Let's be clear about one thing: Jesus Christ didn't criticize the Pharisees during His earthly ministry because they were 'stuck' on the law. He criticized them because they were HYPOCRITES.
That's the same charge I generally lay at the feet of the Left, in both Canada and the United States. Hypocrisy, infact, is the HALLMARK of the Left and it always was. The sad thing, however, is that they can get away with it because they stand for little more than personal/self-realized freedom, which consists of 'doing what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.'
That's the drugged-out mantra of the 60's Hippie generation and it is still being used today. Because it recognizes no higher power than the 'self' as the ultimate moral guide, it can accept no consequences of mutually condoned behaviour.
The concept of "Sin", then, is relativistic in its understanding. Since the 'self' is the sole moral guide, as long as what is done is mutually agreed too and ultimately pleasurable and gratifying, it can and should be done even more.
The true Right/Conservative, on the other hand, has no such notion to fall back on. Since "sin" is clearly defined (for us) in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, any violation of that code represents a clear failure of character. Likewise the espousing of such values and the failure to live up to them adds the onus of hypocrisy upon us as well.
This, I believe, is PERFECTLY right and correct. Jesus knew this too and frequently castigated the Pharisees for their FAILURE to apply the standards to themselves as they applied them to others. As guardians of the law and proper behaviour, the onus was on them to show a better example and lead Godly lives, not to force others to do so while they, themselves, could or would not.
Sincere failure to live up to the Law leads one to the understanding of his or her own weaknesses and failings as human beings. It creates, or should create, in a character of mercy and understanding, not hypocrisy. Ultimately it leads to Christ since a poor sinful wretch, having failed to live up to the Law, is forced to confess his sins before a just and perfect Lord and seek His forgiveness; a forgiveness which only the blood of Jesus Christ makes possible.
But that doesn't make the Law wrong. In fact it doesn't make the Law any less Holy but more so. Indeed, is shows how PERFECT the Law of God really is for it BRINGS the sincere-hearted person to Salvation. As Scripture says, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."(Gal. 3:24).
Thus I glory in the Law, for unless the Law came and showed me how desperately wicked a man I was, I would not then have sought Christ for my redemption. But also having understood now my own failings, it becomes incombant upon me to try as hard as I can, to apply the same message of mercy to those who seek mercy. What I won't do, however, is open the floodgates to every perverted notion and idea (such as 'gay marriage') that the Left does.
Liberality, for me, then, is the Liberty of living in freedom to serve God, ON HIS TERMS, not mine. When I look into the PERFECT Law, I know God's terms and they are without argument or private interpretation.
Blogger James Krehbiel (http://leavingthebubble.blogspot.com/2007/06/is-christian-right-right.html) in his article, "IS THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT "RIGHT"?, says "The spirit of the law represents acceptance, tolerance, love, open-mindedness and personal responsibility. This is the spiritual revolution that we students were talking about so many years ago at Berkeley." Indeed the Law does say that, for the Father of the Law is Love and His commandment is that we love one another as Christ loved us. But HIS law, however, is not something that can be trampled on in the quest to seek it's 'spirit,' for the same God also says in 1 Samauel 15:22 "... Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams."
Indeed Peter himself says, "And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." (Act 5:32). It is OBEYING the Laws of God that keeps Christians away from the charges of hypocrisy.
If I then say that homosexuality is wrong, and I engage in homosexuality, does that make it incumbant upon my fellow-Christians and Conservatives to accept that? No, indeed! It, rather, makes it incumbant upon them to point out my hypocrisy and take me to the Law of God (not 'the spirit of the law' but the ACTUAL LAW) and show me where I failed, that I might repent and be redeemed.
Our failure, as men and Christians to do that, even amongst ourselves, is what leaves us open to legitimate charges of hypocrisy. If we then criticise the Left for their sins, we must be sure we do not engage in thems ourselves. If we do, we leave ourselves open to charges of being "Pharisees" and RIGHTLY SO I must say.
Mercy and love is not the sole property of the Left and we must not allow it to become that. We must, indeed, rescue both those terms from their hands and restore them to the hand of God from which they came. If we don't, they will continually be used as a license to immorality and lever upon which people from gays, to pedophiles (ie. NAMBLA), to all those who practice those things which God despises.
This is not 'liberty' but tyranny and bondage to debauchery. It opens the door to the worst in our societies, causing more legislation and thus LESS freedom. It is the Soviet system perfected and perpetuated; the Left triumphant at last.
The only true liberty, then, is one based on a moral standard apart from the 'self' and that standard is God's. As Paul says in Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."
That 'bondage' is sinfulness and all that is attendent to it. Those who practice it serve, then, not just their 'self' but their real master, the devil himself. As Peter says about about them, "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." (2 Peter 2:19).
Christians are NOT servants to corruption but to a liberating God. That is the difference between 'us' and 'them.' This distinction must always be remembered for it defines both our faith and our liberty, with one stemming from the other. As Paul says in Romans 6:22, "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ulysses:
I happened to view your comments on a National Post story and followed the link to your blog.
Your views on theology, as well as humanity in general, are perfect examples of the kind of thinking that ultimately drove me from Christianity. I was involved in a church growing up that taught these same views, based largely on their 'interpretation' of the bible. Theirs was the only 'true' Christianity. Of course, their ideas about prophecy and the 'end times' were also mixed in with their judgmental attitudes toward others - particularly mainstream churches, which they looked upon as not spiritual or committed enough.
I have been an agnostic for the past 15 years. One of the best decisions I ever made was leaving the fundamentalist church that used guilt, fear and coercion to bend people to their will. I am now free to think for myself, and I encourage others to do the same.
Ulysses, be a right wing conservative - that is your right, and also your right to contribute to the political discourse, but I would exercise some caution about mixing religious and political views. Politics is about serving people and society, not the needs of a god - that is best left to religion; and since there is very little agreement among religions about who god is and what he or she wants from us, even that is not likely to be a very fruitful endeavor.
Pete,
I wish I knew what drove you away from your convictions. My guess, though, is that your convictions were not strong enough to begin with and you are simply using others views as a justification for the fact that, in your heart, you never truly believed.
All Scripture is interpreted but the true interpretation relies upon the very Word of God for clarification. Sometimes we don't like what we find out but it does not make it any less true or valid. The question then is whether or not we can accept it.
Clearly your faith was not strong enough and you made a decision to leave. If you were a real Christian, you would have stayed OR found a church where, like me, you felt your views were shared or confirmed.
Real Christianity is not about control but liberty, and freedom. You disagree about something? Well let me show you by scripture. You can agree with it or you can disagree. What greater freedom do you want? If you disagree strongly, you can leave too and Go in Peace. Simple.
True, some churches, like my former church, got off the rails and I had to leave because, like you, I didn't like the self-righteous attitude of those who felt they were my betters. Their doctrines, however, were and are sound but I did not like the people and there is a distinction.
Mormons and cults of that sort do the opposite and suck many people in. They are INVITING and WELCOMING but theirs is a FALSE DOCTRINE that condemns souls to hell. But, golly, they do 'good' things; much like white-washed tombs, they put up a good front but inside they are full of dead souls bound for destruction in hell.
Furthermore they demand obedience. I don't like that myself and shun places where such control is attempted. But I still remain convinced of the truth of the Bible and Scripture, and when I can find a place where I feel I can share those values of mine, I will attend again.
As for mixing religions and politics, I think I have balanced them out and understand them. Even Christ talked of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and what is God unto God. But I can no more separate my Christian values from my politics than I can my skin from my bones. Our society was founded on Christian values and it was in respect of the differences among Christians (primarily Roman Catholics and Protestants) that the idea of separating church and state came into being. It was since expanded to include the differences between the ostensibly secular state and other beliefs, Christian or not, enabling a free exchange of ideas and the freedom to worship in peace and security, both publicly and privately.
A final vestige, however, of when the state and our Judeo-Christian values were much more aligned is that both presidents and prime ministers here swear BEFORE GOD on a BIBLE to carry out their duties. The same is true in our courts, when you must 'swear to tell the truth so help you GOD.' So, again, you cannot really separate the state from it's moral foundations. If you could you would have devestation.
If you doubt me, think of every Communist and Fascist state in existence. Not fun places to be in. Thankfully our country has not gone down that route. But if it does, you'll know it was because someone was too worried about 'mixing religious and political views.'
Cheers,
Ulysses.
Post a Comment