Monday, January 15, 2007

When liberals gain power

This poorly-written article ("A new bill wants to..."—yikes!), unfortunately, is the only reporting I could find on California's proposed No Spanking Bill. If this Democratic leader has her way, it will be against the law to practice Christian parenting in California.

I have several brief observations:
  1. I almost titled the article "When Democrats gain power," but chose "liberals" instead. In the past, when I've expressed criticism of my former party, I've been jumped all over by careless readers and poor thinkers who from that create the conclusion that I support everything the GOP is and does, and see it as the savior of mankind. This is, of course, baseless. Worse, it's stupid.
  2. However, either title would have worked, because (—and this, in a nutshell, is my political thinking) there are only two viable political parties in America, and of those two only one sometimes is friendly to applied and distinctive Christian political/social thinking. That would be the GOP. The hierarchy of the other is liberal, period. It may range from "moderately" liberal to "barking-mad" liberal, but it is liberal.
  3. In saying "only one," I am saying that the Dem's essentially never are friendly to distinctive Christian political/social thinking.
  4. In saying "sometimes," I am saying that many elements within the GOP are also suicidally hostile to that same thinking.
  5. This particular news item (the No Spanking Bill) exposes the folly of those who say, "Christians shouldn't do politics, we should evangelize." It is a false dichotomy. We should do both, vigorously, and there is no reason why we cannot or should not. If we slight either, we are being unfaithful to the Word, as I argued at greater length here.
  6. Leaving all other (and superior) considerations aside, the best thing a Christian can do for his country (—any country) is to bear faithful witness to Christ, to point sinners to Him, to be used of God to gain disciples.
Having said that, as we are engaged in evangelism, consider the following:
  • The world has no idea what value to place on the unborn. Christians do.
  • The world has no idea what value to place on the imperfect, ailing, or elderly. Christians do.
  • The world has no idea what a just penalty for murder is. Christians do.
  • The world has no idea of the value of private property. Christians do.
  • The world has no idea what the parameters and goals of parenting are. Christians do.
  • The world has no idea what marriage is, nor how important it is. Christians do.
  • The world has no idea what sort of sexual behavior should be publicly sanctioned, and what sorts should not. Christians do.
So, in each of these situations, when the issues arise in the public square, what should Christians do?

Say, "I don't really want to talk about that, but let me tell you about Christ"?

Or, "I don't vote, write, speak, or debate on such issues. I will only vote for a measure proclaiming Jesus as sole Lord and Savior"?

Or, "I only care about 'spiritual' issues. Everything else can go to Hell"?

I don't think so. We're to be witnesses to our God and His wisdom in every area of our walk, every area of our lives. And that includes our engagement as citizens.


joey said... seems like this type of bill (no spanking) comes up every couple of years. I know it did in Virginia a few years back. It didn't really gain enough momentum to pass. California could be a different story though. The political scene is simply depressing to me right now.

Kay said...

This issue is a regular one in the UK, where it has very slowly been successful on various fronts. It's now illegal to smack/spank a toddler in Scotland, for example, and the law has recently changed in the Uk to outlaw anything other than the use of the hand, and that only if it leaves 'no marks'.

I agree with you about Christians and politics - the only time I tend to disagree with people who are political is when the only thing they're known for is being ever-so-slightly hysterical and screaming outside the Houses of Parliament with placards.
But then, the Uk is a different place to US, on all sorts of levels, and sadly lacking in real gumption about this sort of thing.

Daniel said...

It seems the next logical step in orchestrating the moral decline of western civilization.

David A. Carlson said...

the key is, as you phrsed it, just what is "distinctive Christian political/social thinking"?

Once you define that phrase, then you can define which "party" does a better job at representing that concept.

DJP said...

Right. Done. Hence the post.

David A. Carlson said...

A list of topics is not a description of Christian political/social thinking.

Fine - we have these values - politics is about implementing values. How do we implement them - which policies do we support.

If we value the elderly, do we support a drug plan? Do we support social security reform? Which reform do we support?

Lance Roberts said...

If we value the elderly, do we support a drug plan?

NO, we support them with our alms & tithes (not to mention that drugs usually aren't the right answer).

Do we support social security reform? Which reform do we support?

Yes, but like most issues you need to go back to the initial causes & reasons. Related to the first question, it wouldn't be an issue if Christians were tithing as they were supposed to.

David A. Carlson said...

If you can stomach it, I recomend this post at Relevant for a fleshing out of a coherent pro life view. Not a complete one, but it does start to address in a bigger picture what care for the unborn means.

Paul said...

Maybe 'A new bill wants...' isn't so wrong - it could be referring to Hilary.

M said...

Very well said!

Anonymous said...

Accept this as my personal invitation to move your family to Kansas. I think we're the antithesis of California...or pretty close.

And, could you get someone at Grace Community Church to send a pastor out here to plant a church in KC?

We need it!