mistrust of truth, I blame advertising...at least in part

I saw an advertisement in Wal Mart today, it was a picture of a stylish young man wearing retro style glasses frames. The quote above the picture said something to the effect of yesterdays best is todays fashion.

Stated as fact, truth, no opinion no option to discuss. Simply to accept or to reject the idea of this "truth". When I took my marketing classes in college, the entirety of the classes could be summed up into this basic concept, convince people to believe in what you are telling them, hence making your "truth" their "truth". Well, people have begun to reject this idea that I have to believe what you believe, and in part it probably has to do with this idea that advertising is trying to tell you what is and isn't "true".

As the saying goes, "I reject your reality and substitute my own", this mind set has become, for all functional purposes, a defense mechanism for people when they hear something they disagree with, or don't want to agree with it etc. This can be very dangerous, and when used in the extreme sense shown to be very silly as an idea. For example, person one, "a bite from that snake will kill you.", person two, "I reject your reality, and submit that this snake bite will not kill me." And so person two dies, probably adding a little chorine to the gene pool as a result.

So I call to the power of balance, if you are one who sees life as a subjective reality, determined with in your own mind as a result of processing external stimuli, perhaps is it wise for you to begin to explore that there are stimuli were 99.99% of the whole population will experience in the same way. From there beginning to understand that there is more to rejecting absolute truth than meets the optic nerves. Truth exists, that much is, I submit, obvious, what is less obvious to the general population is how to deal with truth.

And now congregation, let us meditate....

Psalms 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he meditates day and night. (NKJV)

I recently attended a service where the minister, before starting the service lead the congregation in meditation. We did some breathing exercises, were asked to think about all that we had on our minds, that which was weighing in our thoughts, and to begin to put those aside. To refresh our minds and open ourselves to the whispers of the inner voice (holy spirit).

While many conservative individuals might have been uncomfortable with this ceremony or ritual, I found it very refreshing. How many times have we walked in to a service with thoughts other than God on our minds. I could list a few, the fight we had on the way to church, the roast in the oven, and we could continue on and one. Yet, how many times do we go to a service where the minister, elder, announcer etc, takes a moment to affirm that we are all most likely burdened in mind and that we should all take a moment to be quiet, be still and begin to take captive of our thoughts in preparation to worship and listen to God. Instead we are rushed through announcements, hit with praise and worship songs and then lead into a passage with a few good stories and 4 points to take away. All being soundly forgotten over the afore mention roast, as you are trying to separate two fighting siblings.

Can we not slow down our efficient services? can we not lend time for reflection, meditation, a chance for Gods people to reclaim their sanity before attempting to bring forward our worship? I also submit that as we come to our services that we should be partaking in our own personal preparation for worship. But I have a larger concern that we are "quenching the spirit" when we allow our well oiled machine like services to run roughshod over the workings of the holy spirit, who is not on a time schedule and honestly is more important that the programmes that are being held that week.

I realize that I am probably just one voice in the desert yelling out, and therefore you all think i am crazy. However I cannot help but think that our services are about "us", they are programmed for US not GOD, they are designed so that WE would be happy not GOD, they get US in and out as painlessly as possible, so we can get out of these uncomfortable clothes. I have lots of questions, with little answers, but what I do know is that we need to start taking the "us" out of the assembling of the believers, and put the focus back on God. This doesn't mean better teaching, longer alter calls, more praise and worship songs. It means taking time at the very beginning to reflect, to empty the room of "us-ness", and our thoughts, our worries, our cares, and fill ourselves with peace, so that the indwelling presence of God might not be stifled.

Judging others, right or wrong? (A biblical argument, not just a rant)

There are many ideas and opinions on this topic, many I have found to be based on out of context scripture and leaning slightly liberal in direction. If you think that I am now about to rant about it, you are indeed wrong. I propose that there has been enough ranting, over what is right and what is wrong, and enough bickering based on hypothetical situations. Let me be clear, this discussion is only to be used in Christian relations, it is another topic for another time, but as Christians we have NO right to hold those that do not claim Christ as their Lord and Saviour to our standard of living, specifically the bible. So if you are looking at lost people's actions through the lens of the bible, STOP IT! Yes they are sinners, yes they need Jesus, but if you are going around trying to tell them how bad they are and how much they need Jesus then you are attempting to do the Holy Spirit's work, and therefore have failed before you even opened your mouth. You are a hindrance to the kingdom not a help so back off. 

The most common scripture that is used concerning this topic is "do not judge others" which is 1/2 a quote. The entire quote can be found in Matt 7:1 "Do not judge others, or you too will be judged.", lets continue on to verse 2, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Luke 6:37-38 records it this way "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

What can we say then? Do not judge? It certainly appears so, in both cases it appears that there is a command, backed up with the warning that our judgement of others will be then used and held against us. This might not bother you, as you will never have sex before marriage, so you can judge that couple you know allowed temptation into their relationship, or you will never have an abortion so why should you care about judging harshly the actions of those involved with the issue. Well my answer to that, which could take a whole other note, is that you are justifying your actions, based on one, the standard cannot be held to you if you do not do the same action, and second that God sees all sins as individual and separate from each other. Which, even though the first might appear to be logical, it is not, and the second is covered extensively in scripture, allow me to deviate briefly.Throughout the bible there is a theme of internal vs external, the heart (the seat of your emotions driving your actions) vs the outward actions or appearance. This concept is really picked apart by Paul in Romans discussing how circumcision, the covenant between Abraham and God, is invalid if it is only a matter of flesh, if there is no internal character motivating the outward display of said character, then it is meaningless. For example, a person can put a sign in front of a building that says "Christian Church" (I despise denominations, but that is a topic for another day.), but if they are sacrificing animals and calling upon zeus, satan or zork, master of the interplanetary alliance, then it is not a Christian Church, the outward label, or display, does not represent the inward character. 

Back on track to the previous arguments, which I would submit go awry in the heart. Listen (read) carefully i don't want to be mistaken for some heretic, actions do speak louder than words, no doubt. But from the previous argument, the outward appearance holds little weight as to what is the inward character agreed? Therefore, when we sin, yes God sees the outward rebellion toward his commands, but his gaze passes through our actions and straight at our rebelling heart. Yes, I believe that there are some sins that in action hold greater weight than others, but this is not a discussion about that. If you are following me this far, then I would submit, that sin as a condition of the heart, that all sin, to God, has the same motivation, the same origination. All sin stems from a heart that has forsaken God, and has chosen to act out of it's own will and desires. If then this is can be held to be true, you thinking hateful thoughts or internally cussing out a crying baby as an inconvenience at walmart, is, at it's roots, the same condition that would lead a young lady to abort an unwanted child out of inconvenience to her. Remember these are not the same actions, and as actions they hold different weights, but as a matter of the heart, they are identical. If you look to another human and entertain sexual thoughts about them, your heart is not different than the couple that allowed their hearts to be swayed by passions of the flesh. This can be seen in Matt 5:21-30. 

If then actions might be weighed differently, but in all matters of those actions can be traced to a sinful heart. Then the standard at which you judge a person, as you might think you are judging their actions but you are indeed judging their heart, can then be used, to judge your heart. Therefore there is not a sin on this earth that you can judge that you will be free from returning judgement from God, and lets be honest, God is more patient and just than any person on this earth so I would rather be judged by him, and not by my standard. I don't feel that I need to expound on the fact that God is the only being in the universe with the ability to judge justly and righteously, if you have disagree with that, well perhaps you should start reading your bible. In conclusion, going back to the passage in Matthew, Jesus asks us, how can we pull the speck out of a persons eye, when we ourselves have a plank, but it does not end there, we are commanded to remove the plank, or get our heart right with God so that we might be loving with the right motive, and then to remove the speck out of our brother or sisters eye. We are not to judge the speck, we are not to lord it over them and make an issue out of it, but HELP them to remove the speck after we ourselves are in right relationship with God, the judge. See we don't need to judge anything, God already has done it for us, and set the standard. All we have to do is hold up the standard, let God's word judge and then love the person enough to help them through the sins and effects of the sin.

Before I end, let me also be clear on this, removing the spec involves the other persons trust, and willingness to allow you to remove the spec, this is built on relationship with the person, don't just try to take specs out of everyones eye. Lastly, the bible is very clear and specific when it warns us that not all who have a spec or a log will be willing to remove it, or allow us to help them remove it. Love them, continue to minister to them, but if they are not having a change of heart, then the bible has instructions for that. 

Are you called by His name?

Isn't it funny that God's message and His purpose transcends, well basically everything. 2 Chronicles 7, is a powerful chapter where after Solomon and the Nation of Israel has dedicated the new temple, God has come down, made it his house and made a very public appearance of power in the temple to show that He was satisfied with the temple. He then appeared to Solomon, as the leader of the nation, and we find some instructions, encouragement and warnings. Most of the sermons and discussions that I have heard personally often concentrate on verse 14 alone, which is a great verse, however there is so much more packed into the latter part of this chapter. 

I find it very powerful that God tells Solomon, "if my people, we are called by my name", here it is referring to the Nation of Israel, or "God's chosen people", but today, we are called CHRIST-ians, we are titled with the literal name of, or the name of one person of the trinity. I just think that is cool, it is a God thing. 

So basically four things, 

1) God will hold his blessings, he will cause disaster to fall on the earth in order to not only show his power, but remind us of our complete inadequacy, can you stop a hurricane? earthquake? swarm of locust? Can you make it rain? NO! This passage is very clear that God controls it, and can and will use it to, and see this, test the people, whom are called by his name. This is not a punishment for anything, this is God withholding blessing or causing calamity in order for the heart of those who call on Him to really come out. He knows our hearts, so he is not getting us to remember that He is God, and we are nothing in order for him to see how serious we are, but for what I believe is to show the unbelievers His power. 

2) When God causes these things to happen, he has prescribed our reaction, humility and prayer. When calamity takes hold of our lives, how often do we accepted it? or do we drop our shoulders and tough it out. Our humility is confirmation of our allegiance to God, why? because if you truly know God, you know that he desires one thing, TO BE GOD! That means that when we encounter situations in our life that are beyond our control, our understanding of it should be, well since I am not in control, I had better focus on the one who is. How do we do that? We pray. So in recognizing that God is God, and we are nothing is humbling ourselves to realize that we have no control over the situation, and that we need God to direct us, and that leads us topray, more specifically communicate, not just throwing up words to the ceiling. Quick note, there is the turning from wicked ways included in this part, well are we not all wicked? I believe that this is not referring to rebellious sin exclusively, but to any behavior that would be hindering your walk with God, you will see what I mean below. Lastly, God came to Solomon alone with this information, a leader in the Nation, leaders this is important because we are to LEAD the flock to restoration, don't just assume that they are going to do it on their own!

3) In the above I submitted that the first part of these verses is God encouraging his people that he will test them, and when he does how they should respond. In the latter part of the chapter I would submit is the warning. If you turn away, I will ridicule you, this is the message that God has for His people. This is not an america come to Jesus message, I don't really think God really cares about country devisions, He cares about his church, regardless of where it is. 

4) The reason that he will ridicule those who called on His name, and then rejected it, is not only to discipline us, but also to show the people around us, that He is serious about our affections, and does not tolerate our adultery as the church against God.

What the gathering of believers (church) is not

My argument stands simple, the gather of the believers (church) is not for the unsaved, it is for making disciples, teaching and rebuking the believers. Assisting them in their journey to be more like Christ. Is it not better to have 30 or 40 people together, wholly devoted to God and his teachings, submissive to church leadership, growing spiritually, and in turn going to their jobs on monday morning and sharing the gospel with those around them, than it is to have 3000 or 4000 disconnected, program consuming, weekend culture christians with no growth, and no respect towards leadership. 

Go therefore and make disciples, not megachurches.... nothing against them, some I am am sure might be doing it right, but unity is the litmus test. View of church and the measure of it's success is what is displayed in the bible, not giving reports, not membership, not campus sizes or numbers. 

There is stands, to my generation, what will be your response?

Is there a God, and can we describe him/her/it? (warning Long!)

This idea of a god(s) is not something individuals have really struggled with, until “recently” in the scope of history, when science began explaining things in a way that was tangible and therefore began to erode the western concept of the unexplainable as that which is mythical, or that some “extra-terrestrial deity” is involved in the unexplainable happenings on earth. As a result, and primarily in the west, people began losing faith in the church, as an authority in their lives, and began towards solid tangible evidence. To the scientific method and reason to replace the silly notion of believing that somewhere out there, were these unseen entities who were in a type of cosmic relationship with humans on earth.

However, if we were to look past this period of scientific enlightenment, and even in some of the more primitive, isolated, cultures of today, we will find an unspoken “need” to focus upon an entity for explanation of that which is unknown. Tribes in Africa today will look to ancestors, who are in the spirit world, to explain why tragedy or good fortune happen. The Aborigines of Australia would look towards an event in history of the “dreamtime” as their creation story. When we take a look into ancient history, there is not a people group, nation or empire that does not have some affiliation with gods. They each seem to disagree in agreement that there are some supernatural power(s) that exists, that it or they existed before time, that it or they had some hand in the creation of matter and life, and that humans are in some way bound to relationship with these entities. So the question which needs answering, and shall be explored, is whether there is a god, and if there is a relational element to this god, how can we know or begin to understand who this god is.

If we took a vote based upon the majority of history, and peoples today, the overwhelming majority of peoples would affirm a god or gods that existed. That these gods had some similar fundamental qualities: each lived within a realm that is apart from our limited physical world, they had some hand in the act or method of creating our physical world, and that this entity or group of entities are somehow bound in a relational fashion to their creation. One of the oldest religions, or views about such an entity, is Judaism, found within the national of Israel. Israel is not only spoken of in their literature, but also in the literature's of many nations throughout history. In fact, besides only a few remote or rural cultures in the world today, there is no other surviving religion that can be recorded to a period which is as ancient.

This is also the only “nation” where a book such as the Tanak, or Hebrew Bible, is so largely distributed throughout the world, which stands it apart out from other religions. Also separating Judaism from other cultures is the notion of only one god, in the face of nations and religions who would affirm a plethora of gods and goddesses. This does not make it the “right” one, just because of the uniqueness of the structure, but these facts to make it worth a second look. Rather than dismissing it as simply another ancient form of superstitious institution in an attempt to explain that which is supernatural.

This book has a powerful statement in the very beginning of it, “In the beginning God....”(Gen1:1 ESV), there is no explanation, no elaborate story about or of this god, but rather a statement that demands an immediate response without discourse or persuasion. This god created everything that we see in our limited physical world, and created us, humans, in some form of image resemblance. Not only did he create us, but created us for the purpose of relationship to and with this god. Through events preceding this perfect relations, there was a rebellion which broke the created relationship. In light of this story, the reader can either affirm the presumption of the book, there is a divine entity which exists and this is apparently a story about “it”. Or one can cast aside this statement as some ancient hoodoo garbage that is outdated in light of that which is real, science! In doing so I am able to continue reading about how silly these ancients were in trying to understand their world. If there is a god, that was before there was anything else, and he created everything (as the story indicates) then I, as created, am in a subjected relationship to this god and there is a response demanded of me.

If, however, this is some ancient text which is disproved by a modern view of science and the impossibility of such an entity ever existing, one is not inclined to respond to the story at hand. But this is getting ahead of ourselves, because from this religion there sprang from within a “new” religion, centered around a “man”, who claimed to be/be apart of the “god” which is mentioned in the first sentence of the Tanak, or Hebrew Bible, which rearranged slightly is also the Old Testament, or section 1 of 2, of the new religion's book, the Bible. This “man”, commonly referred to as Jesus, but was most likely actually named Joshua, claimed to be the son, or birthed by this god, but was not separate from this god. This “man” who claimed deity and a submissive equal existence with the god whom is revealed to us in the Tanak/Old Testament, committed an act of self sacrifice that would allow for a small portion of perfect relations to become a reality for all those who would respond correctly to the work of Jesus.

So now, not only does the reader need to respond to the notion that there either is or is not this god which this story is presenting, but now I must decide between two whole religions claiming to be right based upon the same god.

(In my own mind I can understand now how someone coming to this for the first time, with fresh eyes could be only but confused. Understanding how complicated this is, and how completely counter cultural to the typical westerner, is important and we should always be looking for new ways to present the truth. Most importantly, regardless of how we present the truth, making sure we do it in a way that is not trying to hide the difficult parts, or “candy coat” it, but rather in an open and honest fashion. Also, to allow people time to digest and respond, yes there are decisions on the spot, however I believe that people also need time to seek out answers, to find the path.)

If we are considering responses to the Bible, then the appropriate response suggested it to affirm there is a god, not only a god, but The God, and affirm the truth that is contained in connection with the aforementioned summary of God, creation, fall, Jesus and limited restoration of personal relationship with God. However, there are a host of individuals who would either out right reject the truth of the Bible, and would chose to cast it aside as ancient superstition, inferior to science. While others would hold to their “ancient” beliefs of the world, creation and how the supernatural would play out in this world. So, if I believe that there is The God, and affirm that there is in the story of this God an intentional relational side to the creation of humans, I must respond by being in relation with The God. How then can this be done? Who, or maybe better asked what is this God whom I must respond to in relationship?

When reviewing confessions of faith throughout Christian history, it is interesting and perhaps somewhat humorous, each begins a paragraph on God. In this paragraph about God there are always the same basic ideas, God is big, God above our understanding, we cannot describe God fully. Then, these various confessions, take multiple paragraphs doing what has just been stated as impossible, which is describing and attempting to understand God. It all seems counter productive, we say, “There is no box big enough to hold God”, and then try to put in a box by attempting to place this God within our human minds. So why then do we seek to describe the indescribable? Why do humans seek to understand God? The answer can be found in the relational side of God.

As a believer in God, and a follower of the Christian Bible, I would submit it is obvious why it is that we seek to describe God, understand God, and try to figure out God. It is because God made us this way, created us for the purpose of relationship withus. When we enter into a relationship with an individual, whether romantic or otherwise, the best way to get to know the other part of the developing relationship is to ask questions. Or to spend time with the person, watch their habits, their manner of responses to the constant stimuli that is life upon this planet. Our relationship with God is no different than this example. If God has created us as relational beings, and therefore we exhibit in some fallen way the desires for relational connection. Then we can have a small glimpse of how relationships function in the beginning stages. Using this observation as a useful metaphor, we begin to ask questions of God in order know God.

The only problem you or I have of asking these necessary questions of God, that God doesn't doesn't really just answer in clear terms when you and I simple ask out loud. Rather God is “hidden” in creation, revealed in scripture, and seen as a likeness in man today. Granted, all of these “images” of God are some how befuddled through a filter of a fallen and sinful world and so all areas where we might seek to find our answers we humbly admit may not be perfectly accurate, but can at least point us in the right direction. The universal standard and authority on God can be found in what some believe are his inspired words, transmitted through the ages to us today. I tend to be one of these individuals. There are those who would discredit any type of authority that could be claimed by the Bible, and so absolving themselves of any attempt to know or understand a God who created and sustains the whole earth presently.

So, if the Bible is, as stated, God's story, in which God plays a major role, perhaps it is the best place to start. There are a lot of really great, big, words used today to describe the different attributes of God. Rather than simply writing down a list of words, their definition and where scripture would appear to indicate a proof text for such a trait. I would rather start in this endeavor by looking at the recorded events where man and God interact, or have relationship in a personal “real” way. As we look across the scope of scripture, we find God revealing God to humans in many different ways. In a physical form, as a voice, as fire that does not burn, as a whisper in the wind. Simply stated what we find is, as is affirmed in many confession statements, a God who refuses to be confined to something that is finitely knowable, who reveals rather in a way that is understandable by our finite minds. The bible tells us of experiences where men beheld God in a vision or a dream, but yet he clearly told Moses that no man could ever see the full Glory of God and live. So I best understand this to mean that God is in control of how much he reveals to us, and to humans past, present future.

As mentioned, without creating a laborious list and definitions and endless discussion, where we find who and what God is, has been closely connected with what we find in the Bible. However, there are those whom would claim to be followers of this God, and someone who would claim somewhat in the Jesus; but would reject the validity of the Bible as the authority on God. This response has largely been determined by a host of German scholars in the mid 1900's who began to question the validity of the Bible as a source of truth. These scholars began cutting up, dissecting and destroying the credibility of scripture as an authoritative revelation of God, who and what God is. This has created a host of problems for those would refuse to see scripture as the source of understanding God, because then we have no record of God, and can therefore not begin to understand God, without questioning every description or revelation of him.

Therefore we are left with two very clear and opposite choices. First, to affirm that the Bible is truth,by affirming it is true we must respond to the fact that there is a God, that this Bible speaks of such, we are created for relationship with this God, and that we find limited answers about God in this Bible. Or secondly, we reject the notion that this Bible, this collection of mythical writings, and therefore are not compelled to respond to anything that we would see as “untruth” over that which we might claim as truth. As far as I am concerned, and have stated previously, I would affirm the former position. However, I am not quick completely reject the idea of looking closely at the scripture asking of it to show us proof. Just as I don't believe that Christianity is some mythical religion, I don't believe that as followers of Christ we should live in mystical belief when it comes to God, and the Bible.

So when teachers of the Bible come with the scrupulous eye and the “untrusting senses” to the scripture and the text in preparation for a message or a lesson, the Bible can be treated with respect and reverence, but also begin to teach listeners in a way that is necessary. This way still affirms all of the truth and holiness, and dignity of God, the Trinity in all of who and what God is, but it also raises that which we know of God, above the level of blind mystical assumptions about God. For example, we can look at how God might have used an eclipse, a natural occurring phenomenon when he blotted out the sun in Egypt, and this does not take away from God. We can begin to understand how big God is, without using language that would paint a vague mystical impression of an infinite, and potentially impersonal deity. Everyone struggles with their faith at some point in time, something catches them up, do they really believe what the Bible says, they ask how, who, and what questions, that we as the teachers of the word need to answer, not just in a counseling session, but on Sunday mornings as well. For, I believe, that if I do not as a teacher teach people in an intelligent, post illumination way, while still affirming the truth. Those who would would teach in such a manner, but would rather reject the truth would have a stronger voice to lead the people astray. 

Why I do not Vote, confession, not advocation

I realize that as believers of God, and followers of Jesus (or more correctly Yeshua/Joshua), we each live with some tolerance of seemingly opposing ideas. God is one, God is three, God holds and controls everything, but we are not programmed robots. The list goes on, and each of us live with an opinion of each, and struggle more with some than others to understand how this is lived out in our lives. All I ask is that you read this with an open mind, but you can leave up any guard you might have. Allow yourselves the opportunity to think about what it is that you do, why you do it, and for whom you do it for. 

Currently I am struggling with this two part yet I find strongly bound concept. We are citizens of an eternal kingdom, and should therefore live accordingly, living in a world, but not of the world, but we live in a real world where our choices make, or appear to make, and impact on the population at large. That God is bigger than any nation or kingdom, in fact God establishes kings and kingdoms, yet it is our "duty" to vote so that the voice of the people can be heard (or insert your own purpose for voting). 

So I submit, that it is not a duty, it is a freedom, a choice, an option that we as temporary citizens of America have. If you call it a duty, then what you do is you create an instance where it is okay to endorse someone who has a public opinion that is contrary to scripture, or you make a choice to vote for the lessor of two evils, but you are still choosing something which is evil.  Those who would identify with the opening statement, have but one "duty" to selflessly, passionately, and actively protect the glory of God. How can we do that, and vote for someone who would affirm abortion? but that is okay because the other candidate wants to take away my guns. So what you have then done is to make a choice based on what you want, where you heart is, not for the glory of God. 

(side note, as followers, we are the only ones who are accountable to the Bible. So stop picking abortion clinics or anything else, start praying for God to show you how you can love them, serve them make disciples of them, talk to people there, they are lost, therefore THEY CAN DO WHAT EVER THEY WANT, so back off and love. You don't see Paul telling the Ephesian Chruch to picket the Temple, or shout abuse at the temple harlots. You worry about your faith based works, and leave the lost alone in their lives, this is not the Nation of Israel, God's law does not  apply to every one.) 

Now, voting is not a sin, I do not believe that as followers of God we are not allowed to vote. However I do not see a mandate to take over government, to place "good" people in authority. Rather I see a God who says, let me deal with the way countries are run, you make disciples, you defend my glory, you LOVE people. So, should a true follower of God appear on the ballot, let us as followers vote for him or her, and give them our full support. BUT if there is not one whom is a citizen of the Kingdom, I believe that rather than choosing the lesser of two evils, we can choose to pray, and acknowledge God has creator, sustainer and KING, of this world and the next. That no matter who we do or do not vote for, this country is a mess, this world is a mess and that unless there is a president, senate, house of representatives, supreme court, and on down, filled with citizens of the Kingdom, nothing will change to make this a nation of God's followers. 

Therefore, I have come to a place, where I shall choose to use my freedom not vote, I shall instead seek to turn towards the face of God, and allow the cares and worries of this world to fade. To place God as above all things earthly, to affirm in my mind, confessions and actions. Instead of saying that God establishes authority, but I must vote for who I think God wants. I believe that God is just in appointing a sinner because God's concerns are entirely centered upon the glory of God and ours are not. I don't care if you vote, or not. We shall all appear before the judgement seat of God, so act according. But I would say I care about your motivations, and where your allegiances lay. My dream for an ideal world, is to have all the body of Christ, humbling themselves before God, admitting their insufficiencies, asking to God to guide and lead them, and that the will of the Father be done on earth as it is in heaven, but we don't live in this world. 

So whether you vote or not, is not the issue, whether you are american or not, is not the issue. The issue is, do you trust God? Do you live a life that is in line with what you confess? Do you place duty to an earthly nation above the duty to the glory of God? The above position is how I believe I can live this concept out, it may change I don't know that is God's plan, not mine. 

I would love comments, concerns, wisdom. Here are some great reads, I think anyway, of different opinions on this issue.

http://www.ccc.org/Newsletters/Observer/SinglePage/observeroct06.pdf

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/voting.

http://www.thercg.org/books/scv.html

http://andjustincase.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-should-christians-vote-in-2010.html

 ·  ·  · Share · Delete