its limits. The Bible on numerous occasion calls on believers to strive for unity in doctrine (e.g., Phil. 1:27) and the community (e.g., Phil. 2:1-4). Diversity of opinion on core doctrinal matters is never considered a good; rather, it is considered heresy (e.g., Gal. 1:6-9). Similarly, far from allowing diversity of sexual practice, Paul clearly delineated acceptable and unacceptable sexual practices within the Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:1-5 and 6:15-20).
 
For Christians, then, unity and diversity are both good, as long as they are properly understood and practiced. It is not clear to me that these common sense qualifications are also true of the contemporary American concept of diversity.

Leave a Comment » | Politics & Culture | Permalink
Posted by georgepwood