Not easy being Christian with Election

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Not easy being Christian with Election
49
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 8:24pm
Orginial link: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/9/prweb155931.php

Christians object to their faith being appropriated for political purposes; preaching anger and revenge in the name of Christianity ignores the New Testament messages of grace, love, and inclusiveness.

Indianapolis, IN, (PRWEB) September 9, 2004 -- As the 2004 election approaches, many Christians believe their fellow Christians are deserting the principles of their faith to follow a banner of anger, revenge, and punishment.

One of those is Gregg Hodgson, 67, an Indiana businessman and former banker who has served as campaign manager for Republican political candidates. A self-described "quiet Christian," Hodgson has devoted his recent years to helping people plan their own small businesses. "I've worked, one-on-one, with nearly 2,000 small businesses," he says. "It's the talent I've been given, and I try to make a difference with it before my own Judgment Day arrives.“

Today, Hodgson has decided to back the Kerry-Edwards ticket. "I'm rather conservative," he explains, "so I can't possibly support an administration that throws away a nice surplus and turns it into the worst deficit we've ever seen, in four years. The worst part of the deficit – which is being called our first 'permanent deficit' – was caused by Mr. Bush's lavish tax-breaks to the wealthy,” says Hodgson. “Even ignoring the way he exalts the rich, which of course isn't a Christian principle, what do we have to show for all that wasted money? Virtually nothing. It'll get even worse for the not-so-rich, too. Our treasury is broke, so we'll have to slash education, health-care and environmental programs.”

Hodgson also decries the Bush administration’s way of governing and campaigning, which he labels, "fear-based manipulation, with nothing behind it." He suggests that politicians who appeal to our primitive fears, angers, and desires for revenge are stuck in the Old Testament, and are forgetting the New Testament messages of inclusion and love.

Hodgson acknowledges that there was a political aspect to the decision by the early Christians to build on the Old Testament. But he worries when he sees modern-day Pharisees attempting to hijack Christianity for political purposes.

"The Old Testament can be handy for bad guys," Hodgson observes. "Whenever they want to appear 'righteous' while exalting the rich, bullying the poor, passing judgment on others, or attacking others with vengeful anger,” they usually invoke the Old Testament.

Real Christians should not be fooled, Hodgson warns. "We've seen plenty of demagogues in our time, wrapping themselves in the flags of Christianity or patriotism so they could gain power. Christ repudiated the vengeful aspects of the Old Testament in very strong language. He ordered us to treat others as we'd want them to treat us – the toughest lesson anyone has ever tried to teach human beings. That's why he accompanied it with blanket forgiveness. He knew we'd often fail at it!"

"Angry, judgmental, revenge-filled people may call themselves 'Christians,' or even 'Fundamentalist Christians,'" Hodgson concludes, "but the Prince of Peace would know them as the very people he came to save! He'd forgive them, of course, but he'd weep bitterly at the harm they do in his name."

For a copy of John Bugay’s “The Christian Right Need Not Fear a Kerry Presidency” and other articles on this topic, contact media@republicansforkerry04.org


Edited 9/23/2004 8:25 pm ET ET by crownotangelgrl

Avatar for momeebear
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 09-27-2004 - 6:11pm
Hmmm, well maybe that's why they did refer to it as a "commitment ceremony", rather than "marriage?" I do know it WAS the pastor who wrote the column in the paper, inviting one and all to attend......maybe they're a "rogue" Methodist church!!!! ;-)
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Mon, 09-27-2004 - 7:13pm
Perhaps, I know they thought some of the churches in Washinton were. One of the hallmarks of Methodism though, is finding ways to be inclusive. The challenge is to bring people of diverse backgrounds together and still be faithful to God's teachings. You can find out more information about the position of the Methodist chuch on these issues by checking out - www.reporterinteractive.org and then clicking on the link to the left about General Conference.
Avatar for momeebear
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 09-27-2004 - 7:49pm
Thanks for the info, Splum!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-23-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 1:59am
that was interesting,thanks. a religion that believes in being inclusive is ok with me. my husband's sister is married to a woman, not legally obviously/unfortunately -- they are as committed and devout in their faith as can be, they live in a house in pennsylvania, they had a wedding ceremony on a cliff in ireland, and they plan to start a family. they are second class citizens, though, compared to my husband & i when it comes to all kinds of rights that i am granted just because of the type of person i chose to marry (man vs. woman)- i think it's really unjust.

if you find yourself bothered by the idea, just remember that 50 years ago white people were bothered by the idea of sharing the same drinking fountain with a black person, and then there was a movement & a rebellion where black people insisted that we all raise our consciousness and GET OVER IT

i think it is another civil rights struggle and i support them (gays who want to marry)

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 3:46am
On the level of thinking that says that 'if they love each other they should be able to get married' the marriage question doesn't bother me, but there is also the matter of interpretation of scripture. Many would say you just can't ignore that if you are a part of the church. The comparison with racial civil rights issues has some similarities, but one difference is that nowhere in the Bible does it say engaging in the act of being a Black American is a sin. There are many (some even Bishops in our church) that choose to ignore the scriptural admonitions against homosexuality, saying that Christ hung around with all manner of sinners and specifically made salvation available to them. Many others would say that the church should not extend what is essentially a 'blessing' to a sinful activity. Some would say if one is born with their brain 'wired' that way that it is not a sin at all. There are many arguments for and against on this issue, that's why it is so controversial.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 2:18pm
I definietly agree. It also kinda reminds me of the "witch" burning times. Just because they did different things or something else to make them stand out they were accused of being a witch etc. *rolls eyes* I guess every generation has something. Ours is the gay marriage I guess. XOXO.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 2:32pm
Isn't it mainly in the old testament where the Bible talks about homosexuality? I don't remember too much about it being in the new. According to my studies throughout my life of the Bible from growing up in a Christian home when Jesus died on the cross he took away the old testament and all that. I can see how it is hard to know what to do with that though because of how the old testament is in the Bible. I'm apart of the Church of Christ and we mainly use the new testament, but every once in a while we'll refer back to a story in the old or something. The old, to us, is mainly a history book and we mainly use the new testament for worship and whatnot. I'm not sure how other Church of Christ's do though so I can only speak for the one I attend. But to gay marriages and their right's from what I studied on US Government class in school you're supposed to seperate the church and the state, so it's not right they try to force their beliefs on everybody cause this is the land where you're able to have your own belief system and we do have many systems here. :\ It worries me when a President wears his beliefs on his sleeve. I may not believe in the same thing he does even if I am Christian. I just am more open to other things and into the spiritual side of the world. XOXO.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 2:47pm
Hi, I agree with you! I have two very close friends who have been comitted for 15 years. What makes me sick, is if one of them is ever in the hospital, the family who turned their back on their son would have more say on medical treatment then the loving person who has been there through thick and thin. The famiy can even have this person barred from seeing their sick son.How right is that? what I cannot understand is why socity would want to stand in the way of two people loving each other? People will quote the bible. But my GOD is a loving GOD and I do not think he would punish someone who is born with the mixed up genitics, GOD loves everyone, not just the good christians in the herto-marriages. People also say that they will rip the moral fiber of marriage?Right like we have not already done that? How many divorced couples do you know? Marriage has become so throw away in this counrty. So why keep two people apart who commit themselves to each other? no matter what sex they are? I just don't understand the hate in this world? Maybe I just care too much about my fellow man? It just breaks my heart that people in 2004 can still be a second class citizen. Well if you agree with me? stand up and help your fellow man! please.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 3:21pm
It's in both, but here is the main reference to it in the New Testament. I would suggest you read the entire first chapter of the book of Romans, then you will get this in better context, but here is the gist of it-

Professing to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man- and birds and four footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. - ROMANS 1:22-1:27


According to the biblical scholar William Barclay, this was written by the Apostle Paul, who was commenting on the moral depravity in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-23-2004
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 9:37am
Oh I believe churches have a right to believe whatever they want. I should have clarified. The policy of different churches to condone gay marriage is their business, they can hash that one out in their council meetings & annual conventions. Their congregations can stay or leave their church depending on if they personally agree with that stance. (Did you know many gay people remain active in churches that officially denounce them? I am related to two of them. They are patient and believe change will come eventually; meanwhile they are spiritually nourished by the ceremony and the opportunity to pray for things like world peace in a community of their neighbors.)

What I am talking about is the LEGAL rights that this country grants me as a married person. I have a legal status as someone's "spouse" but this president wants to ammend the Constitution to dictate the gender of who I choose to be my spouse. I feel like that's EXACTLY the same as the government telling me I can only marry a white man, or an American man, or a man who is taller than me. Forcing me to live under such restricitons to my freedom would be un-American. AMERICA is not a church. I was raised & married in a church, but my wedding was one day with a religious element to it (9 years ago) because I chose to include that religious element, while my marriage as a legal status is ongoing, whether I convert religions or stay in my church in my private time or whatever. I am not suddenly an un-married American if I switch churches or religions.

Black people in the 1950's-60's civil rights movement were not seeking special rights, they were seeking the SAME rights as white people. The same school opportunities, the same seats on the bus, the same drinking fountains. Equality in the eyes of the law. American law is not a church commandment. American law is not the Bible. The police and courts are not interpreting scripture when they are enforce & interpret American law.


*****

Interesting- I just found this online:


Gay people call for the right to form legally recognised unions, giving gays the same rights that straights have, namely:



-The right to choose your spouse.

-The right to choose a spouse who is not a citizen of your country, and as a result, have them be allowed to live in your country with you.

-The right to income tax deductions for couples.

-The right to visit your spouse in hospital, even if the spouse's family want to stop you.

-Pension benefits and other spousal benefits such as company medical and dental plans.

-The right to adopt children.

-The right to claim their spouse or their spouse's children as dependents on income-tax forms.

-The right to transfer registered retirement savings plans to a surviving same-sex spouse without paying taxes -- the way straight couples can.

-Same-sex spouses should not be forced to testify against each other, just as heterosexual spouses are protected.

-Wherever the term "spouse" appears in law, it also apply to gay couples who have formed a legally recognized union.

*****

I have heard that there are over 1,000 legal rights I have as a heterosexual spouse in America. Can anyone think of others that are denied to partners in gay relationships?