With the 2008 Presidential campaign heating up, Christians are reminded that we have an obligation as citizens of this country and also an obligation as citizens of heaven. We should not unnecessarily throw up hurdles to the faith as our ultimate allegiance is to the Father and his ultimate goal is the redemption of all who would be saved.
Recently I read a derisive remark by an atheist mocking a Christian pastor who had claimed that the devil had given him indigestion. This pastor hadn’t been speaking to his congregation. It was said on a radio show. Ironically, the purpose of the show is to contend for the faith. It is difficult to imagine a context in which such a claim would help a seeker come closer to the faith. Don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe that demons really exist and that they do exert themselves. What I am saying is that such a statement is best being said in a context where people will understand it properly. The comment should only have been made if only other Christians are listening.
Another area that generates a lot of heat in the nonChristian arena is the subject of prayer. For many atheists, prayer is absurd. “Why would God care about us?” they might say. They enjoy scoffing at the prayers of athletes, where teams on either side both pray for victory. Here the objection seems warranted: how exactly is God going to answer both of these prayers in the affirmative?
Most of the things we as Christians say are perfectly sensible and consistent within the Christian framework but we say them in contexts where it is easy to suppose that many nonChristians are listening. You might object that the nonChristians should have the presence of mind to understand the context in which the comments arise. Yes, they should. Alas, they don’t.
Moreover, your random nonChristian off the street cannot tell the differences between a statement made as a citizen of this country or as one made as a citizen of heaven. I would be willing to go so far as to say that in many cases they can’t be blamed. That is in fact the point of this article: we Christians are not careful enough with our words. If we are sloppy, we can hardly blame the listeners for drawing the wrong inferences.
We now come to a shining illustration of exactly what I am referring to. The California Supreme Court has struck down legislative attempts to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Naturally, the Christian community is outraged. And they should be.
Yes, the Christian community should be outraged, but not as citizens of heaven, but as citizens of this country. It is precisely because of our country’s time honored respect for the rule of law that we should be irate. As citizens of heaven, however, it ought not be outrage, but rather pity. We know that God’s plans are not arbitrary assaults on the joys of humanity. We know that God created human sexuality and declared it good. We know that God knew what he was doing when he designed them male and female, and that great pain follows when you toy with that design. Furthermore, Christians ought not be surprised when the world doesn’t go along with such reasoning. It is par for the course.
What tends to happen is illustrated very well in regards to the Court’s decision. Christians conflate the two citizenships. Our objections arise out of both realms but to the random onlooker it appears to be coming just from one: the citizenship of heaven. Continue >>
RSS
