tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3543355.post115137912627910643..comments2023-11-15T17:55:18.051-05:00Comments on MarkDaniels.Blogspot.com: Clarifying Again What I Was Trying to Say in "Jesus is Not a Republican"Mark Danielshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18205344762960756655noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3543355.post-1151582287738915182006-06-29T07:58:00.000-04:002006-06-29T07:58:00.000-04:00Anna:(1) In spite of the old canard about the phra...Anna:<BR/>(1) In spite of the old canard about the phrase "separation of church and state" originating in the Soviet Constitution, it is false. <BR/><BR/>It first appears in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson Baptists in Danbury back in 1802.<BR/><BR/>Jefferson is my least favorite of the Founding Fathers. But it's pretty clear to me that in this phrase, he's referring to the establishment clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."<BR/><BR/>This prohibited any church or, by extension, any religious doctrines, enjoying favored status in the United States.<BR/><BR/>There were several great Christians among the founding generation. (Jefferson not among them.) It was, in part, because they were great Christians that they didn't want to force their faith down others' throats. They knew that faith in Christ happens when the Holy Spirit gently woos a person through the ministry of the Church and not by coercion. <BR/><BR/>(2) Of course, this doesn't justify another old canard, the one that says you can't legislate morality. Of course, you can legislate morality. Indeed, every law passed is justified on some moral value, whether pursued hypocritically or not whether objectionable to us or not, whether deemed moral by God's law or not.<BR/><BR/>There are speed limits, motorcycle helmet requirements, and bans on smoking in public places because of the value placed on human life, for example. That's a moral value. (The value on human life is why most Christians oppose abortion and why many others oppose capital punishment.)<BR/><BR/>So, of course, moral considerations must be a part of public discourse and public policy.<BR/><BR/>But as the Pharisees proved, you can have all sorts of laws proscribing certain moral behaviors and not change people's relationship with Jesus Christ. Laws and citizen involvement are important. But they pale in comparison with the possibility of entering Christ's kingdom of grace with a new life, an everlasting relationship with God, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit Who, as we engage in daily repentance and renewal, will guide our decision-making, including our poltical decision-making.<BR/><BR/>(3) Back in my youth, I was active in partisan politics and was then a Democrat living in a city. I was opposed to candidates speaking during worship services, to churches endorsing candidates or engaging recruiting or fundraising for candidates. When candidates visited churches, I didn't support them. I feel the same way today.<BR/><BR/>For the church to allow itself to be a tool of partisan political ambition is wrong.<BR/><BR/>(4) "The Democrats have chose to support many immoral causes." You're right, Anna. So have the Republicans. <BR/><BR/>In an imperfect world, each of us will make imperfect choices. So, I'm not advocating moral perfectionism.<BR/><BR/>I am calling on the Church to focus on its mission: Calling people to faith in Jesus Christ. Change people and politics will change. It's a long process, one that may cause to throw in the towel and instead, embrace the bandaids of laws. There will be times, as Paul says, when the Gospel is in season and others when it's out of season. But if we in Christ's Church gain political victories and lose millions of souls, will we have we done our mission?<BR/><BR/>Thanks, as always for your comments, and God bless you!<BR/><BR/>Sincerely in Christ,<BR/>Mark<BR/><BR/>MarkMark Danielshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205344762960756655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3543355.post-1151552650741111102006-06-28T23:44:00.000-04:002006-06-28T23:44:00.000-04:00Hi Mark -I'm quite happy to learn you don't object...Hi Mark -<BR/><BR/>I'm quite happy to learn you don't object to Christians being involved in our Republic, which is supposed to be for the people, by the people and of the people.<BR/><BR/>Until Lyndon Johnson told churches they would lose their tax exemption if they got involved with politics, ministers and congregations were totally free to discuss and engage in the issues of the day. All this separation of church and state folderal (which is NOT in our Constitution contrary to popular opinion) is a fairly recent development.<BR/><BR/>Having lived in big cities most of my life, I've seen the Democratic party have free access to the churches to do just about anything they please. I don't see anyone objecting to this. There's a double standard here.<BR/><BR/>As far as ministers declaring one candidate's position is more in tune with moral values than another and encouraging support, once again I do not feel this violates the Bible or the Constitution. People of faith should be free to express their views and support those who line up with those views.<BR/><BR/>The Democrats have chosen to support many immoral causes. They have alienated people of faith. It's rare to find a Democratic pro-life candidate. As I've said before, if there's a Democrat or third-party candidate that's pro-life running against a pro-abortion candidate, I vote by the issue. <BR/><BR/>Are all our problems going to be solved through political involvement? Not by a long shot. I do not believe Christians expect politics to be a cure-all. The perfect world will not happen until Jesus returns. Yet, we are called to be salt and light and to stand for righteousness. Freedom without responsibility only leads to tyranny. And where there is tyranny, the ability to share the Gospel and serve the Lord according to our conscience and the Word of God is severely restricted or outlawed altogether. (By the way, the phrase, "separation of church and state," was in the old Soviet Constitution - not ours - and we all know how repressive that society was.)<BR/><BR/>AnnaAnnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07312178252451756652noreply@blogger.com