Excerpt:
A 41-year-old lesbian Utah legislator is pregnant with a baby she says she is carrying for two gay men, the intended parents.
Rep. Christine Johnson, D-Salt Lake, who has a 17-year-old daughter of her own with an ex-husband, is 16 weeks pregnant after have been inseminated with the sperm from one of the men, the Salt Lake Tribune reported Friday.
“I can very much empathize with their desire to become parents and share their lives with and open their hearts to a child. I’m immeasurably grateful to be a mother,” Johnson said.
A Democrat colleague has another idea:
Johson’s colleague, Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck, D-Salt Lake, a mother of two, said she is trying to get through a bill that would amend Utah adoption law allowing second-parent adoptions, in which a child’s biological parent designates an unmarried partner to be the second, adoptive parent.
My previous post on why people favor traditional marriage.
Comments will be strictly monitored in order to take Obama’s hate crimes law into account.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
It is a Romans 1 world. This is nothing new. A gay commenter on my blog mentioned how he donates to a sperm bank frequented by lesbians who want to have kids.
LikeLike
Notwithstanding how utterly bizarre this story is,it is a great segue into an issue I’ve been wrestling with for some time: should Christians get involved in politics? While there is no explicit reference one way or the other in the Bible, I think a good case can be made for not doing so. For instance, in the new testament there is no hint of overt political organizing in pursuit of specific goals i.e,easing of restrictions,outlawing torture etc.At the same time,great things have been accomplished by christians in political positions(Wilberforce for exampe).I guess the question is: are we christian politicians or politicians who are christians? Can anybody recommend a good book on this topic?
LikeLike
Thanks for this comment!
I am busy listening to a set of 5 lectures on this VERY topic sent to me by Brian Auten by probably the best theologian out there, Wayne Grudem. (He’s a Calvinist, though, blech!)
Anyway, he goes over that view, the opposite view and every view in between in his Biblical Principles Concerning Government here. There are more lectures in the 2010 link – looks like he is doing a series. This is Brian’s way to get me to listen to more theology and sermons. And it works! This stuff is awesome!
I also LOVED this series on Christianity and economics by Ron Nash, another icky Calvinist. (Blech!) Another philosopher I really admire.
And of course there is this video, lecture and book on Christianity and capitalism by Jay Richards. ANOTHER CALVINIST. (Blech!)
I listen to lots of people that are different from me, because I learn new things that way. As it stands, I am mostly in agreement with these guys on economics.
LikeLike
Wintery,
I’d love to discuss/debate Calvinism with you sometime because you really need to embrace biblical truth ;)
Seriously, it would be fun to discuss that but probably not in this thread!
LikeLike
OK, but first you have to read about middle knowledge, which is my view, and quite close to Calvinism.
LikeLike
Deal. I’ve definitely done some reading on it before and agree that it is close to Calvinism. Any specific article you’d like me to take a look at?
LikeLike
Here you go!
LikeLike
Warrick, I think your question suggests a dispensationlist theology which is unhealthy. God doesn’t change between the testaments but is eternally the same person(s). The Bible specifically spells out some distinctions between the testaments — basically that most of the OT ritualism faded away — but aside from that, I wouldn’t discount the OT in terms of providing you with moral examples. Paul stated that the OT saints existed for the purpose of providing us with examples.
Regarding your question specifically, consider the following passages:
Matthew 5:5 (the meek will inherit the earth)
Matthew 12:21 (“nations” will embrace Christ)
Matthew 19:28 (disciples will judge the twelve tribes)
Matthew 22:41-45 (expansion of the kingdom)
Mark 12:35-37 (expansion of the kingdom)
Luke 20:41-44 (expansion of the kingdom)
1 Corinthians 6:2-3 (Christians will judge the world — and angels)
Revelation 2:26-27 (The faithful in Thyatira will rule the nations with an iron scepter)
Revelation 5:10 (Christians will reign on earth)
Revelation 20:4 (Beheaded believers rule for 1000 years)
And if you don’t think Jesus’s arguments with the Pharisees were political, I don’t think you’re analyzing them very carefully. Religion and politics can’t be separated very easily.
The reason the NT doesn’t discuss Christians specifically organizing to end torture or whatever other immoralities you’re thinking of, though, is because doing that would just wash the outside of the cup. The entire world was headed to hell and Paul and the believers wanted to save as many as possible. Once they got saved and had the Holy Spirit, then they were in a much better position to live moral lives. Paul didn’t care about curing unsaved people of a few outward sins; he wanted to get people (including political leaders) saved so they would have an incentive to give up ALL their sins.
But even in the cases where you can’t convince everyone to believe, Paul specifically asked believers to pray that national leaders would have wisdom to carry out God’s roles effectively. It generally wasn’t a democracy so that was about the most practical kind of influence Christians had, aside from Christianizing the leaders.
LikeLike
Drew, I can see that you thought a lot about this question!
LikeLike
Christians have as their primary mission to preach the gospel. However, in nations such as the USA, we are citizens who have the right to affect our government policies whenever we can. Should we then be involved as our church or as private citizens? I don’t think the CHURCH as an organization has any job other than preaching the gospel and then discipling those coming to Christ. BUt as individual citizens we should do what we can to affect policy. Otherwise what is the point of being in a “democratic” society over a totalitarian one? But remember, it should be secondary because we are “citizens of heaven” first. There are people who spend virtually 24/7 on political issues to the detriment of their own spiritual walk.
LikeLike
So, who’s gonna breastfeed the baby? Who’s gonna give the baby his/her motherly love?
LikeLike
Wintery: Great tips for pursuing this subject. I also love listening to other points of view as that is generally the best way to learn. Iron sharpens iron.
Drew: Thanks for the comment.I’m at a loss to see how you can infer dispesationalism or any other position from my question so let me rephrase: while trying to come to some sort of conclusion regarding the matter, I take the position of an interested observer. As such, I can see both points of view and, more importantly, am open to being persuaded one way or the other hence my question.In practical terms, a new political party has just started in my area and I am considering whether or not to join.It is unwise and unwarranted to conclude anything re my theology based on the question.I think you need to be careful when categorizing dispensationalism as unhealthy.Many great bible expositors(Walvoord,Pentecost,Geisler)hold this position and it is certainly within the pale of orthodoxy.I believe John McArthur would describe himself as dispensationalist also. As regards that very point, I consider myself to be in the amillennialist camp, but as always, am willing to listen to informed arguments.
I’ll just make a few remarks about one verse you quoted and the overall thrust of your comment as to do so in detail would be too much of a burden on Wintery!The Pharisees were intent on implicating Jesus in blasphemy and law breaking, not making him out to be some sort of political rrevolutionary. Questions about working on the sabbath,and others, were designed to do just that.
As far as Matthew 5:5 is concerned,I see no way to equate this verse with my question.Meek people bow the knee before God and recognize their complete dependence on and need for Him.This will cause us to be gentle and meek in our dealings with others.As Tasker so aptly says: “When God has finally destroyed all who in there arrogance resist His will,the meek alone will be left to inherit the earth”.
Your point about religion and politics being hard to separate seems to beg the queation.In short, was your post a yes, no or maybe to my question?
LikeLike
Dispensationalism results when we assume that God meant parts of the Bible only to apply to other people. You originally wrote the following:
“For instance, in the new testament there is no hint of overt political organizing in pursuit of specific goals i.e,easing of restrictions,outlawing torture etc.”
First of all, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the New Testament as long as it’s in the Bible. As I stated before, God’s personality does not change.
Second, we don’t find overt political organizing in pursuit of specific goals among non-believers in EITHER testament. We don’t find Joseph or Daniel or Esther going on hunger strikes or engaging in revolves to end unfair taxation or abolish torture or repeal other corrupt laws.
But in both testaments, we find God’s people fellowshipping together, working to expand their influence from within by gaining members and/or territory, and disciplining the people under their control. (See 1 Corinthians 5-6 as a NT example.) So the believers certainly do implement their own moral ideals in both testaments, but they are pragmatic about it. They do what they can in their own positions (in America, this includes voting, free speech, and possibly running for office), but they don’t throw their pearls to the pigs. Jesus refused to be king over the unbelieving Jews, but he most certainly is the king of Christians.
So my answer to your question is that the Bible supports political involvement, but that it encourages to be smart about it and to keep in mind our main goal of evangelism.
LikeLike
Glen: Affecting society is an admirable goal. The question is, what is the best road to rome. Should Christians become political advocates or be content to ” go and make disciples of all nations”? That is the question. It seems to me having the RIGHT to affect policy is less important than having the ABILITY to affect policy, namely by changing hearts and minds.A Christian living in the most oppressive place on earth can still make a difference,though all his rights be forfeit.Curiously,I have yet to hear a single Christian say that God called him/her to be a politician.Who knows, maybe someone has been but I’ve yet to meet or hear of one. Your point is well taken however, we are indeed citizens of heaven first.Thanks for listening to my ramblings!
LikeLike
I’ll be posting some summaries of the Wayne Grudem material later this week.
LikeLike
Drew:Not sure why you seem to be focused on my supposed dispensational leanings. In fact, you are the one who brought it up!I’m still unsure as to how you interpret my question on Christians being political or not as somehow suggesting a dispensational point of view.Please feel free to enlighten me on this.As I said, I’m more of the amillenial persuasion,a point which seems to have escaped you as you are still on about dispensation.
I’m also puzzled as to your comment “God’s personality does not change”.How you get there from an inquiry about politics and the Bible is also beyond me.
You say “Dispensationalism results when we assume that God meant parts of the Bible only to apply to other people” and then quote something I said in my previous comment.Yet, I can find no connection between my comment and what you take dispensationalism to mean. Would you care to connect the theological dots?
I’m glad we both agree that “we don’t find overt political organizing in pursuit of specific goals”which is exactly my point.Instead, what we do see are a group of people obeying the two greatest commandments,loving God and loving their neighbors. It is this kind of agape love in action that won people over.
I hope you have reconsidered your view that dispensationalism is “unhealthy”.Remember, dispenationalism is one of many acceptable theological constructs and is something to be dabated,not impugned.It’s unfair to characterize people such as Ryrie and Feinberg ( as well as the other people I mentioned) as engaging in something “unhealthy”.Let’s not judge this view simply because there are some horrible promoters of this view( Hagee,Van Impe et al) out there.
LikeLike
Dan Wallace is one of the top scholars on Biblical manuscripts and he is at Dallas Theological Seminary. Darrell Bock is also there, and he’s one of my favorite theologians. So there are definitely some smart people who hold the view. Not arguing, just pointing that out for what’s it’s worth.
LikeLike
Dispensationlism is not the same thing as premillennial eschatology. Dispensationlism is exactly what I said before — the idea that parts of the Bible are applicable only to certain groups of people (people in the relevant “dispensations”). It’s possible to be a premillennialist without being dispensational, and if I looked really hard I could probably find some people who were dispensational but weren’t premillennial.
So yes, your comment about the NT not giving evidence of political involvement suggests a dispensationalism — because it assumes that the OT political passages aren’t enough. If God’s morality is eternal then we shouldn’t require everything in the OT to be repeated in the NT. Yes, I think dispensationlism is definitely unhealthy because the Bible says that ALL scripture is useful for teaching and reproving unto righteousness (not just the latest parts of scripture).
You talk about showing agape love toward our neighbors, but if you’re in a position of power, that includes showing love through political means. See Luke 3:12-14. Letting society murder babies is unloving. Letting the government impose taxes and slavery on the people is unloving. Letting the government oppress Christianity is unloving. And even if you couldn’t find a single passage talking about any of that in the NT, it would still be unloving because God condemned it in the OT.
LikeLike
Drew: At the risk of really beating a dead horse, my question has nothing to do with dispensationalism or any other viewpoint. You are “assuming” that it “assumes” that the Old Testament is insufficient. Nothing could be further from the truth and it is ridiculous to make such a leap. My reference to the new testament was intended first as an EXAMPLE( that’s what “for instance” usually means!) of what we find(or rather don’t find)in scripture as well as a jumping off point into what I hoped would be suggestions on where I can get further information. It was hardly meant to be all encompassing which should have been readily apparent. How you can get from that to what seems an obsession with refuting dispensationalism is beyond me.
I also think you are even more confused when you start talking about premillennial eschatology, something else I never brought up but for some unexplained reason you seem to want to introduce into the discussion.
I think it is a great error on your part to believe dispensationalism is “unhealthy”. Apparently, you know better than all the dispensationalists I mentioned. I would be interested to know what books you have read by dispensational authors. Dispensationalism (popularized by Darby and Scofield) is really a subset of one of the historically acceptable means of interpreting Scripture, namely futurism. This, along with the preterist,historicist and spiritual methods, have been the generally accepted means of approaching the Bible from about the time of the second century. While I am neither a futurist nor a dispensationalist, I accept that bible believing Christians can hold to these positions. The point is that we give thoughtful consideration to these positions and then come to our own conclusion. No one can categorically say one view is more correct than the other. That’s why we still debate these issues! And let’s not forget, our salvation doesn’t hinge on how we interpret what some would view as difficult bible passages. This may come as a shock but there are other acceptable interpretations of scripture besides yours!
Please feel free to defend your contention that Matthew 5:5 relates to Christians being politically involved. Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself i.e.” it doesn’t matter if it’s in the New Testament as long as it’s in the Bible” (referring to my comment about overt political organizing not being obvious in the bible) and then you say “we don’t find overt political organizing in pursuit of specific goals among non-believers in EITHER testament.’ So which is it?
I’m still waiting for you to explain how my original question can be interpreted as suggesting dispensationalism. Further, your comment introducing God’s unchanging nature still remains unexplained in context of my question.
I have no problem with a government mandating taxes. What I DO object to is inefficient and wasteful use of those taxes and whining from people about paying taxes without a realistic alternative to pay for all the services we enjoy. Your point about being in a position of power and demonstrating agape love presupposes those people in power hold a Christian world view which ,tragically( i.e. abortion, gay marriage etc.) they don’t. The issue is how we change their hearts and minds: Should we evangelize or politicize?
In conclusion, you have totally misunderstood my question from the start and, as error begets error, have continued to operate from a false premise. I can find no other reason to explain why you have gone off on such a tangent.
LikeLike