Richard Land's most important assertion in his post is correct. The language I used in my post on Mike Huckabee and evangelical leaders was, "unchristian, harsh and hostile."
While I stand by the substance of what I wrote - that things are changing in the evangelical political world - the way I wrote it was personal and hurtful and there was no excuse for it.
To him, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, and Gary Bauer I apologize and ask for their forgiveness.
Unrelated to the apology, I want to add this - when I suggested some Christians fast from politics for a spell, I did so as one who had done exactly that.
In 2004 and for much of 2005 I didn't even dabble in politics. It was that time away that allowed me to see just how much of an idol politics had become not only in my life but in the lives of so many evangelicals.
As I wrote, the idea for a fast wasn't (and isn't) a call for permanent withdrawal or retreat - merely a strategic one, a spiritual one... much as people fast from food. It isn't that food is evil, it is just that there are times when food becomes an idol or one needs to put even the most basic things of life before God. So too with politics. My suggestion was for a temporary retreat and then for a return to the political arena - perhaps with a different perspective. That is what I have done.
Many may disagree with my perspective these days but it isn't accurate to make me out to be a hypocrite by suggesting I have not followed my own advice to fast from politics.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Donny, I appreciate your challenge. I have a problem with the whole idea of proving things biblically because it can't always be done but mostly because the standards of proof. Let's take a proof you offered a few days ago: You said that since Jesus talked about a man divorcing a woman, that it proves that he wants marriage to be between a man and a woman. It does not prove that because there is no "only a man may divorce a woman," it does not say "a man may only divorce a woman," and because if it were written in only those ways it would be talking about divorce, not marriage. So interpretations that are equally valid include:
1) Jesus used the most common example and that portion of that verse was descriptive, not prescriptive.
2) That same-sex couples may not divorce but mixed couples can.
3) That men may divorce women but not the other way around.
There's nothing wrong with your interpretation but it is an interpretation, not eternal, biblical truth.
Another problem I have fundamentalism is that it assumes that all words in the bible mean exactly one thing and mean it eternally, whether they are words, phrases or sentences and that the context is meaningless. We do not speak to each other that way so it seems a little innovative to think that the word God gave us to understand him by is not in a language we ever use.
Finally, there is this flaw in your personal "proofs." We can agree, mostly, on what the bible says, but your syllogisms regularly have this problem: They typically read in the format that bible says x, democrats do y, therefore, democrats are ungodly. Both your assertions have to be true for the conclusion to be true and while you do pretty well on your major premise, your minor premise is never supported and usually scurrilous.
Actually, a perfect example of your behavior is my comment above. Jesus says in Matthew 7:15 ""Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. " so I quoted scripture accurately as you often do. Nowhere is there proof that Jesus was referring to your buddies in the movement, which I asserted as the case. Therefore, I did not prove my conclusion. It was an unkind comment and the perfect analog for most of your "proof," which is why it's good I don't look down on you.
In all my time here, I can't remember a single instance where you had proven what you claimed to have proven. You prove something, I'll try. In the meanwhile, I'll continue
My fastest repentance in years:
"faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
It is not certainty. I'll continue to read the bible looking for God, not proof.
"Because of the New Testament's frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers, the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit."
(Wikipedia)
So how about it, Donny... how would you fix societies ills through actual, specific policies and legislation.?
What is your dream political program for America?
OK, Donny. I expressed myself, you expressed yourself. We move on, I hope, as friends. I imagine Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more because sin is bad. Of course, I'm no scholar.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.