Brad,
I affirm much of your thinking with regards to civil liberties. I would be all for taking "under God" out of the pledge and removing ritual Christian "invocations" from the beginnings of our civic meetings. I feel that those are simply remnants of an American Christendom which needs to pass away.
Here is a quote from Bush on the issue for the sake of discussion:
"The indispensable and transforming work of faith-based and other charitable service groups must be encouraged. Government cannot be replaced by charities, but it can and should welcome them as partners. We must heed the growing consensus across America that successful government social programs work in fruitful partnership with community-serving and faith-based organizations — whether run by Methodists, Muslims, Mormons, or good people of no faith at all.
The paramount goal must be compassionate results, not compassionate intentions. Federal policy should reject the failed formula of towering, distant bureaucracies that too often prize process over performance. We must be outcome-based, insisting on success and steering resources to the effective and to the inspired. Also, we must always value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness and neutrality. Private and charitable groups, including religious ones, should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes, like curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families, and overcoming poverty."
Flame on bro.
Here we go again. Another "brown rice and loin cloth Christianity" advocate. Brad, I'm really happy that you find such satisfaction in Jurassic Park. I'm sure your commission is from the Lord. If I knew more about it, I might offer to support it, having done a bit of that sort of thing myself.
What I want to know is where this gives you the right to tell the Church, a church, or a brother or sister in Christ what to do with their money? Sell our Sea-Dos? Give to the missionaries? Cancel home additions? What incredible arrogance, albeit not unusual in mission circles.
It is my understanding that the support of faith-based initiatives would be limited to ministries that do not evangelize per se. But I might be wrong. I understand that the idea is to help religious accomplish limited ends like helping people off drugs etc. I don't know, but it sounds good to me. Certainly, if your outfit can't handle it, don't take it. It's a free country.
Chip,
A few comments:
It is our obligation as Christians to give spiritual direction to one another according to the sayings of Jesus. I allow people to speak into my life on a regular basis. If I buy another guitar and you think the money should go to the poor instead and that I am a hypocrit, call me out. I need the encouragement because I am as self-centered as the next guy and I forget my way just like anybody else. Giving spirutal direction to each other really needs to hit where it matters including how we spend our money, raise our kids, our speech, our sexuality, our attitudes...everything.
My "sell your Sea-dos and give to the poor via the missionaries" line was a loose paraphrase of Jesus' "Sell your possessions and give to the poor" and "laid the proceeds at the apostles feet" from Acts 4. I do think that Christians should sell their luxury items and feed the poor and that this distribution should be done in such a way as to provide community development by people who make development their area of expertice. I just do not believe that we as Christians should have this obligation covered by government funding.
We, the church, need to step up to the task of putting the sayings of the Messiah into practice. But the choice is up to the individual if someone would prefer to have more toys go for it. I do not think that is a very blessed way to live. But if a person doesn't want what we have by following Jesus, then I still hope the best for them. But I am pretty convinced, at this stage, that what we have through this way of life is the most blessed both in this life and the age to come.
peace,
Ryan,
I do think Bush is well intentioned and all and if he wants the church to be better funded to "do the stuff" then he should use his influence to call the church to give more. BUT, as I sit today, I cannot see myself wanting to be found preaching Jesus on the government's payroll. I would rather be above that criticism. I can handle being told that I am an arrogant pig for encouraging people to obey Jesus' commands, but I would prefer not to get flamed for taking money from the governement.
How does that saying go, "beans and rice and Jesus Christ".
peace,
Brad,
I didn't get the connection between the need you see in Jurasic Park and your rejection of faith-based-social-work.
If there is any connection, it should be for more effort to transform the communities, not less.
I came from a communist-ruled country so I am more open. I simply see the governmental support as something God allow for us to have more resources to expressing out our belief.
Even right now, if the government can provide the resource to my church, I am not even sure that my church-goers would be willing to put in the times to make those resource available to the poor. That's the first huddle.
Once we are willing to sacrifice our times, perhaps we could think about sacrificing our Sea-doos.
It is sad, but most of our churches are like immatured kids who still need alot of growing up!
I am making a few points:
1. One I think it is unconstitutional considering how my aim in ministering is entirely to establish faith in the person. My mission statement is "Establish the kingdom" That being the case I cannot justify a political philosphy which includes governemnt funding of misionary work.
2. It is the responsibility of the churches to follow Jesus in "selling our possesions" and the government should not take the church off the hook.
So if I am honest with the government and I do not water down or compartmentize my mission seperating evangelism from social work (which is dishonest) I cannot take government funding no matter how much good it might do.
3. Lastly, should churches be on welfare when they are buying luxury items. We get upset at people spending welfare checks on booze when we are taking money from th4e government and "paneling our houses".
Commenting by HaloScan
