Election Day
As we decide to cast our vote today, here are some thoughtful words from Dr. Del Tackett who I heard speak a month or so ago. This was sent out by email yesterday to encourage everyone to vote and especially those holding a Christian Worldview.
Doing What is Right
For our American readers ...
Unless you have been in a Rip-Van-Winkle nap, it has to have been abundantly obvious that, leading up to this election, the mainstream media has been on a desperate mission to persuade the populace towards its worldview. The deep bias in reporting has been breathtaking, to say the least. It used to be just a sly wink or the well-timed smirk. Now it is blatant.
None of this, of course, should be surprising to any of us. The Pew Research Poll of 2004 showed what anyone with a half-discerning eye and ear already knew: "liberals" outnumber "conservatives" by a whopping 5 to 1 ratio in the old mainline media outlets. And, it clearly shows.
Why?
Because our worldview shapes everything we do, both professionally and personally, and it is especially evident in the creative works of man. The painter seldom paints that which does not come from his own passions. The filmmaker rarely produces a movie that does not send an underlying message about which he deeply believes.
So, the lofty notion that a journalist or a newscaster can be totally "unbiased" in their work is virtually impossible to achieve--on either side. The selection of stories, their order and timing, the wording of a headline, the data reported versus the data left on the floor, page one versus buried in Section D--all of it is going to be crafted, consciously or subconsciously, according to one's worldview.
Now, this is not meant to be partisan, but it is meant to make us aware that we have all been affected by this. We live in a culture in which much of the media that bombards us is heavily slanted and often represents a worldview standing diametrically opposed to God's truth.
So, on this election eve, I want to remind you how deeply possible it is that you and I have been swayed by this onslaught. In many cases it has been carefully orchestrated, not so much to get you to change your position, but to get you to remain at home on Election Day. In today's world, the way to win at the ballot box is not so much to change minds, but to get more of your people to the polls and discourage more of the opponent's people so that they stay home. The people who stay home lose.
This is not an option for us.
In God's design for the state, He has placed the civil magistrate in a position of authority and holds him accountable for how he wields that authority. He is to punish evil and not allow it to reign. He is to condone what is good. In our constitutional republic, part of that authority has been delegated to us and placed into our hands. We bear the authority of appointment, the selection of those who will provide leadership within the civil government. This is a high responsibility and we are bound by duty and obligation to act righteously with that authority.
I know that this is sometimes very frustrating, especially when we are faced with having to make a selection between two imperfect alternatives. But, my friends, that is always the case. No one is perfect. So, spend the time and effort to determine which appointee will do the best job at diminishing evil and condoning good. Do not stay at home as the media has been persuading you to do. To do so is to let the greater evil reign.
See you at the polls.
Doing What is Right
For our American readers ...
Unless you have been in a Rip-Van-Winkle nap, it has to have been abundantly obvious that, leading up to this election, the mainstream media has been on a desperate mission to persuade the populace towards its worldview. The deep bias in reporting has been breathtaking, to say the least. It used to be just a sly wink or the well-timed smirk. Now it is blatant.
None of this, of course, should be surprising to any of us. The Pew Research Poll of 2004 showed what anyone with a half-discerning eye and ear already knew: "liberals" outnumber "conservatives" by a whopping 5 to 1 ratio in the old mainline media outlets. And, it clearly shows.
Why?
Because our worldview shapes everything we do, both professionally and personally, and it is especially evident in the creative works of man. The painter seldom paints that which does not come from his own passions. The filmmaker rarely produces a movie that does not send an underlying message about which he deeply believes.
So, the lofty notion that a journalist or a newscaster can be totally "unbiased" in their work is virtually impossible to achieve--on either side. The selection of stories, their order and timing, the wording of a headline, the data reported versus the data left on the floor, page one versus buried in Section D--all of it is going to be crafted, consciously or subconsciously, according to one's worldview.
Now, this is not meant to be partisan, but it is meant to make us aware that we have all been affected by this. We live in a culture in which much of the media that bombards us is heavily slanted and often represents a worldview standing diametrically opposed to God's truth.
So, on this election eve, I want to remind you how deeply possible it is that you and I have been swayed by this onslaught. In many cases it has been carefully orchestrated, not so much to get you to change your position, but to get you to remain at home on Election Day. In today's world, the way to win at the ballot box is not so much to change minds, but to get more of your people to the polls and discourage more of the opponent's people so that they stay home. The people who stay home lose.
This is not an option for us.
In God's design for the state, He has placed the civil magistrate in a position of authority and holds him accountable for how he wields that authority. He is to punish evil and not allow it to reign. He is to condone what is good. In our constitutional republic, part of that authority has been delegated to us and placed into our hands. We bear the authority of appointment, the selection of those who will provide leadership within the civil government. This is a high responsibility and we are bound by duty and obligation to act righteously with that authority.
I know that this is sometimes very frustrating, especially when we are faced with having to make a selection between two imperfect alternatives. But, my friends, that is always the case. No one is perfect. So, spend the time and effort to determine which appointee will do the best job at diminishing evil and condoning good. Do not stay at home as the media has been persuading you to do. To do so is to let the greater evil reign.
See you at the polls.
posted by Anonymous at 5:46 AM
16 Comments:
Pretty divisive comments. The media, the liberals, the non Christians, are all for diminishing good and condoning evil? Balderdash!!
Some of it at the very beginning makes sense, until this:
"represents a worldview standing diametrically opposed to God's truth.
Of course, this is the fork in the road. Which God? Which truth? According to which source? Which interpretation?
I think back to the number of times that I, an an atheist, have visited Dr. Dan's church to preach my "faith."
Hmm. Zero. In fact, I don't even know which church is his.
I think back to the number of times that theists of various stripes have visited my home to preach their doctrines.
Too many to count.
In response to what their doctrines suggest is "godlessness," Dr. Dan and his tribe propose to replace the excesses of one supposed lifestyle (i.e., secularism) with the excesses of another -- namely, their particular version of "godliness."
I submit that this differs not at all from solutions offered by the Taliban. The trappings may be different, but the authoritarianism is precisely the same.
My view of America is of a place where Dr. Dan is free to worship as he pleases without interference from me, and vice versa. The marketplace of all ideas, religious or otherwise, should indeed be refereed impartially, so as to permit as wide a variety of opinion as possible. Call it secularism if you will, but given the bloody doctrinal differences that have characterized Christianity, you'd think that it would be obvious that a system where all beliefs are protected is safer than one in which the pendulum swings too far toward one.
Unfortunately, for those in this world whose commitments seem to demand that they cross that line, there is no recognition of a free market in ideas, and in these polarized times, there is seldom any respect for the autonomous space of those, myself included, who are not persuaded by the faith-based way of life -- or, for that matter, for the space of those who are Christian but somehow "not Christian enough."
I can accept my end of the American compromise. Increasingly, evangelical Christians cannot. If history is any guide, the chance that I'll be the one shipped to the re-education camp is far greater than the other way around -- in theory, or worse yet, in reality.
Karl Rove identified a political opportunity with this demographic and devised the current strategy to bring the Christian right, social conservatives, fundamentalists, evangelicals (whatever the term du jour)into even the inner-workings of the GOP. In return for their support, these groups now expect to wield the political capital they've earned.
I hesitate to say that I am a conservative Christian for fear of being grouped with "Dr. Dan." He preaches values, yet does not practice grace, respect for others, or any other Christian value I know. My experience with him (as well as that of many others) has been contrary to everything by which we live our lives. The loudest who call themselves Christians get all the attention. Those who quietly lead lives worthy of the label are tarnished by the very public hypocrisy of others.
I vote in every election for those who live by principles comparable to my own. My votes cross party lines, because, as we all know, it is about more than the party label. In the same way, Christianity is about more than the church you attend and the label you give yourself. It's about the life you live.
Once again, the anonymous critic attacks the messenger without any supportive data.
What has he done that is not Christian. Holding people in positions of authority at Floyd is not anti-christian.
Give some facts and not your opinion.
No one is forcing anyone to do believe anything. Why does offering a Christian perspective challenge so many of you?
Christians have the same rights many of you continually espouse. Freedom of speech and expression should be open to everyone. Why is there the double standard?
Christians base their beliefs on the moral absolutes written in the scriptures. They are unchanging unlike the moral relativism many of you grasp.
If someone asks should you obey the government? The Biblical answer as a Christian is, it depends. We have a moral rule that we ought to obey the authorities over us, but we also have another moral rule that we ought to preach the Gospel. When the apostles were in conflict with those two moral rules, they chose not to obey the government; in fact, they disobeyed it and obeyed the higher rule which is to preach the Gospel. The circumstances determined what decision they would make in this situation but they were not being relativists. Everybody faced with this same dilemma in the same circumstances are obliged to respond the same way if they are Christians. Others may choose differently and it may change in every circumstance. That's relativism.
Preaching the gospel and forcing conversion is what separates Christianity from many other religions. No Christian advocates forced conversion as it is contrary to free-will.
Biblical morality holds that absolutes pertain to certain circumstances, but you must weigh the circumstances to determine whether the absolute applies to it or not. If it does apply to the given circumstance, it applies equally to everyone who is in exactly the same circumstance. That's what makes it an absolute.
What I never hear any of you state is what you base your morality and ethical choices. What is your standard and how often do they change? I am very comfortable stating where my values lie and what my standards are. Let’s hear from you and see if yours hold up over time. Failures in some people’s choices do not make the moral standards of Christianity less absolute. It just verifies the sinful, fallen nature of humans.
Anon 2:04,
Nice to hear another view. I want to do nothing to interfere with your right to worship in your church or your home. I also want my government to do nothing to interfere with that right.
On the other hand, I don't want "some" to use their Christian beliefs to interfere in some secular situations.
Hopefully a not too controversial example--alcohol sales on Sunday. If it is a person's belief that by allowing this dishonors God, don't buy it and if they own a liquor store, don't open on Sunday. Heathens should not force a believer to purchase alcohol on Sunday and Christians should not force the other way. "Does not God deserve a day?" We have all heard this. If it is to mean anything, it is how you keep this day, not how you make me keep this day.
Anon, I believe that you understand that principle. You actually said it better(and shorter)than I did.
No Christian advocates forced conversion as it is contrary to free-will.
Ever read anything about the history of Western Civilization? Forced conversion is such a recurring constant, especially when it came to Christian colonial nations, that any understanding of the last 2,000 years would be willfully blind without it.
NAC,
Your point is exactly what I stated. Just because someone did it and claimed Christianity does not make it right.
There is no biblical standard for forced conversion.
The goal is to have people hear the message and then choose whether they want to accept it or not.
The consequences then lies with the individual.
HB,
Without trying to speak for NA, the fly in the ointment is the definitions and interpretations. I am sure that many of the people involved in "incidents" that we now consider absolutely wrong, absolutely believed they were right. Would you agree with that statement in principle?
I have a good friend who has his doctorate in theology and he would think that you are nuts--so to speak. What makes you think that you know more than him? What makes you think that you know more than, say, a rabbi who who has spent his life studying? All 3 of you will disagree on some main points.
I don't mind you espousing your beliefs. You have every right to do so. It is the enforcement action that I take issue with. Metaphorically speaking, why can't you abstain from alcohol on Sunday and leave me alone?
"Metaphorically speaking, why can't you abstain from alcohol on Sunday and leave me alone?"
Because ... well, let's just turn to H.L. Mencken:
"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
The good doctor often asks us to provide the basis for our ethical and moral choices. I promise that very soon, when I have time, I will provide this in the form of a post at NAC ... increasingly, a place where "angels" fear (mistakenly) to tread.
As an aside, HB noted:
Just because someone did it and claimed Christianity does not make it right.
Think of all the wars and strife that might have been avoided if we just could have agreed on Dr. Dan's personal vision of Christianity and dispensed with the 2,000+ years of theologians, preachers, snake oil salesmen, popes, missionaries and charalatans peddling their own views.
One world, one point of view ... hey, wait -- I'm supposed to be the socialist here.
iamhoosier and NAC
With all due respect. I agree that there should be separation between the establishment of religion and the government. None of what is occuring is attempting to establish religion. It is trying to maintain a balance.
I don't believe we should legislate who can drink alcohol on what day. That is a personal choice. Our Government is supposed to be representative of the public. I believe we have a very good system with appropriate checks and balances.
I also believe that individuals morals and ethical beliefs do have a significant role in how they make decisions. It is for this reason that I believe in choosing individuals with values closer to my own just as you do.
The system should protect each of us from the other's overbearance. Having a litmus test for congress will never be the answer.
There have been many wars and lots of lives lost for reasons other than religion. Human evil, greed, jealousy, land, etc have cost many more lives.
How does your plan take care of this?
Do you think if we leave certain people alone, they will leave us alone?
Locks on doors typically keep honest people honest, dishonest people will continue to break laws.
Can you negotiate with terrorists?
Candidates with these viewpoints will never get my vote.
HB,
It is important to remember that among the 3 of us(in this case), the way we lead our lives are very similar. We are all married and to members of the opposite sex(smile). You both own businesses and I help manage one. We are all property owners. We all vote. I would assume that we all contribute to charitable causes. In my case, HB, you may even be surprised to learn that my family also helps support a church with my full blessing.
So why do we clash so harshly at times? I will leave it at that, for now.
Hey, New Albanian...
Why so personal? HB seems to treat all views with repsect, yet your postings all call him "the good doctor" or "Dr Dan". Trying to take chip shots to belittle another really only weakens the validity of your points.
Just a thought.
Anon 2:48,
On the chance that the New Albanian does not see your question, I will answer.
The NA has posted several times that HB is his personal physician. I think that makes a difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home