schansblog

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Thursday, 11 October 2007

the Religious Right on sexual ethics and public policy

Posted on 08:18 by aryan
I'm cross-posting my comment from a discussion at Veritas Rex-- a blog run by a group of Christian social conservatives...

The VR discussion began with:

Thanks to the folks at Personal Democracy. I stumbled across a fascinating blog entitled, Revolution in Jesusland. It is written from the perspective of a secular progressive about a new movement within the Evangelical Church.

From there, the blog entry details research of some sort which purports to find damage to the Church (and presumably, the Kingdom) from the Religious Right's emphasis on homosexuality and "same-sex marriage". And here was my reply...

Thanks Kurt for posting this. A number of things on which we should be able to agree:

-Homosexuality is defined biblically as a sin. But if not confronted properly, this is a sin as well (E.g., the "preacher" from Kansas who goes to funerals for homosexuals with signs saying "God hates fags").

-Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron and incoherent in a biblical worldview. But again, handling the issue appropriately is required of us as well.

-What Christians should do with both topics-- with respect to government activism-- is another question. For example, just because something is sin, it doesn't mean that Christians should seek to use govt as a means to godly ends. Too often, that's the only motivation/rationale Christians bring to the political table.

-Too often, we've come across as if homosexuality is the entire or primary concern within a Christian sexual ethic. (Why not much more on divorce, adultery, pre-marital sex, etc.?)

-Too often, we've come across as if "same-sex marriage" and abortion are the only important things within a Christian social ethic.

-Too often, Christians have ignored vital issues of economic justice. Some of this is understandable since the layperson has to "pick his spots". But "justice" issues are where our biblical case for activism is the strongest-- and outside of abortion, we're largely silent.

-The Religious Left does not cause many black eyes for the faith (in the world's eyes) because 1.) they aren't as large; 2.) they're fighting for good things (with poverty-- biblically and in the world's eyes); and 3.) although their policy prescriptions are often unethical and impractical, people often fail to understand this.

And finally, where we might disagree:

-The Religious Right is prone to cause black eyes for the faith (in the world's eyes) because 1.) they are large/public; 2.) they're using govt to pursue a mixed bag of things (e.g., gambling)-- biblically, and certainly, in the world's eyes; and 3.) people often see their policy prescriptions as unethical (by their norms) and impractical.

Govt is a powerful but dangerous tool. Scripture warns of this. And people don't like being told what to do. So, we must take great care to invoke govt when it is most appropriate-- and to do so appropriately. Else, we risk unnecessary damage to God's Kingdom and we erect non-Cross barriers to those who might otherwise enter.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2007 (41)
    • ▼  October (41)
      • Toyota and Tech Advance
      • a very useful WSJ data-set on sub-prime/high-risk ...
      • it's much broader than you think: sub-prime/high-r...
      • Joe Huber!
      • sub-prime mortgages IV: policy possibilities going...
      • sub-prime mortgages III: the racial angle
      • sub-prime mortgages II: the moral/ethical angle (f...
      • sub-prime mortgages I: the numbers
      • Econ 101: Profits, Not Unions, Save Jobs
      • why payroll taxes for SS are such an important (ec...
      • voter ID
      • oooh....more fun with corn!
      • run the good race...NOT!
      • Pelosi's prayers
      • C-J goes negative on Clarence Thomas again...
      • principle vs. pragmatism: it's not yes/no, it's a ...
      • cartoon on racial tensions
      • the Religious Right on sexual ethics and public po...
      • the Unabomber, a member of ZZ-Top, or a biblical p...
      • unions only like it when...
      • two different views on Clarence Thomas
      • Hillary Clinton and Sandy Berger?! puh-leaze!
      • Bush on Islam...puh-leaze!
      • Schansberg welcomes Sodrel back to the race
      • Bingham on Bennett
      • comments on Hill's recent fund-raising letter
      • renters vs. owners?
      • ok, it's not silver, it's gold...
      • Kool-Aid, Indiana, trans-racial adoption, and bask...
      • Fletcher & Beshear's courageous stand...NOT!
      • David (McCarty) vs. Goliath
      • Howey updates solutions to property tax woes
      • drinking age: 18 vs. 21
      • pardon me...
      • Ogborn wins the Lottery...
      • Is Ron Paul moving into the top tier of Republican...
      • sounds just like our house...
      • should I have scooped Dan Davis about myself?
      • What teachers make...
      • JCPS continues to discriminate vs. individuals bas...
      • is it ok to accept stolen/govt funds?
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

aryan
View my complete profile