This morning I received an email from a “born-again” reader who chastised me for being a liberal.
“Why are you still politically liberal since becoming a born again Christian?” he wrote. “I was once liberal. But when I was born again, I believe the Holy Spirit changed many of my views to those that I think are the norm for all who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.”
Hmmm. Okay. Well, for the record, I’m neither liberal nor conservative. Depends on the issue. Some of my opinions probably qualify as “conservative.” A great many of them, I know, qualify as liberal. Call me a conservative democrat. Call me a liberal republican. Better yet, don’t call me at all—especially if you want to talk politics.
But this guy’s point is interesting. Because most Christians are politically conservative, right? But I always figured that weirdness had as much to do with culture and regional history as it does anything else. At the moment I became a Christian, I didn’t think, “Sweet! Now I know how to vote!” But apparently this reader’s conversion experience did lead him to start voting differently than he had before he joined the faith.
Does anyone out there really think that voting Republican is a natural consequence of being Christian? Because if it is, then isn’t any Christian who votes as a liberal democrat less of a Christian—less indwelt by the Holy Spirit—than a Christian who votes the Republican ticket? And if that’s not true—if believing in Jesus has no natural or particular bearing on a person’s political affinities—then isn’t it wrong for conservatives to assert that they have any better or more comprehensive a grasp on Christ’s spirit than liberals do?
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 128 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
I agree, of course.
John,
Mike pretty much covers what I meant. If they publish their financial records, I'm good with it.
I'm also more comfortable with organizations that aren't faith based, because it always feels like they're giving help with an asterisk that says "by the way, we're giving you this bowl of soup because we want you to convert."
I understand it isn't always that way, but it often feels like that, and I recognize that that feeling is sometimes irrational.
All I'm saying is that, believe me, if you gave to a church you belonged to, you would know where every last dime of whatever money you tithed went to.
But yeah, if I wanted to donate to the Salvation Army, and couldn't find any decent information on them, I wouldn't want to donate to them anymore. Charities, of course, need to be utterly transparent. And all real ones are.
Fair enough. I use http://www.charitynavigator.org. It does appear that some organizations, despite their exemption, file books anyway. I just cannot find any local religious organizations that do so.
For instance, when I searched for "Salvation Army", I got the following:
"We don't evaluate The Salvation Army.
Why not? Many religious organizations are exempt under Internal Revenue Code from filing the Form 990. As a result, we lack sufficient data to evaluate their financial health."
Okay, I don't want to get into a whole deal here, but I've never given money to any church that didn't publish–either quarterly or yearly– a full, detailed accounting of every last dime they spent. As far as I know, that's what all churches do; I personally have never known differently. Churches are made up of people, and NO ONE gives money blindly; congregations are forever holding the people in charge of their church accountable for where the money's going. That's just part of church life.
Also, when you give money to a "secular" organization (and I do, every month: we give to Doctors Without Borders and two others), you have no idea if your money's going to administrative costs, or what. And you don't care, because you trust them, and believe OVERALL in what they're doing. Same with churches. Except with a church, you REALLY get to influence how their money is spent, because you're part of that organization. Don't disparage church tithing. That's how a lot of people get fed. And clothed. And receive medical help. No one—no one—even comes close do doing for the needy what Christian charities do.
It always makes me uncomfortable giving money to an orgaization that does not have to publish their financial records. Churches are exempt (via IRS code) from making public filings of how they spend their money. So is the money going to feed the hungry, or put carpeting in the rectory, or paying off a lawsuit? Hence my monies go to secular organizations with open books.
But that must mean, morse, that you only give money to people who are then of course aware of the fact that you personally have given them money. You give … directly that way, one-to-one. And not only do you physically hand that person money, but you also do so with some sort of a prior assurance from them that they will spend that money in a way you approve of. That must be … awkward, right?
I prefer to give my money to the people who actually need it, and not an intermediary that may use my money for something that I don't want it to go to.
Totally inconsequential in light of the good done over time. But I suspect we'll never agree on that, and that's fine.
"There is no money on this earth that is better stewarded or more wisely used than that given via tithing."
When pastors stop building mega-churches and the Pope stops living in a golden palace, I'll be a little closer to believing that.
KNOW YOUR BIBLE!!! VOTE BIBICALLY IF POSSIBLE….PRAY WITHOUT CEASING! PRAY HARD…THERE IS NO ONE TO VOTE FOR. IT IS ALL A SET UP ANYWAY. THIS IS “MAN’S” WORLD…WE ARE IN IT BUT NOT OF IT. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE EVANGELICAL VOTE DISAPPEARED ALTOGETHER? EVER WONDER HOW THAT WOULD PLAY OUT? JESUS DIDN’T VOTE…NOR WAS HE COUNTED. WE WON’T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE LIE OF THE LAND MUCH LONGER AND THEN THE WORLD WILL SEE AND GET WHAT THEY WISHED FOR.
….and what are the McCain figures?……….
@ Morse (#79)
No, silly! To their own. DUH. Don't you know anything?
A tithe goes to your own church. A gift is on top of a tithe, and can go to your church or to any other charitable effort a person feels led to support.
There is no money on this earth that is better stewarded or more wisely used than that given via tithing.
God loves a happy giver. A good godly person will tell you that if you cannot give it freely and happily, then don't give it at all. But if you DO give graciously, it will all come back to you and much, much more.
Luke 6:38
"Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure–pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return."
Which has so way definitely been my experience.
Hope that helps
Jami…tithe to which church?
Let me guess. Yours.
Somehow it always works out that way.
Over the past 5 years, the Democratic candidate for president (and his wife) gave significantly less to charity than the Republican candidate (and his wife) did.
That just doesn’t compute in my mind.
Maybe that says that it’s the government’s job to eradicate poverty at home and around the world, more so than individuals?
PS: HOW MUCH OF OBAMA'S 52 MILLION AND McCAIN'S 41MILLION DID THEY TITHE? FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD…..
Net worth doesn't explain percentage donated of whatever income is earned.
Specific example from the Chicago Tribune:
"In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics.
That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University."
@Mark
McCain (or McCain's wife) is a bajillionaire (with something between 10 and 13 homes) and Obama only recently skyrocketed to stardom. McCain's net worth is $40.4mm while Obama's net worth is $1.3mm. Might not there disaparate net worths be a factor?
Obama
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712…
McCain
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712…
Before I met the Lord, I was a liberal with a capitol “L”! When I fell in love with Jesus after He revealed Himself to me personally – EVERYTHING about me changed, I was not the same person – not even a vague shadow of my former self existed. All of my ideals were then exchanged for what He desired from me and for me and His glory alone. I would respond to John’s article as this; The Holy Spirit does not abide by the rules of a democracy – He is part of a Kingdom in which He, God is King. Everything bows to Him and His ways. I recently heard that in every other part of the world believers willingly receive the message of submitting to godly order except in the US. We can’t readily process the idea of ‘God ordered’ because the understanding of “our individual rights” is so ingrained in our thinking. Therefore we believe that God should be influenced by our ideas of what’s right and wrong instead of what He clearly mandates and commands. Those who think that God is pleased by their voting in favor of things that He declares in His word as “abominable” are fooling themselves. No, God does not vote – He commands, we submit or we reap the consequences, period. The issues and people that are on the ballod that oppose His commands are the ones we reject and the ones that uphold His word and way are the ones we approve. C’mon people, this is not that difficult, that is, for those who “Delight themselves in Him” Ps 37:4 and those who “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in ALL your ways (including voting) acknowledge Him and He shall direct your paths.” Prov 3:5&6
@ Andrea
Very well stated! Christians all around the world are praying for American Christians because of the inconsistency you pointed out. We are so in love with our 'rights' that we have come to idolize them above our commitment to Christ. We want Him to be our 'Savior' but are unwilling to make Him our 'Lord'.
@Andrea
So are you voting for Huckabee?!?!?
@ Andrea -
So, that must mean that McCain, the divorced and remarried adulterer is off your list?
It’s not a question of whether or not the foetus (sic) is capable of suffering, it’s a question of whether or not the foetus (sic) has a spirit. If it does then abortion is murder; if not then it isn’t. — Tavdy
Assuming that the ‘spirit’ is endowed with its own rights, you are probably right. But this is a religious argument and not a universal argument…hence…the first amendment to our Constitution gives it no quarter in our government.
Firstly, I strongly believe that people should live with the consequences of their actions – and in the case of unprotected sex one obvious consequence is pregnancy. Abortions encourage people to act irresponsibly by taking away the “inconvenience” of pregnancy. — Tavdy
It would seem many equate support of abortion rights to simply having a convenient way to act irresponsibly. I don’t doubt that there are some irresponsible people that use it that way, but they would be the exception. I am 100% with you re: personal responsibility. But we also need to recognize the fact that people have sex with or without religious edicts not to. Where is the morality in bringing a child into poverty, addiction, abuse or dysfunction? To my mind; victimizing a child so is immorality of the highest order. It is one thing to for the ‘adult’ to pay the consequences of their actions, but where is the justification in having a child pay for their parent’s actions?
I agree with you wholly, though…irresponsible sex is immoral. The cult to which I formerly belonged also identified contraception was a sin too…just to complicate things further.
legislating morality is counter-productive — Tavdy
And for that, I [metaphorically] shake your hand.
I do believe as a Christian we ought to be carefull as to who we vote
for and what the person stands for in the long run vote for the person
who is standing for christian ideals and morality the best he or she
can. But republican or Democrat or Green party or other parties
you do not become more christian by voteing for a party.
I tell you I may vote partly for one party and choose one person
from another party to vote for because of his her stance on some
issue.
If you are Christian have Christ's life in you and your spirit is
discerning because of your christian views you don't need a party
you need discernment and then choose whom to vote for. and
where to stand on an issue.
I did a political test a few months ago to see who, as an Australian, I could vote for in the US election if I had the option. Despite my very Christianness, I came out as a Barack Obama supporter.
In Australia, the Liberal Party is the most "conservative" out of the two main political parties, and they'd prefer to keep the monarchy. Labor is more "liberal", and they want a republic. The Democrats have no real idea what they are.
So, anyway, what I meant to say in this post is that US politics makes no sense to me.
"What I can say, though, is that the non-differentiated embryonic cells can no more suffer than can a stone." – FVThinker
It's not a question of whether or not the foetus is capable of suffering, it's a question of whether or not the foetus has a spirit. If it does then abortion is murder; if not then it isn't.
Personally I'm not sure on that point – I've not read the relevant sections of the Bible, and I know there are conflicting views on this. However I'm still very much opposed to the ease with which women can get abortions, for two other reasons.
Firstly, I strongly believe that people should live with the consequences of their actions – and in the case of unprotected sex one obvious consequence is pregnancy. Abortions encourage people to act irresponsibly by taking away the "inconvenience" of pregnancy.
Secondly, abortions are a decision often made without the father's consent or even his knowledge and I believe that breaches his rights as a father. It's one of several ways in which men are treated as second-class citizens when it comes to the care of their own children, and that is profoundly wrong.
That all said, abortion is about the only major issue on which I agree with the Republicans and not the Democrats; regarding most things I tend to take a fairly liberal stance.
I spent a long time outside the Church, and while there I saw the Church as many others see us – and it is not a pleasant sight, especially when I consider the Great Commission:
" Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit " – Matt 28:19
All too often we get so focussed on proving that our way is the right way, the only way, that we forget to show love to others. We get caught up in legalism and pride, not willing to admit that we're human and might be wrong, and in doing so we hurt and alienate others. In some cases, love is even made conditional on absolute obedience; this is why so many gay and trans people have a near-pathological hatred of the Church. But a resentful heart cannot listen to the truth, so instead of winning souls we drive them away.
If we are going to win the hearts and minds of others we need to come alongside and try to understand them – but we can't do that if they are resentful of us, if they feel we're imposing our morality on them. In this respect, legislating morality is counter-productive – it pushes away the very people we should be trying to reach, hardening their hearts against Christ's message.
@Shell
Re: "Defending Life"…
It is pretty easy to make an argument against abortion on a broad scale. The complexity is that there is a vast difference between a cluster of cells and a full term baby. A simplistic argument is that somewhere along that continuum, the fetus gradually gains some sentience, can suffer, and gains consciousness.
I wouldn't delude myself into speaking authoritatively on that matter. What I can say, though, is that the non-differentiated embryonic cells can no more suffer than can a stone. I find it inconceivable that the author of your book can make a case against embryonic stem cell research without invoking a claimed divine soul imparted to the human embryo.
Keep me posted on that latter argument
umm… what happened to voting for the best person? I think it makes more since to vote for the right person instead of only voting for the people you agree with.
Hello, I just read you note about Is God a Republican. Let me tell you about an incident that happened at my church. I was new, so didn't know hardly anyone. Well, I attended this class and overheard someone say that " You cannot be a Democrat and Christian both" I was devastated. I still attend the church only because I know that's where God wants me. Also, that was the only incident to complain about. I went for a few years not letting anyone know my political affiliation. Then I thought—hey, why not?! So now some of the people that go to church there know where I stand. I like your idea of conservative Democrat. If I wasn't a poll worker, I would be and independant voter. Neither Dem or Rep. Just wanted to let you know. I struggle with this at times. but I am getting over it. I figured that whoever said it, is dealing with the Lord anyway. Thanks.
>>>Mike (FVThinker) Burns wrote: If you claim a victim where others do not see one; then you must make your case in a universal language, not a religious one.<<<
I just bought a book called "Defending LIfe: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice" that claims to do just this. It just arrived in the mail, so I haven't had a chance to start it yet, but the author bases his arguments on philosophical arguments, not religious ones. I'm looking forward to this read.
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →