The idea of being zealous (passionate) is nothing new. The Bible is full of example of zelotry (passion).
- Simeon and Levi took zealous vengeance by killing the men of Shechem for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen 34:1–31).
- Elijah was “zealous for the Lord” in killing the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18:36–40; 19:10–18.
- King Jehu slaughtered all who worshipped Baal (2 Kgs 10:16–27).
- And King Josiah rooted out idolatry from the land (2 Kgs 22:1–23:30).
- Paul the apostle identified himself as a former zealot who persecuted Christians to death on behalf of the traditions of the forefathers (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:6; cf. Acts 22:3 and Rom 10:1–4).
- In the NT, there were 4 main religious groups; Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, and Zelots. It was the Zelots who believed that any cooperation with the Government was a violation of the first commandment to not have any false gods.
Being zealous, either for Government or against it, is nothing new. In America, I think we are blessed by God with the right to vote. We, as Christians, should be active in voting our faith, but politics should not be our passion. Our zeal, should really be for something far more important. Here are a few thoughts from some key passages in the Bible that relate to politics and passion.
Be zealous for good works
Titus 3:1-4
Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
Using political power to force others to do “good things” is not the same as doing good works. Our passion should be to help those in need and in so doing we demonstrate the kindness of God.
Be zealous for the Gospel
Acts 5:27
When they had brought them, they stood them 1before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and 1yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 “The God of our fathers braised up Jesus, 1whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a 2cross. 31 “He is the one whom God exalted 1to His right hand as a 2bPrince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. “And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Sometimes we are forced to disobey the authorities for the sake of the Gospel. Our passion for Jesus sometimes runs counter to the desires of politicians and in these times we must let our passions rule.
Be Zealous for mercy
Titus 3:5-11
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs 1according to the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
How sad when our Christian faith is defined by the foolish controversies that ensnare politicians. Regardless of the political system over us; Democracy, Socialism, or Fascism, our passion for mercy should rise above it all.
Be Zealous for Spiritual Battle
Eph. 6:10-13
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.
In a Republican-Democracy, we have the blessing of voting our conscience. In obedience to the authorities over us, we should participate in the system. But our enemy is not the Republicans or the Democrats. Our enemy is not Roe v. Wade, Nationalized Healthcare, or the Military. Our enemy is the spiritual powers that seek to destroy us and hinder the Gospel.
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Hey J.R.
I mostly enjoyed your post. I was hoping you would explain this comment further: “In obedience to the authorities over us, we should participate in the system.” I’m not following this as logic or as a biblical mandate.
How is it that you consider voting, something that both Jesus and Paul did not have in mind (I think for more reasons than one), as obedience to the authorities? I ask because it seems to be a bit of a stretch to say a person is being disobedient to authorities (therefore to God) by not voting.
Overall, I like what you’ve proposed here, but I do think it’s a message that has been given many times over. When I hear the same biblical messages being given, true messages indeed, but I don’t see any real changes in the way we relate to government… I have a terrible feeling we like New Testament rhetoric but not New Testament practice.
Your thoughts?
Hi David, so your main question is this, “How is it that I consider voting a demonstration of obedience to authorities?” Good question brother. I did not write in some of the details because I am finding it hard to put into writing what I have been teaching and talking about with my church. I will give it a try though for you
First, as you point out David, of course our system of government is completely different from anything Paul or Jesus had in mind. Republican-Democracy is unique in world history and only around for the past few hundred years. So obviously “voting” as we know it is not mentioned or discussed in Scripture. Therefore, we are each left to figure out, how to live out the teachings of Jesus in today’s political system. So everything I write on this topic, is simply my effort to apply my faith to the government under which I live.
Second, one other passage that I did not mention is when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus. They brought him a coin and basically said, “should we pay our taxes.” Jesus response was simply, the money has Ceasar’s face, so give him his taxes, but give to God what belongs to God. The Pharisees wanted to paint Jesus as a political insurrectionist (maybe even a Zealot) who was trying to lead a rebellion against Caesar.
So let me put these two things into one thought.
In my opinion, voting falls into this category of “render unto Ceasar…”. Voting is a system with the face of “Ceasar” on the ballot. Citizenship offers us rights, voting is one of them, and I believe that it honors our leaders when we vote. It is a demonstration that we, as Christians, are not insurrectionists. Participation in the Government system is not idolatry (as was taught by the Zealots in the 1st century). Our interest is not the overthrow of the Government. We do not fear government or seek the destruction of leaders. Voting honors the authority God who has established government over us.
Must everyone share my view? No, because I am not suggesting my thoughts are a biblical doctrine. This is simply how I apply the teaching in my context in a way that does not violate my conscience before the Lord.
You confuse though David with your last comment. You write, ” When I hear the same biblical messages being given, true messages indeed, but I don’t see any real changes in the way we relate to government… ” I don’t get it. What is your point? Who is the “we” you don’t see changing? Are you suggesting that my post is rhetoric that has no real meaning in the practice of my faith?
Hey J.R.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position further. In a nutshell, I respectfully disagree and do not believe that’s the sort of thing Jesus had in mind when he said, “render unto Caesar.” I’m glad that you leave room for folks to disagree.
When I wrote “we”… I was simply speaking about the whole of evangelical Christianity. I do think the words you have written have powerful implications for living… I just question whether or not “our” living is truly reflecting the radical teachings of Jesus and the call to trust in the power of the Kingdom of God over the methods and tools used by the kingdoms of the world.
I only mean to say that Jesus’ teachings and his living were radical. Our living… not so much.
David, you wrote, “I’m glad that you leave room for folks to disagree.”
Yes, but do you leave room to disagree? Or is anyone who does not share your “biblical” view only give lip service to the Gospel? That is certainly the implication of your words like “rhetoric” in suggesting that I am not really trusting Jesus in my actions because I do not share your “radical” opinion. So is there room for some differences on this, or is your “way” the only biblical approach? Please help me understand how I should interpret these comments brother.
JR,
Of course I leave room for disagreement. I’m only trying to get us to think outside the box. You said, “we should participate in the system” and I strongly disagree.
I don’t intend to say that you or anyone else doesn’t trust Jesus. Again, my words are only meant to stir us to think beyond the common “Vote, but don’t trust your politicians.”
I appreciate the conversation. Please don’t hear me the wrong way. I largely agree with what you’ve written.
By the way… I really like how your readers are able to read the Scriptures in a pop-out. That’s cool. How do you do that?
Logos RefTagger http://www.logos.com/reftagger
I understand Joe. I appreciate that. I really wasn’t being defensive. There’s really no other way to hear what Don said without seeing this as a response to what I wrote. There’s no assumptions, really. It’s all there.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the dialogue from everyone.
Oops… my last comment above should have been below. Something is wrong with the connection today. Sorry.
Joe, something David said reminded me of something I used to do. (David, I am NOT applying the following to you at all- only me!)
Whenever I would have a complaint about what “we” Christians were not doing or how “we” should be behaving or how “we” should be living, I was actually using “we” to mean “ME.” If I saw something amis in Christianity, it was easy to say it was “us”, when really it was “me.” Since the only person I have true insight into is “me”, for me to lump all Christians into a box I was unhappy with such as “we are not praying enough” or “we are not giving enough” or “we are not zealous enough”- that was code for “I am not praying enough” etc. So instead of being upset that “other people” were not doing this or that, I decided to focus on the one person I truly had influence over- ME.
Don,
I of course see your point. It would be silly of my to contest it, for it’s true a lot of the times.
However, on this issue, it does not apply… not to me anyway. I am living out what I tell others I believe concerning faith and politics. I’m sure Joe would say the same about his own convictions. I respect Joe for that.
So you made a point, but not one that engages anything I or Joe have said. I do understand your concern, but it doesn’t further the conversation in anyway.
Would it be more appropriate to call people out by name who do the sort of thing I have mentioned? We can do that too, but I’m sure there is something to say for that as well.
So, a person could hear you implying that those who don’t like the church’s involvement in government should just keep their mouths shut. Because anything that’s said by them could be construed as complaining. And no one likes a complainer.
My intention was to begin a conversation that considered the possibility that the Lord would not have us believe it is our “responsibility” to participate in politics. I saw that it was necessary to use majority practice as a way of pointing to the problem: church practice does not match these radical teachings.
Joe is not writing to himself or just to me. He is writing to a large audience of believers (the church). It only makes sense to write my comments in the same way.
Besides, I briefly mentioned it and I don’t see your comments are accurate to even come close to insinuating that I am complaining. Remember, you’re not the only one in the room here.
David, on Don’s behalf. I have known him for over ten years. I would point out to you that he did preface his comment with this, “(David, I am NOT applying the following to you at all- only me!)”
Since you don’t know Don, I can understand your defensiveness.
However, I have no reason to doubt Don’s sincerity in this and your suggestion that he “implicated” you in his comment has no basis in his words or character. Just thought you should know that brother.
Hi J.R. – I actually appreciated how you took the time to expound on your thoughts concerning voting, and I believe I’m pretty much in agreement there. To me, when you said “obediance” it came across as essentially saying, “here is the system we’ve been given, we’ve been asked to participate, so we should…” But the best part is how you put all of that into perspective with the lines, “But our enemy is not the Republicans or the Democrats. Our enemy is not Roe v. Wade, Nationalized Healthcare, or the Military. Our enemy is the spiritual powers that seek to destroy us and hinder the Gospel.” We have no political enemies, because we should know that true answers to the World’s problems will never come political means, only through Christ Himself, and if we then have no overarching political agenda, there’s no reason we shouldn’t vote as merely a part of our earthly citizenship. As long as we’re not putting our hope in political figures when we vote, then I don’t see any conflict there with the Kingdom…
“As long as we’re not putting our hope in political figures when we vote…” What does that even mean? Nothing as far as I can tell.
Even the most passionate politically involved Christian would deny doing that. This is the kind of thing I am trying to point out. This means nothing. We need another way.
Daniel, I thought you summed up the article fairly well. And that’s why I chimed in.
I’m fine with a person acting on their convictions. I’m not OK with anyone slapping biblical “responsibility” on it.
My knowledge of the corrupted system reminds me that a “vote” doesn’t matter anyhow. In my opinion, a person is duped into believing all their fears of tomorrow and the injustices of the world are confronted in a voting booth.
This is what I have been hinting at. Jesus chose not to directly engage the evils of the world by any political process. And it had much more to do with him simply being restricted because of the form of Roman government or because he was dying for the sins of the world.
Jesus reveals to us the Kingdom. We don’t simply place our chips in the right basket by using right rhetoric, like, “as long as we’re not putting our hope in political figures”… cause this is a nice fancy way of going on about our business as usual while refusing to consider the radical alternative.
I think this radical alternative doesn’t enter our minds because we are totally unfamiliar with it. We haven’t known its power and we have been hammered with “right-thinking” so much that we can’t see what’s in front of us. So, we just get heavy on our language and clean it up… still holding on to the same old practices.
David, you wrote, “My knowledge of the corrupted system reminds me that a “vote” doesn’t matter anyhow.”
I think Daniel’s quote has more meaning than statements like this.
Right on Daniel. Well said.
“How sad when our Christian faith is defined by the foolish controversies that ensnare politicians. Regardless of the political system over us; Democracy, Socialism, or Fascism, our passion for mercy should rise above it all.”
I see nothing wrong with a Christian being passionate in politics. It really, to me, depends on the issue they are passionate about and their purpose of involvement with the government – are they for more government control or less? More freedom or less? etc. I’d rather have people be passionate then apathetic.
Are all controversies that politicians deal with foolish?
Should Christians ignore controversies politicans are involved in (or ensnared) at all times – or only when they are foolish?
What’s a foolish controversy?
I agree – Christians should not define their faith by something that’s, well, not their faith. But since our political leaders have extreme amounts of power and they are daily making decisions that are affecting all Americans (as well as the world) I think we should be aware and, however we can, involved if what they are doing is a concern. Vote, call them, write them, stand out with a sign, educate others, whatever you want or can do.
Currently I fear the politicians are leading our country into potential tyranny through centralized authoritarian government and in the process they are destroying the dollar leading America into a possible economic collapse through hyperinflation. These events if they happen will affect us all in very, very, very negative ways.
Ignoring what they are doing only allows them to continue unheeded. I doubt there is much we can do at this point apart from voting them out of office – but being aware of what they are doing and what is coming is important. I would love to see preachers helping educate their congregation to what is happening and what is coming and helping them prepare so that when a collapse happens they don’t get caught up in the panic, but rather can help lead those unprepared to safety.
Hi Cliff, you asked, “Are all controversies that politicians deal with foolish?”
Yes, in contrast to the purpose and mission of the Gospel of Jesus Christ they are foolishness. I think it is good to vote our conscience, but when it comes to investing our time, talents, and treasure, those should be invested in the Kingdom of God, the building of the Church, and the advancement of the Gospel which will do more for the cause of freedom and life than any vote or political form of government on earth.
So – pretty much your opinion is voting is the extent a Christian’s involvement in government should be?
No, that is not what I am saying Cliff. I have run for City Council here in Orting and for the the School Board. So my actions would demonstrate otherwise.
My opinion is that our passion and investment should be to put the Church and the Gospel above politics. I will leave the specifics to each follower of Jesus on how to balance it out.
Joe: “but when it comes to investing our time, talents, and treasure, those should be invested in the Kingdom of God, the building of the Church, and the advancement of the Gospel which will do more for the cause of freedom and life than any vote or political form of government on earth.”
I’m confused on your whole point then. You say time, talents, and treasure should only be used for the Kingdom of God. How can you run for an office without using “time, talents, and treasure”?
Is there some threshold for government involvement and use of “time, talents, and treasure” where once you pass it it’s no longer ok? What is this threshold to you?
Is it ok to run for office as long as you’re not passionate about running for office? If you’re not passionate for some sort of cause then why run for office? Surely not just for power or out of boredom.
First, where did I use the word “only” Cliff? Nowhere Cliff. I said, “ABOVE” not “ONLY”. The word ABOVE is a description of priority. The word “ONLY” is a word of exclusivity. These words have meaning Cliff, so you have to read carefully. I think your confusion is that you are reading absolutes into my statements that I did not make.
Second, what you are missing Cliff is that I am saying that each person must decide where that boundary lies based on their conviction from the Holy Spirit. There is no absolute standard or NT Law regarding these matters.
For me personally, I think running for local office has value for my community and my schools and it creates opportunities for the Gospel. So I don’t see any conflict. BUT, I would never run for a Federal office. Again, that is just my personal conviction Cliff. Other great Christians will chose to draw the lines differently and I am okay with that.
For example, I know you and Kree went to the Olympia Tea Party. I am not saying that is a “wrong” thing or a violation of Scripture. My friend Bob runs the site http://www.standguardamerica.com. I designed his site. He draws the line in quite a different place and I am okay with that as well.
BUT, no matter where you draw the line, the biblical principle is that while we live on this earth, our passion for Christ must rise above political battles. Our actions must PRIMARILY (not exclusively) serve the Gospel and not a political party.
Do you disagree with that? Why?
Joe: “but when it comes to investing our time, talents, and treasure, those SHOULD be invested in the Kingdom of God, the building of the Church, and the advancement of the Gospel which will do more for the cause of freedom and life than any vote or political form of government on earth.”
You didn’t use the word ONLY you used the word SHOULD – which in that context is the same as ONLY and is a word of exclusivity.
Did you mean to use a different word other then SHOULD?
Hi Cliff, I understand your confusion. However, the word SHOULD is a verbal imperative. Its use, according to the dictionary, indicates “obligation, duty, or correctness”. SHOULD does not demand exclusivity. Look back at my original post Cliff where I wrote, ” We, as Christians, SHOULD be active in voting our faith…” Here again it is used as a verbal imperative, but does not demand exclusive action.
I hope that helps clarify it. Good challenge though. Thanks for asking.
Joe: “Its [the word SHOULD] use, according to the dictionary, indicates “obligation, duty, or correctness”. SHOULD does not demand exclusivity. Look back at my original post Cliff where I wrote, ” We, as Christians, SHOULD be active in voting our faith…””
People use the word SHOULD when they think people SHOULD do something. Using your definition above your saying it’s a Christians OBLIGATION, a Christian’s DUTY – the CORRECT action for a Christian. There doesn’t seem to be anything optional about the word SHOULD in this context.
Yes Cliff, that is the proper meaning. I do believe Christians SHOULD give their life (time, talent and treasure) in service to the Gospel. What I was correcting was your thinking that the term SHOULD means ONLY. There are many things in life that get our time, talents and treasure (like family, our schools and even our communities). Saying we SHOULD do these for the Church as our highest priority does not exclude the others Cliff. That is where you misunderstood my meaning.
Joe: “Saying we SHOULD do these for the Church as our highest priority does not exclude the others Cliff. That is where you misunderstood my mean”
Nowhere in your post did you use the phrase “highest priority” or a phrase meaning the same thing.
Correct Cliff, I did not use the specific phrasing that you mention. However, I did use the word “ABOVE”. The word ABOVE is grammatically equivalent to “HIGHEST PRIORITY” Cliff. If you still don’t understand this basic usage, I am not sure I can do much more to help.
Grammar aside Cliff, I have used my comments to make it clear that good works, mercy, the Gospel, and spiritual battle must be the “highest priority” of the Christian. So now I hope you can move beyond your analysis of my sentence structure and into a deeper interaction with the post itself.
Cliff, You have yet to answer how you, a follower of Jesus, develop the priority of Spiritual passion in your family. Nor have you made it clear how it is a priority compared to your political passions. The answer to this is, for me at least, a far more interesting discussion. I hope you will take the time to elucidate on this point Cliff.
You didn’t use the word ABOVE in your POST either. That’s the problem. Your POST is saying one thing – your COMMENTS the opposite.
If your whole point in your post is to say “God, the Gospel, The Kingdom, etc. should be the most important thing to a Christian” then I agree. Is that the point of your post?
If that’s the point of your post then this key sentence in your POST “We, as Christians, should be active in voting our faith, but politics should not be our passion.” should be changed to “We, as Christians, should be active in voting our faith, but politics should not be our MOST IMPORTANT passion.”
So – yes – I’ll be unashamedly passionate about politics and be a Christian because my children’s future is at stake. They are being enslaved with unsustainable debt as we speak. I think it would be irresponsible of me as a parent and as a Christian to be anything but passionate.
Well said! I fully agree with Cliff
Well said Cliff!!
Hi Cliff, I don’t want to get caught up in semantics, but the term “passion” I used was in the context of the NT and the political movement called Zelotry. I think you may be using it a bit differently than I am. I also think we may have a different understanding of why government exists and what it does. Read this post HERE.
I think all systems of government are rooted in sin. And while some forms are clearly more evil than others they all fall short of perfection so my passion is not for the imperfect, but for the perfect.
Let me ask a couple questions of you my friend. You say your passion for politics is because you care about your kids’ future? That is a loving goal. So, I am interested to know the following.
How does your responsibility to your kids play out in regard to their eternal future and relationship to Jesus Christ?
How do you demonstrate your passion for their spiritual life?
How do you demonstrate passion for the church which is the hands of feet of Christ on this earth?
Do you think it is important your kids know that their faith can thrive no matter what form of government rules over them? (see HERE)
Here are a few questions that are more rhetorical. They are questions I ask myself in regard to parenting my sons.
Does my passion teach my kids to fear government or trust in Christ?
Does my passion teach my kids to rely on the government as their source of freedom or on Christ? (see HERE)
I agree with you that the debt our government is taking on is unsustainable. I think it is foolish and I will vote against such folly. But no matter what happens, my hope is in Christ who will endure when Democracy in America is long gone.
Those links aren’t working.
And I don’t have a “passion for politics” I am “passionate about politics”. There’s a significant difference.
I fixed the links. Thanks for letting me know they were broken.
Can you tell me the difference?
I would also be interested to know how you answer the other 4 questions I asked about faith.
Your post on Freedom: http://www.morethancake.org/2007/06/action-alert-your-freedom.html
I’ve thought about this post you linked to. You’re conclusion on what the AFA is concerned with is completely wrong.
They were not talking about losing their (or your) INTERNAL spiritual freedom or their (or your) eternal salvation – which is what you in that post ARE talking about.
They are talking about losing the physical and political freedoms of speech and religion. The rights included in the American Bill of Rights.
Those political and physical freedoms may not be important to you and you may not really care if you have them or not – but they are important to many others.
Cliff, this story came to my attention today and may help illustrate what my post is about. here is the story,
“Anita Dunn, President Obama’s Communications Director, in June (3 months ago) at commencement speech, said that one of her favorite political philosopher was Mao Tse Tung. The very same Communist – Mao Tse Tung – who is the worst mass murdering modern history. Moa had 70 million people murdered. She praises someone and accepted them as one of her two favorite philosophers – a person who killed more people than Hitler. And she is the communications director for the President, and has been a vocal voice in in attacking conservatives and even the Fox News Channel. Deception revealed!”
I think this women, who is an advisor to the President, is dangerous for nation. She celebrates the accomplishments of a man’s political thinking and tactics which resulted in the murder of 70+ million civilians. I will not only vote against such an administration, but I would be willing to speak out against them. However, my mission would be to put her celebration of evil in contrast to a celebration of Mercy through the Gospel of Christ. I believe that the ultimate and greatest “fix” for this kind of evil is the saving blood of Jesus Christ. Yes, in the short term, better people must be elected to office and that is why I am convicted that Christians have a duty to vote and try and protect people from such things. BUT, my long term solution is not politics, but a passionate exposition of the Gospel and modeling that Gospel in my life and actions.
I hope that helps clarify my thinking and even more I hope it is something we can agree upon.
Cliff, your disagreement is based on facile understanding of my post. I suggest you spend some more time thinking on it or think of some questions that might deepen your understanding. If you decide to follow-up, please post on the other thread to make things easier to follow.
Still would like to know Cliff how the use of these two prepositions make a “significant” difference in your passion.
David, you said, “There’s really no other way to hear what Don said without seeing this as a response to what I wrote. There’s no assumptions, really. It’s all there.”
Hmmm. Well here are at least two options for what you could “hear” from my post…
A. Don, a complete stranger to me, is claiming to know my heart and is judging me personally for what I have written- even though he has expressly stated otherwise.
B. Don is offering non judgemental insights into his own life based on what he personally meant when he used similar language to mine in hopes that it might benefit other readers of Joe’s blogg.
You have chosen option A. Option B is actually correct.
David, your language reminded me of what I personally meant when I used similar language. As I said, it had nothing to do with you. You said yourself this is true a lot of the time. I’m not sure what the problem is then? My comments were not directed to you. My suggestion to you would be that if you believe Christians in general are doing something you take issue with, but you yourself are not doing this, that you use different language other than “we and “us”. “We” means “others AND ME.”
So when you say ” I have a terrible feeling we like New Testament rhetoric but not New Testament practice.” you are including yourself in that statement. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because a lot of people use “we” to soften the statement so it does not seem too preachy. So I assumed you meant “Other Christians in general”. However, in my personal past, the greatest offender was not other Christians, but ME when I used such language.
I take Jesus’ words very literally and directly to get the plank out of my own eye before I point out specks in other people’s eyes. I have found in my own past, I failed to understand that the Bible teaches me not to judge at all but to GROW in grace. So if I am going to err, I will err on the side of grace and give people the benefit of the doubt.
David, the way your posts are worded gives the impression you are being very caustic and harsh. And they invite the same tone back to you. Were you intending to be inflamatory?
For Joe to state how he applies “render unto Caesar” to his personal life is valid. He isn’t saying you must agree with him.
So lighten up a little brother!
I’m light as a feather.
It looks like there were many assumptions made. I apologize. I only wanted to discuss the content of the blog post.
My brother Joe has out done himself with this post, simply put brilliant!
Not only does he write well but he is a good debater. I will keep that in mind if i ever find the need to disagree with him in the future.
My understanding is as yours on politics, the Gospel must take first place.
Thanks for the post. It was a good & engaging read/exchange.
Thanks for the kudos Ted. Always nice to hear from a brother from across the Pond!