As concerned as I am about the (ab)use of religious language in political discourse, I do not think this sort of thing is the proper way to go. I disagree with most of these rules for a variety of reasons, many simply on the grounds that they are too broad or too vague. For example, in most cases, I think there is in fact a relevant distinction between an "official" act of a "Christian leader" and an "unofficial" one, so already I reject #12 outright. I do in fact think different rules apply to official acts than to unofficial acts, which means that those rules which make no such distinction (in practice) are too broadly worded. Ultimately, however, I think the whole idea of such a distinction (as well as the one between a Christian "leader" and a "non-leader") is primarily cultural and sociological and has little basis in my understanding of the actual ways of Jesus and His people. But given that our society acknowledges the distinction in very tangible ways (tax-exemption, for example) it is worth addressing.
All that being said, the rules I would most readily endorse are: 8 and 13-16.
How about you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Generally, I agree with you that such rules are inappropriate. The effect will be to silence the Christian voice in society therefore, I would not find any such rules to be acceptable. The liberal left recognizes they are losing solely because Christians make more sense and want to start down the slippery slope that will silence our truth claims.
All citizens have responsibilities and duties whether they are Christian leaders or not. Becoming a Christian or a Christian leader does not negate those responsibilities, nor prevent one from participating in the political process.
What is different about Christians, leader or not, is that our first allegiance is to the God of the Bible. This does not remove our citizenship with the state and should, in fact, enhance it. The result is that that we are Christians who happen to also be citizens of the state. As such, there is no reason to disengage the culture, or to permit the culture to take away any of our responsibilities and duties.
Well said, Syd.
One minor terminological issue: when you say "liberal left", are you equating the two? Or is there such a position as the "liberal right" (some libertarians, for example)?
On my view, a position that would silence or censor opposing viewpoints does not deserve the name "liberal" -- but I recognize that your usage of the term is probably intended to follow the common practice of our political/media culture that applies such labels more by their sociological reference than by their semantic sense.
I agree about our first allegiance to God, and yet . . . we accept (at least we provide tacit consent) to some similar restrictions for the purposes of tax exemption for religious organizations.
Post a Comment