Balancing Truth and Forgiveness

As a Christian in our modern politically correct world, we're constantly asked to put aside our beliefs and just "live and let live." Unfortunately, as Christians, we are also called the speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). Sadly, too many of our fellow believers fail on one of these two requirements.

The more liberal amongst us fail to speak the truth. They fall prey to the liberal political correct mentality of not wanting to offend people so they instead believe the intellectually dishonest concept that "all faiths are different roads to the same God" or are equally valid etc.

This is logically impossible, because: 1. God either has a son or he doesn't, making it impossible for the God of Islam and the God of Christianity the same. 2. Jesus Christ is either the Messiah or he isn't, making it impossible for Judaism and Christianity to agree. 3. There's either one God or many, making all three of these religions not able to be the same as any polytheistic religion. 4. Jesus is either who He said he was: God, the Messiah, the fullness of the Godhead Bodily, one third of the Triune God; or he's either a liar and/or crazy person. Jesus being "just a good teacher" is not an option Christ himself gave us.



To use a Biblical comparison, the people who try to shoehorn their own Christian faith into these illogical compromises are the modern Sadducees, the sect that, in the time of Christ, was known for compromising their faith with Rome to get along.

Then there's the other extreme. The modern Pharisees.  These individuals are the ones who strictly adhere to the Biblical truth, but do so by screaming at people about how they're going to Hell and even calling things sin that aren't sin. (For example, you show me where in the Bible it says that Christians shouldn't drink alcohol in reasonable moderation?  If you think I'm wrong, go read John 2. Then explain to me why, at feasts, it would be practice for hosts to serve the best wine first and the inferior after people have well imbibed if it's just grape juice and not alcohol?) Believe it or not, as a Christian, these are the ones who bother me more.

The modern Sadducee tends to arrive at the conclusion that everyone is right in their beliefs out of a heart of love. They know someone of another faith that they care deeply about and do not want to believe they are unsaved. Rather than possibly ruin the friendship by evangelizing that person, they allow themselves to believe their friend is saved through Islam or Buddhism or whatever they believe.

How do we make that balance? How do we find ourselves between the Pharisee and Sadducee?

The balance is set out by Christ in the Gospel of John Chapter 8:2-11:

² Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. ³ Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned.  But what do You say?”  ⁶ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” (Emphasis Added)

It is the sentence in bold that is the most pertinent. Jesus both forgave the woman caught in adultery AND laid out the expectation that she turn from her sin.  He both loved and forgave her, while loving her too much to let her stay in her sin. That's who Jesus Christ is...He loves us enough to forgive us and loves us too much to leave us in our sin.

In real life application, as Christians this means we must hate sin. The actual act of sin, both our own and others, should be detestable to us.Yet, as Christ demonstrated, we must also love the sinner, as Christ loves us. It is both possible and reasonable for us, with God's help, to separate these two. 

Explaining the Conservative Abortion Stance

Abortion is, of course, one of the biggest hot-buttons in the world. The Left has done a really good job of presenting their side of the issue in such a way that I regularly speak to people who tell me they absolutely never would have an abortion themselves but still consider themselves pro-choice.  The reason given by these individuals almost universally is either "I can't tell some other woman what to do with her body" or more generally "I can't tell other people what to do."

Conservatives as well as Pro-Life liberals and moderates (my childhood pastor, for example, is a staunchly Pro-Life liberal) are simply not explaining our argument simply and concisely. I'm going to attempt to do just that right now.

Simply stated, we believe that unborn child is a human being. Admittedly, this is a default perspective focused on being 100% sure that life is protected.  The fact is no human being knows when a fertilized human egg has become officially human.  One thing we can say with scientific certainty is this: It happens no sooner than the moment of conception.  That's why the vast majority of individuals have no issue with legitimate contraception.  (For the record, legitimate contraception is defined by something that stops a human egg cell from being fertilized by a human sperm cell, whether done via a barrier or medication.) 

If life begins no sooner than conception, stopping said conception from occuring is not destroying anything.  To give an analogy: Fire does not cause explosions on it's own. Neither does gunpowder.  Only when fire and gunpowder are combined do we get an explosion.  Similarly, a sperm cell on it's own does not create a human, nor does an egg cell on it's own.  Only when the sperm cell and egg cell are combined is a human being created.

Abortion, on the other hand, is quite different.  Abortion takes a human that has already been conceived and destroys it by removing it from the womb during development. What Pro-Life individuals say is this: you may stop the conception of a child, but once it is conceived it has a right to life that cannot be infringed upon by another person's right to liberty or pursue happiness.

The woman who is desiring to abort her unborn child has a right to pursue happiness, which in this case means not having a baby.  However, as I have stated so many times, I believe that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are a heirarchy.  I believe my right to Life outranks your right to Liberty (that is, to be free to do what you want), and that might right to Liberty outranks your right to Pursue Happiness. Your Right to Pursue Happiness ends at any danger to my Liberty and my Life; and your Liberty likewise ends at any danger to my Life.

So here it is, short and sweet, why conservatives and people of faith of all political ilks are opposed to abortion: We cannot abide by the either purposeful destruction of a human life.  There's actually a word for purposefully destroying a human life (except in cases of war, self defense, genuine accident, etc): Murder.  Yes, I know that's a harsh point.  But a human being does have a right to be alive.

Now, let me qualify that statement: One, the vast majority of people who have had abortions have done so in ignorance, believing they are simply removing "a mass of cells from their body." I do not think they ought to be tried for murder.  It's an act of ignorance 99% of the time and not malicious.  I want the practice stopped, not the individuals prosecuted.

Now it's time to ask you well meaning Neighborhood Liberals a question: Can you understand where we're coming from?  We see that child as human and having a right to life. We also see it as completely independent of the mother's body, albeit reliant on that mother.  Then again, my best friend and his wife have an almost 1 year old, and he's completely reliant on his parents too...so the argument that the baby can't survive without the mother in utero becomes really silly.  (As a matter of fact, I think I was about 12 years old before I could even potentially care for myself in any real way, and even then I would have sucked at it...so by the aforementioned logic killing a 9 year old isn't murder either.)

My point is that we are not going to put aside our beliefs on this...and frankly anybody who says we ought to deserves to be smacked.  We're talking about a human life, friends. We're not talking about a mass of cells and we're not talking about a "choice with one's own body." We're talking about destroying another person's body, that unborn child's.*  And that is something we cannot morally fathom.


*I know some atheist or another is going to send me that picture of a cracked egg and a caption that says "this is not a chicken." I'll spare you the trouble: Yes, actually, it is a chicken. I just have no issue with eating chickens.

Dear President Obama: We're better off on our own!

This is one of those posts where I want musical accompaniment.  So please, click the embedded video below, then proceed to read:

                        (1)

This past week President Obama gave a speech wherein you warned that if he were not reelected, government would tell people "you're on your own." You know what? Sounds awesome!

You see, Mr. President, I wasn't raised to count on government to take care of me. I'm not standing in the street waiting for you to give me money our of your "stash." I've got a job where I earn my own living...I have a college degree which I paid for myself through my own hard work...I've got everything I have by the grace of God and the sweat of my brow...and I'm darn proud of it.

That's the problem I have with Obama's leftist policies. It's not the government's job to take care of me. It's my own job to do that. It's not up to the government to provide me with healthcare. It's up to me to figure that out on my own. 

Now I'm no anarchist. I'm glad that I, as one member of We the People, have joined into the contract of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I'm happy to pay taxes so that we can have centralized protections from police internally and military externally. I'm happy to pay taxes so there are roads and bridges and so forth. What I do object to is the mentality that we NEED government to do far more than that.

See what Obama doesn’t understand…refuses to understand really, is that I’m better off on my own. I can take care of myself far better than the nanny-state government can do. I can decide for myself whether or not I want to eat food with trans-fats. I can decide for myself how much salt I should eat. I can decide for myself whether or not to buy health insurance and I can deal with the consequences of that decision on my own.
As an individual with the assistance of other individuals we can take care of the needy just fine without the government doing it. We’re called the Church of Jesus Christ. There are other groups like us except they’re called synagogues, or Salvation Army, or the Rescue Mission, or Volunteers of America. We give benevolently from our ability to churches and synagogues and charities so we can provide for food pantries, shelters, and other organizations with which can care for the needy far better than the government can giving handouts. If you don’t believe me, then ask me why it was that there wasn’t widespread starvation in the Great Depression…after all there wasn’t massive government safety nets to care for people…yet there wasn’t widespread starvation. You know why? It’s because churches and charities took care of those needy individuals and provided food and often shelter. Who do you think ran those bread lines and soup kitchens you see in old newsreels? It sure wasn’t the government!

The truth is, Mr. President, I can take care of myself just fine. I’ve got a blood family and a church family who will help me if I need it. Now I don’t mind having that minimal safety net for those in need like unemployment insurance and emergency medical care at hospitals, regardless of ability to pay. A safety net isn’t the problem. The problem is that liberals like you, Mr. President, have decided that the government should not be providing a safety net but instead be a source of provision for people full time. And once you’ve made people comfortable in poverty rather than simply providing their needs, you now make it so people don’t want to pull themselves out of poverty! That’s the difference between giving a hungry person a bag of nutritious groceries and an EBT Card where they can purchase candy and soda with instead of food.

While we’re at it, your accusation that the Republicans’ way means “dirty air, dirty water” is flat out baloney. You see, we had more than enough regulations to actually keep the water and air clean before you came along and added to them. Despite what liberals seem to believe, it is not possible to pass a law so perfect that nobody will break it. Yet they seem to think if the law is broken we need a new law. Actually, if we’d just enforce those laws and punish those who break them, we’d be just fine, thank you very much. We don’t need new laws. We don’t need to pass a moratorium on deep water drilling because there was an accident in the Gulf of Mexico. Do you recall what gas prices were before that moratorium? I do…below $2 per gallon. Then the President bans drilling and gas prices double. Meanwhile, Exxon has cleaned up the spill in the Gulf and, shock of shocks, our magnificently created planet has healed itself completely thanks to such wonderful natural organisms like bacteria that eat oil. (It’s almost like Earth was designed that way, isn’t it?) It wasn’t government that fixed that problem, now was it? It was the magnificence of God’s creation coupled with Exxon cleaning up after itself.

We don’t need to pass a law to force people to buy health insurance…it turns out the safety net we already had worked just fine. As a matter of fact, your law has cost people their insurance. Companies like McDonalds that offered optional accident and sickness coverage have had to drop that coverage because it’s too expensive, thanks to Obamacare. Even though your law was supposed to give more people health insurance, it’s cost people their insurance. It’s making it harder to for employers to provide insurance now than it was before by making it more expensive. See, the Republican’s “do nothing solution” isn’t really doing nothing period, it’s getting government out of the way and letting the private sector “do something.”

Mr. President, we’re doing just fine on our own. We’d be better off without your “help.” So when you tell us that if you lose “we’re on our own” my response is HALLELUJAH! I’m on my own! I can take care of myself just fine, thank you kindly. So do me a favor, will you, Mr. President? Let me be on my own. I’ll keep my freedom and my personal responsibility. You can keep the change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Lynyrd Skynyrd - That aint my America

Letter Bag: Christianity is not Liberal Faith

Time for another installation response to a commentator on Biblical Conservatism!  Today, we have an anonymous comment from the post Republicans Should Block This Jobs Bill! Block it Immediately!.  In keeping with Biblical Conservatism tradition as it pertains to anonymous comments, I will be referring to our nameless friend as Chewbacca for the sake of this post. Now, to the comment:

"There is no such thing as a compassionate conservative. True Christians are liberals." - Anonymous

Wow, Chewbacca, just wow.  There's some great liberal civility on display, now isn't there? 

But seriously, Chewie, it seems to me that you define compassion as intention, and only applicable when doled out by government. This is where we differ. Conservatives are incredibly compassionate people.  For the record, I believe the typical Neighborhood Liberal is also very compassionate. The difference, however, is that conservatives expect results from our compassion, not just good intentions.

Government is notoriously bad at taking care of the needy. The statistic has been prominent for decades now that government spends only about $.35 for every $1 on care for the needy.  Private charities like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the like are able to give $.85 of every $1 on care for the needy.  Some private charities are able to give as much as $.95 on the $1 to the needy.  That's a staggering difference! 

The reason for this, Chewbacca, is twofold.  One, private charities operate largely with volunteers and that cuts their overhead.  Two, and more importantly, private charities can allow themselves to be taken advantage of, because they are giving charity, not welfare.  Private charities spend donations, not compulsory taken taxes.  Government cannot allow itself to be taken advantage of because they are spending other people's money, thus they have to put up red tape to prevent fraud (they fail miserably at it too).  Hence government is quite inefficient at caring for the needy!

Also, and this is even more important for you to understand, Chewie, compassion is not making poverty comfortable.  The problem with our system is it makes poverty a comfortable state, one that people are willing to kick back into poverty and just stay there.  Charity is about providing needs to those in poverty.  Compassion is not keeping people comfortable in poverty but giving them the means to meet their needs until they can lift themselves out of poverty. 

As far as "all true Christians" being liberal, I'm afraid you need to go read your Bible again.  Liberalism teaches that the government should care for the needy, and calls that compassion.  The Bible never says "give your money to the government, let the government care for the needy."  Ever.  The Bible tells people "you care for the poor."  It tells farmers not to glean the edge of their fields so that the needy can just walk up and help themselves to food.  It tells people to give alms to the poor as they are able.  Directly, Chewbacca, not via government.  YOU give to the poor. Then of course there's the part in the Bible that has a progressive tithing system, right?  Wait...the tithe is 10% across the board?  That sounds like a flat tax to me, doesn't it sound like that to you, Chewie, and isn't that a conservative principle?

I wrote an extensive treatment on this subject which I called Treatise on Biblical Conservatism.  I'd ask you to read it, as it contains direct scripture quotes to back my argument.

In short, Chewbacca, I do not doubt your legitimate compassion.  However I think your faith in government to care for the government is poorly placed.  Your heart is in the right place, my friend, I truly believe that, but your desires do not achieve compassionate results.  It only creates compassionate intentions.

Chewie, I would tell you that it is possible to be a liberal or a conservative and be a Christian, because God is not political.  However, His government for Israel was a localized, Federalist, conservative government.  I stand on the same premise I began this blog:  God is a conservative, and if God is a conservative, it's hard to say that Christians cannot be one.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require.