faith for faith

As emotions have flared and tensions have tightened between Christians and Christians and between Christians and non-Christians over the political issues that have branded our time, I hope and believe that there is growing an understanding that, at least between Christian and Christian, much grace must be given on differences of opinion on these matters. And for some of us (myself included), we have had to show grace and patience to ourselves, finding that one day our hearts and minds would lead us one way, and on another day the other.

And as these differences of opinion between Christians have arisen on these political matters, some of us might be (or have been) tempted to simply chalk these disagreements up to the typical culprits of divisions in Church in other matters, such as biblical ignorance or theological subterfuge. In these non-political cases, we would make our claims based on our biblical arguments and theological understandings and be quick to dismiss as wrong anyone who has a differing opinion. We would then view these political issues in the same manner that we view those other issues that are contained within the Church and its theology, and we would readily divide ourselves further with the same power of conviction.

Read more…

Considering the last two posts to my blog, some may find it odd that I did in fact vote for Amendment One. It was not something that I was particularly passionate about, but, granting the system we live in and that I already had a ballot in hand because I was voting for Ron Paul, I found myself in general agreement with the amendment and bubbled in “FOR.” There are plenty of things that I do not like about the present system regarding marriage (and a thousand other matters), however, it is the system in which we live, and, as a citizen within that system, I will support legislation based upon natural morality when I can.

On the other side, opponents of the amendment have and still are railing against the will of the majority to “suppress the rights” of the minority. Their chief tenet is that all unions, be it between a man and woman, a man and man, a man and three women, a mother and son, a sister and brother, a goat owner and goat, etc. should receive equal benefits under the law.

Read more…

Forget the projection polls for a moment and imagine with me that, after all of the dust settles and all of the votes are tallied, it is found that Amendment One to the North Carolina State Constitution has failed to garner enough support to be ratified.

What are the ramifications of the outcome? The immediate secular ramifications seem small, but the outcome has the potential to have much larger ones in the future. For while the failure of the amendment to be ratified does not change the fact that homosexual unions are still illegal in the state of North Carolina, it does leave open the possibility that the state’s courts could rule the present law unconstitutional and effectively repeal it.

Read more…

I have long debated with myself as to whether or not I was going to throw in my thoughts with the rest of the masses regarding the vote for Amendment One of the North Carolina State Constitution, and that debate has hinged chiefly in my own indecision rather than upon any fear of backlash from whomever. For the issue as it regards Christians and the Church is far from black and white, and the very fact that this is a state issue through and through further muddies the issue.

For though it is more than evident that the institution of marriage is far older than any secular government and was instituted by no one other than God himself, the fact remains that as a society today, marriage is chiefly a secular institution. While others have said that marriage is an institution created by God and recognized by the state, it is not that simple. For if that were true, no one could bypass the church and be married in a courthouse by a magistrate, and there would be no secular ramifications for being married, except for perhaps the changing of one’s legal name. Yet, these things do exist and so demonstrate that the once religious institution of marriage has evolved into something that can elude religion entirely.

Read more…

After hurdling down this road as a nation for some years, it is drawing nigh to the time when North Carolina will cast in its lot with others on the legal nature of marriage (well, reiterate or contradict its present legal nature) with the proposed Ammendment One seeking to modify the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. While there are numerous angles to view and to evaluate this legislation, I’m presently interested in what should be the response of the church to it. As a member of the Church in North Carolina, what questions should I ask, and what actions should I take for or against it, or should I act in neutrality? Here a my thoughts:
Read more…

Source:

Many times, “wrongful death” is at the root cause of a lawsuit, but what happens in the case of a “wrongful birth” charge?

In West Palm Beach, Florida, a couple sued a doctor and an ultrasound technician for negligence. The two claimed that they would have aborted their son, who was born with no arms and only one leg, had they known about his disabilities beforehand.

There’s not much more commentary that can be given on a judicial system that will award such a vast sum of money because a life was born (rather than murdered through abortion), and yet will let a man live who raped and murdered his 10-month-old stepdaughter. Imagine how you would feel if you were the child when you were old enough to comprehend that your parents preferred you to be killed, and they have a 4.5 million dollar check highlighting the intensity of that desire. Unbelievable.

It seems that the longer I live, the more the populace of this “great” country of ours resembles the judgment against humanity in Romans 1:18-32. And I’m not talking about an incident in New York City, another in San Francisco, and another in New Orleans on Mardi Gras, but I’m talking about at least two very striking incidents in Raleigh … in one day, nonetheless. First, a man who rapes and murders his 10-month-old stepdaughter somehow manages not to be condemned to death, and second, a female “pastor” declares that she will not perform any more heterosexual marriages until homosexual marriage is legal in North Carolina. Good grief.

I suppose I shouldn’t expect any different. I mean, presuming that the Bible is true, I should expect that the majority of this country’s citizens would be quick to shed blood, would desire to trade that which is natural for that which is unnatural (or at least support it), and would desire that justice not be done. And considering that we have been murdering millions of infants for decades, are infatuated with homosexuality, and are ignoring the blood of a 10-month-old child crying out from the ground, well, I say that we’ve pretty much arrived.

Because of these things, among many others, I’m not proud to be an American. In fact, I’m disgusted. And if I do, for some reason, find myself being proud to be an American, I loathe it. For I know that when all is said and done, America will be a small, rank spot of piss and blood on the fabric of history.

One thing, among many, that is different now I’ve given up big city living in Raleigh for the sake of low-budget living in Wendell is the frequency with which I run into people I know on a quick run to the grocery store. In fact, I can scarcely think of such a trip without running into at least one person I know. Couple that with my after work unwinding ritual involving a single cold beer, well, that’s a potential combination for “witness” combustion.

In fact, one of the big no-nos in the religion of the South is buying alcohol, especially in a place where you can be seen buying alcohol. Which reminds me of a joke: What’s the difference between a Baptist and a Presbyterian? A Presbyterian will say hey to you in the liquor store.

Joking aside, there is a serious reality underlying the brown-bagging / teetotaling disposition toward Christian practice in the religion of the South, and it all falls under the umbrella of “Preserving One’s Witness.” Scarcely have many bothered to define what this “witness” is, though it’s preservation could mean the salvation (or not) of one’s very soul.

Read more…

Periodically, someone like a Pat Robertson or a Harold Camping will say or claim something that is so absurd and so ridiculous that it garners the attention of the national media and sends a collective shiver down the spines of the more sane persons who call themselves Christians. Because what has been carelessly spouted out by these persons are untruths and shine a negative light on Christianity, we are disgusted, outraged, and regretful that these persons decided to choose the Christian religion as the stage on which they showcase their tendencies toward lunacy.

And I believe that it is good and right to feel a certain sort of disgust and outrage when such persons say such things. Often when they do, they skew the truth, promote falsehoods, and lead others astray in the process. But as with all areas of life, I think that the motivations behind our disgust, outrage, etc. must be tested to show whether or not they are right in and of themselves and promote the truth. For though one reacts to the negative act of one, that reaction is not necessarily positive. In fact, it is probably more often the case that the negative acts of a person inspire and produce negative acts in another.

Read more…