Symphony
|
 |
« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2003, 10:29:12 AM » |
|
Yes, rafter opines the familiar refrain, God's own lamentation, of 1 Samuel 8:11: "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots.... (v.13) He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards..."
No, Bush is no King. But we are a nation and, a nation of the world and, we do behave as such(taxes, conscription, worldly courts who increasingly flaunt their authority in the face of the Most High(sodomy)).
True, rafter's children, as of yet, are volunteers, not conscripted.
Yes, we are rotting from the inside out.
God's lamentation was that we want a king of our choosing--and so He gave it to us--first, in the form of King Saul. But God makes clear in no uncertain terms that it was for their hardness of heart that they wanted a King, and because they no longer loved the Lord... And Bush, or any other "president", in our representative republic, is definitely a "king" of our choosing. We do choose who will "rule" over us, in effect.
"And the Lord said to Samuel, 'Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them...'" (I Samuel 8:7)
Psalm119 makes some good points, as does rafter and most everybody here.
Maybe one question is, To what degree can Christians be involved actively in the secular society at all any more? President Bush is a perfect living example to that critical issue: His carefully worded reply to the reporter, at the end of July, just before leaving for his much needed August vacation, as to how he regarded the sodomy issue. He came as close to condemning the behavior as sin, while still cautioning about the mote in our own eye, as you could really diplomatically get.
But for the believer--for the prophet of old, and for the Christian of today--is even that what we are suppose to be doing?? Hmmmm. When the harlot was thrown at Jesus' feet, did he condemn her for her harlotry? Well, actually, yes, but not by picking up a stone with all the others. Actually, instead, he appealed to the mote in one's own eye argument--which is really how Bush handled it, too--but at the same time cautioning her to "...go and sin no more". Bush did, in so many words, really call homosexuality a sin. Unfortunately, the White House came out the day following backpeddling on that, as I recall.
My own tack is to call a spade a spade. Homosexuality(in this example, with Bush), is an abomination. Would I say that publicly?? Yes, I think I definitely would. I think maybe I better. Did Bush do right by qualifying that? Hm.
The risk that Bush was really doing it just in order to secure his position or to help insure reelection is just too great for me to avoid thinking. We all have our "positions" to protect. The risk is that we qualify our witness in order to protect our own safety. Jesus said in Rev. 3:20 he will spew us out for our lukewarmness.
Jesus put himself in the exact opposite light. Jesus put himself exactly where they could get him, regardless. But again, even Jesus was "diplomatic"--or, perhaps, at least towards the harlot, forgiving, or loving.
But Psalm119 makes good points about Bush and the Republicans--that even they are compromising and, arguably, are just conservative Democrats, really.
|