Related Posts with Thumbnails
Showing posts with label guest posts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guest posts. Show all posts

Shooting our own soldiers

This is a guest post from my friend Dave, on the topic of the church. I think the a verse from Galations, which I read this morning, applies to this topic. After reminding the Galations of the commandment to love one another (5:14), Paul goes on to say: "But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!". We have to be careful to make every effort to avoid this! I am not sure about all the details of what Dave has written, particularly the last paragraph, but I'd be intersted to hear your thoughts! This is a topic which is worth considering a lot more than we do.

In the first world war, the military on both sides made extensive use of trenches in battle. Ultimately, the goal was to fire upon and destroy the enemy and then move forward, capturing ground. One can imagine a number of platoons, perhaps from various allied nations, constructing trenches close together. The men in the various trenches would probably have different backgrounds and cultures, and their trench-making habits are likely to have differed somewhat: some may have been deeper than others, or with differently sloped sides, or with all manner of other, subtle differences. Nevertheless, all of the groups within these trenches had a common over-arching goal: to defeat the enemy (and they had no doubts as to whom or what that may be). Now imagine some of the trenches fighting not against the enemy, but rather shooting men in other, allied trenches in the back, because the former platoons disagreed, perhaps, with the trench-building style or the colour of the uniforms of the latter. If this kind of behaviour continued long enough, it wouldn’t take long, to be sure, before the enemy hardly needed to bother with an offensive at all. They would win by default as their opposition crumbled into a heap.

This, unfortunately, demonstrates the way Christians often function. The analogy was related to me by a close friend and as soon as I heard it, I was struck by the truth of it. Christianity is divided into a plethora of what could perhaps be called “sub-groups”, denominations, but despite the differences, we are all under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, our king and our general. He has given us one battle plan: thus we all fight the same battle and we use the same weapons. It is fair to say that the strategies of different captains in particular skirmishes may differ, but does it follow that these captains may be fairly accused of defiance or mutiny on that basis? I think not, and therefore cannot understand the enormous amount of vindictive squabbling that seems to go on within the church.

Now I also think it is important to understand what this analogy is not saying, and perhaps where it breaks down. There are certainly some groups, who are classified as Christian, whose beliefs cannot be aligned with scripture, and therefore, with such groups the church cannot be associated. Such groups have fallen into deception: they have eaten from the fruit of false teaching. This does not mean, however, that we must “shoot them in the back”, because, despite their being deceived, they are still not the enemy. I would argue that they are no different from “flower power”, peaceful objectors-of-war who perhaps don’t understand all of the issues. As a result, I would say that groups which are not aligned with scripture are not even fighting the right battle: it is more likely that they are not on the battlefield at all. I think the church quite simply needs to be clear about not following false teachers to false battlefields. That way we don’t need to shoot them in the back! We will have made the most enormous mistake, as a church, if we are in the wrong battle (in effect a non-battle), shooting at anyone except the enemy. How rebellious captains are dealt with is not for other captains to worry about: that is the prerogative of the Lord alone.

by Dave Drew

Read more...

God and Government

Currently the Australian Democrats, a minority political party in Australia, are running a survey titled God and Government. Jonathan Field wrote this response, in which he makes some good points about politics and Christianity. I asked if I could use it as a guest post, and he agreed. Thanks Jonathan! I know Jonathan mainly through the internet, but we have met once! He lives in Melbourne, Victoria.

I just got back from the USA where I studied the separation of church and state (amongst other things). Most of the "founding fathers" of the USA were Christians who unashamedly used their Christian perspective to shape their newborn nation's laws. These are the same people who had already decided there would be a "separation of church and state". In other words, whatever they _did_ mean by "separation of church and state", they did _not_ mean that politicians should divorce themselves from their personal religions beliefs. In fact, they _expected_ and _intended_ that parliamentarians would vote according to conscience/religion at times, and they expected and intended that the American people would choose, by their vote, which set of philosophies/beliefs would make their laws.

In Australia, MPs should make whatever laws they believe are best for our nation. Whatever their religious or philosophical persuasions, MPs should seek the betterment of the people of our country. An MP who is convinced by his religious beliefs that one law or another is bad for the people of our great land, should vote against such a law.

The people of Australia are responsible for keeping the MPs in check. We the citizens cast the votes that determine which philosophies dominate parliament. If we strongly disagree with an MP's agenda, we vote for another candidate who seems more suitable.

If enough Australians vote for enough MPs of similar philosophy/religion, that philosophy/religion will increasingly find expression in the laws of the land.

If enough Australians voted in enough MPs with some weird philosophy - e.g. that all persons born on 29th February are dangerous and must be executed - then, to the detriment of our nation, that bodgy philosophy would eventually find itself enshrined in law, and the death of innocents would ensue. In a purely democratic state, the only protection against such absurdity is the will of the people, reflected in their vote.

In short :

1) MPs should vote as they see best for Australia. If, for example, they have a religious basis for believing that rape is wrong, they should not hesitate to legislate against rape. The fact that their views are shaped by religion is irrelevant. If the Australian public disagree with the laws that an MP's philosophical or religion persuasions promote, they simply vote for another MP.

2) The Australian public should vote for whom they see fit to best lead Australia. They should not do so just because an MP claims to be affiliated with one or another religion. But it will so happen that those with similar religio/philosophical beliefs will have a similar view of what is best for Australia. (Decriminalise rape? Decriminalise cocaine? Allow abortion?) When an Australian citizen finds an MP who's ideas of what's best for Australia are similar to that citizen's own ideas, the citizen should unashamedly and without hesitation vote for that MP. And so on the one hand a voter should not vote for someone just because that person claims to be of the same or similar religion, but on the other hand a voter should not _refrain_ from voting for someone just because they _are_ of the same religion.

Jonathan sent this in as a comment on the survey. Good on you for taking the time, Jonathan! In the email in which his comment was contained, he also added the following:

"there is such a thing as legislation without an underpinning religious philosophy. Humanism is a religion. It's mantra "There is no God but man" sounds suspiciously like Islam's own "There is no God but Allah", and it's dogmatic assertion that "We are scientific - those who disagree are simply unscientific and religious", translated into plain English, is simply the Humanist's way of saying "Ours is the only true religion".

Should MPs divorce themselves from their religious beliefs when legislating? The very idea is absurd. That murder, rape, or child molestation is "wrong" is an inherently religious idea. Whether you claim it to be so because the majority believes it to be so (in which case your God is Man or Mother Nature), or whether you claim it to be so because there is a separate god or gods of some kind - in either case, the ideas are inherently religious, stemming out from one's understanding of the nature of reality and the origin and purpose of the universe generally and of humankind specifically.

We need to raise our voices more strategically, more frequently, more voluminously, and help reshape the philosophy of this nation."

Read more...

A guest post from my Mum

My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. James 1:2-3.

In the last seven years I have seen these verses lived out so vividly in the life of my daughter Sherrin. Seven years ago I was earnestly seeking the Lord for the soul of my daughter, spending hours before him interceding for all of my four children. He had given them to me. He would answer my petitions. I asked the Lord to do whatever He needed to do to bring Sherrin into His kingdom. That same year in July Sherrin was seriously injured in a car accident and is still in pain from that. In the following years I saw the mighty hand of God moving and transforming His child into a new creation just as He promises He will do for every person who seeks His face with a humble and repentant heart. He showed Sherrin her heart and her need. He led her to the foot of the Cross and showed her a life beyond her pain. This life sustains her today. This life has led her into the treasures that God has for all men and she knows that this life, the Lord Jesus Christ, is sufficient in pain-filled days. Nothing else satisfies the soul. The Lord answered my prayers in an unexpected and awesome way and as I have watched Him at work in Sherrin my heart bursts with a mixture of sorrow and joy. Only the Lord can bring such joy out of sorrow.

by Lorraine Ward

Read more...

  © Blogger template Shush by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP