Just a little commentary on a post at DakotaWomen about a Christian Post article we reprinted on poll results that showed most people believe the elements that make up the ideal life are centered around solid family values.
One thing that Kelsey seems to miss is that, if liberals were so into these things (integrity, one marriage partner for life, close relationship with God), it's odd that they seem to attack them so often.
Oh, I know the integrity one is negotiable between political parties, because the Republican Party has it's share of dirtbags, too, but it seems liberals are too frequently found defending or are in the company of criminals and other dirtbags (i.e. the ACLU-types, and how they defend every common criminal, trouble-maker, psychopath and God-hating fanatic that can be found).
Liberalism is constantly on the attack against marriage. Thank liberalism for no-fault divorce. Thank liberalism for the welfare state we had run amok from the 1960s to about 1995 which undermined marriage and family by replacing husbands and fathers with an easy welfare check. We have liberalism to thank for promoting and defending premarital sex and every other kind of sex outside of marriage. Liberalism vociferously opposes abstinence and teaching young people to wait until marriage to have sex. And then there's the all-out assault against marriage by the homosexual lobby.
As for a close relationship with God, that's kinda hard to achieve when you're busy defending crime, immorality and attacking one of God's primary institutions: marriage. A close relationship to God is difficult when you promote the destruction of innocent human life in the womb--life that's made in His image. It's hard to be close with a holy God when you promote and defend immorality in almost every area of life.
Closeness to God is also kinda hard to achieve when you act like you believe faith in God is something to be kept locked behind church doors where it can never have an impact in the values of our society, much less affect your own personal behavior outside the walls of a church.
Cory Heidelberger's comment follows a similar thread of disconnect when he says
Christianity is about reaching out to embrace the "other," the outsider
Christianity reaching out and embracing the "other," the outsider is a wonderful by-product of Christianity, but it isn't what Christianity is "about."
Christianity is about (1) worshipping and glorifying God, and (2) bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ's salvation to a lost and dark world.
And if people reject that #2 imperative, it's rather hard to embrace them into Christianity. You see, the only way you can become a Christian is to admit you're a sinner, admit that the way you've been living is wrong, and renounce those sins and that way of life. You can't hang onto your sin and hang onto Christ at the same time.
So if a person is unwilling to let go of their sin, they're unable to embrace Christ, and thus cannot be embraced into Christianity.
Peter illustrated understanding that "there is only one way" when Christ asked him and the other disciples if they were going to abandon him or follow him:
Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
No one else has the way to go or the words of life; not the Democrat Party, not the Republican Party, not liberalism, not conservatism, and not even the church as an institution. It's Christ alone, and it's on his terms alone.
While God wants everyone to be saved and to come into his family, by nature of the terms one must accept, it is exclusionary. It is narrow and few people will accept it.
This may be one key thing sincere liberals fail to understand about Christianity: we don't get to hold onto our sins and willingly bring them with us into a relationship with Christ.
8 comments:
Sorry to infect your article with liberal bias (read: objectivity), but you should look at this: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/
Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states and the first one to "destroy" marriage, has the nation's lowest divorce rate. States in the Bible Belt, where religiosity and conservatism thrive, have the highest.
The Barna Group also observed similar trends.
My favorite quote from the story: "More disturbing was the finding that born-again Christians have among the highest divorce rates."
This makes me wonder whether a national poll on hypocrisy will show similar correlations.
I wonder if that divorce rate in Mass. might have anything to do with the fact that the Mass. government has sent the clear message to its citizens: marriage means nothing. After all, if two men or two women can hook up and call it "marriage," then it really means nothing. Similar trends have been observed in Scandinavian countries that have gone down this homosexual "marriage" trend several years ago. If fewer people in a country or state or cross-section of society are getting married, there are naturally going to be fewer divorces from that group.
You'll get no argument about religiosity or even conservatism. Religiosity is useless and worthless, and while conservatism generally follows Biblical principles, it doesn't have those "words of life" that make all the difference.
One additional thing to consider: there may be failure or even hypocrisy in living up to the requirements for the "good life" on one side of this equation, but it's clear that the other side is working very hard to undermine them and tear them down.
"You'll get no argument about religiosity or even conservatism. Religiosity is useless and worthless."
Do you mean that religiosity is worthless as a means of measuring the morals of a society? Because that "82% Christian" statistic you use in many arguments is just that: a measure of religiosity.
Religiosity is useless as a means of achieving moral behavior.
That really sticks in your craw that after all these years of liberal bombardment against Christianity, 82% of Americans would profess allegiance to Christianity, doesn't it? As I'm sure it sticks in the craw of the ACLU and other God-hating liberals.
Religiosity is useless as a means of achieving moral behavior.
That really sticks in your craw that after all these years of liberal bombardment against Christianity, 82% of Americans would profess allegiance to Christianity, doesn't it? As I'm sure it sticks in the craw of the ACLU and other God-hating liberals.
Religiosity is useless as a means of achieving moral behavior.
That really sticks in your craw that after all these years of liberal bombardment against Christianity, 82% of Americans would profess allegiance to Christianity, doesn't it? As I'm sure it sticks in the craw of the ACLU and other God-hating liberals.
Jeez, enough about my craw. And for the record, not all liberals are God-hating (just as not all conservatives are people-loving). Your ugly rhetoric is getting tiresome.
You see the high divorce rates in religiously strong areas as a sign of liberals trying to undermine and tear down all those good, wholesome families. I see it as a flaw in the whole notion of thinking that being a Christian is sufficient to lead a "good" life and have strong family values.
I think the points in the article are valid. Massachusetts and other liberal areas do encourage education, which delays marriage and prepares people, especially young people, for the emotional and financial challenges of any long-term relationship. When you look at it this way, not through the lens of religion, it suggests that common sense, preparedness, and personal responsibility can and do lead to successful marriages, whether or not the couple is Christian.
I know not all liberals are God-hating and not all conservatives are God-loving or people-loving. However the trend is pretty plain that most of the anti-God, anti-family public policy promotion is coming from the Left.
Post a Comment