• GregJ

    I liked the thoughts. Christianity should not be reckless, nor should it be too safe. To me that is the individual tension the writer is talking about. That healthy tension is better represented in government by two parties than it is by one trying to be all things Christian. I don’t want what I believe mandated to me. I don’t want what I believe mandated to someone else. It won’t have its effect in either case. We are Americans. We are not too safe, we sailed the Atlantic and traveled west after we got here. We are not to reckless, we made it. Personally I don’t want to be so safe I’m worthless, but I’m not sure what that looks like. Somewhere between no one and anyone I guess.

  • Pingback: What a hypocrite: Liberal pro gay marriage Gushee calls out Republican politicians for setting aside biblical teachings | Laodicean Report()

  • Fran

    The Bible’s principles and guidelines should always take precedent in a Christian’s daily life. Unfortunately, the politics of man do not always agree with those principles and guidelines. It’s like mixing oil and vinegar. I will stick with Bible principles and avoid getting involved with man’s politics.

  • T J

    How does Christianity ever lose its effect?

  • Observer

    A party that mainly seeks to protect the wealth of the very rich should never be expected to carry out Christian principles.
    However, Christian principles can be carried fulfilled by building humane refugee camps that are safe with the sick attended to, the naked clothed, education provided and the hungry fed without allowing a mass migration of refugees into this country. Refugees could be prepared to return to their homelands once hostilities have ended.

    We do need to burden local government resources with added responsibility when it cannot or will not care for the poor and sick native born American population here now. We do not need to expose the population here to added security threats.

  • Larry

    When people use it as a political party. When it is used to excuse bad behavior towards others. When it is entangled with the apparatus of government.

    In those instances the credibility of Christianity as a religion becomes suspect. Adherence to it becomes more a measure of opportunism and hope to gain privilege over others, rather than an actual spiritual belief.

    “explicit references to Christian faith and values” used by conservative political candidates is nothing more than a means to an end. A way to appeal to reactionaries and sectarian bigotry with nothing to do with religious doctrines.

    One of the reasons immigration reform fails to gain traction among conservative christians despite overwhelming support by clergy is that when push comes to shove, bigotry is generally a more appealing use of religion than compassion by rank and file believers.

  • Larry

    “hungry fed without allowing a mass migration of refugees into this country. Refugees could be prepared to return to their homelands once hostilities have ended.”

    That is an utter pipedream, impossible to implement, but salves one’s conscience over indifference and hostility to refugees. Its like saying lets create humane concentration camps. At the end of the day, you have hordes of people who are stateless and dependent on international handouts.

    The US has a very good record of handling mass migrations of refugees that few other nations have. It is utterly callous and hypocritical to deny people the opportunities our own ancestors had.

    Our local governments are burdened with the inability to take care of our native born population because so many of those “Bible thumping” conservative politicians feel enriching the upper echelons of society are more important than properly funding and supporting a social safety net.

  • Bud

    It’s very frustrating that hardly anyone brings up this hypocrisy. They tout “Christianity” in almost everything they talk about, yet their actions are devoid of backing up said “faith”.

    I use quotation marks because they aren’t Christians, nor do they have faith other than in the almighty dollar. It pains me to see being religious automatically associating one with conservatism and the GOP, when, for decades now, they’ve been pretty much the opposite of the Bible’s teachings, preaching hate, fear, and intolerance.

    Love thy neighbor? Not if he’s gay, Muslim, or is affiliated with the Left.

    I may sound harsh, but the reality is harsh and IMO, these charlatans are doing serious damage to Christianity, and all religions in general. No wonder young people are turning away from religion in record numbers, making sense when you see their examples of it, day in and day out.

    My point is it seems those on the left are more akin to Jesus’ teachings, both in their speech…

  • alison

    Love your neighbor? Not if he’s a republican or conservative. You illustrated your point very well, Bud. And conservatives give more than liberals, so there’s that.

  • Bud

    Nowhere did I say I didn’t love them, I just abhor what they stand for and are trying to do to this country, pointing out how opposite of the Bible’s teachings they are.

  • Though I agree with the overall sentiments expressed in the artilcle above, I believe that way the argument was made in the article was self-defeating. First, we should note that taking care of the vulnerable is not just a charity issue, it is a justice issue. That means that instead of just focusing on the graciousness of the giver, we need to include in our examination the victims and what is owed to them by the rest of us.

    In addition, I’m afraid that the ‘ethical dualism’ argument could also be used by my fellow religiously conservative Christians as a justification for trying to prohibit practices like same-sex marriage in society. After all, we can rightfully say that our bibilcally based faith preaches against same-sex relations and marriages. So some ethical dualism must come into play if we are to support same-sex marriage in society–note that I wrote society, not the Church.

    Therefore conditions must be set for when dualism is appropriate and when it isn’t.