God and pro-choice
No, not in that sense. But it's interesting how it is the Christian-conservative view to try and not give people the option to choose to not obey God's law. From teaching abstinence only to rallying against euthenasia and gay rights, if it is against God's law it should be illegal, or at least discouraged.
Interestingly enough, however, this doesn't seem to be God's view. Indeed, he gives us free choice in the greatest choice at all - the choice between salvation or eternal separation from him. God has given us all free will, in both the good things and the smaller things - and we have to deal with the consequences.
Maybe this is why I disagree with such legislation. We can't force Christianity through legislation, but rather by the loving and urgent sharing of God's word with a world that needs to hear it so importantly.
posted by Phil @ 8:58 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
See, this is my conundrum, the "aliens in the land" were to obey the Law.
So, a Christian country expects the "aliens in the land" to abide by what is expected of Christians.
It's slightly different though when it's a case of education, dishonesty, etc. As Paul says in 2 Cor 4:2, we should not be using deception, etc. So the Christian brainwashing is not on. That's agreed.
So what is the Christian view on the legislation of, say, abortion? As a quasi Christian country is that a reasonabl thing to legislate along the Christian lines?
We have free choice in everything. Free choice to break the law. To keep the law. But as you say, there are consequences.
OK a few points:
"Aliens in the land", I would consider us aliens and strangers on this earth, because our kingdom is "not of this world." We are the strangers in a foreign land, who shine the light of hope in the gospel to a land given over to perversions (Romans 1).
I'm not sure if I would describe even Australia as a "quasi-Christian" country. Either way if the majority are pro-choice, or pro-gay rights, do we really have a case?
I was thinking of the example of slavery. Although we can agree that slavery is not a good thing, look at Paul's instructions to slaves and masters in Ephesians 6. At no point does he try to change the establishment. He doesn't tell them to form a Christian lobby group in order to free the slaves. His concern is that in all situations, people live in a way that is pleasing to God.
Granted, it took another 1700 years for William Wilberforce to come along. But he was preaching to a largely "Christian" audience, where his basis for the argument was the scriptures. Unfortunately in this day we can't do that thanks to disbelief, misreadings etc.
You make valid points, particularly pertinent to this day and age. As you said about Wilberforce he worked to abolish slavery - both a Christian and a political move - in what I would describe as a qasi-Christian environment. In that environment do you enforce all the "Christian" rules? If so, how did society evolve? How did certain industries begin despite being in obvious conflict with Christianity?
Anyway, I'm not exactly sure where I'm heading with this, especially seeings as I'm pretty sure I agree with you.
I think you need to gauge the society accurately and what is/isn't acceptable. There was a quote in a book I was reading last night about Paul and how he didn't demand the enforcing of the law, but instead relied on the work of the Holy Spirit to change lives from the inside out.
Post a Comment
<< Home