To The Daily Sun,
James Veverka is at it again. He starts out with taking Steve Earle to task for saying that liberals don't believe in God. Steve's heart is in the right place but he made the mistake of making his generality too broad. I do believe that the generality that atheists and agnostics drive the liberal agenda is a generality that can be defended. Liberal Christians, those who truly are Christians, have just hitched their wagon up with a caravan that is headed in the wrong direction, a decision that they will eventually come to regret.
Jim says of liberal Christians, "They just detest any alliance of church and state." Here I'd really like to ask politically liberal Christians, those who have a relationship with Jesus Christ, does Jim speak for you in this matter? If not please make your voice heard. For I am afraid that though Jim may not be as discrete as others, those who drive the liberal agenda are of quite similar minds as Jim. This divorce of church and state, that Jim alludes to is not a good state for any nation to be in, for if there is not an a alliance, then they are at odds with one another. If the Christian church is God's representative here on earth, woe to such a nation.
Jim commends liberal Christians for not taking the Bible literally. Here's the problem with that. If you take the liberty to assume that the bible is meant to be taken figuratively you put yourself in the place where you can make it mean almost anything you want it to mean. That's the purpose of this type of hermeneutics. You get to tell God what He means, instead of reading the Bible literally unless it clearly indicates that a passage is figurative, seeking Him diligently and then submitting your will to His. The latter type of hermeneutics is difficult to do. The first is easy. It's a cinch, which is more attractive to our human will. Yet if we chose this first type of hermeneutics, though it may gain us the approval of men, it puts us in opposition to God.
I've seen some of those Christian-liberal-progressive debate pages, they're a little sly about it, but that first type of hermeneutics is what they're advocating.
Jim goes on to site some misuses of scripture as if the misuse negates the benefit of proper application of the Word of God. News flash, human beings, sinful creatures that we are, can misuse almost anything no matter what the benefit of the proper use of the thing is.
Jim accuses Christians as being a hateful, anti-gay, anti-woman people. He confuses personal human virtue and politics. I have known a lot of Christian people and am one myself. I've known very few who hate homosexuals, none who hate women. I do not hate homosexuals. I love women; I'm married to one. Most Christians deal with the reality of loving homosexual friends or relatives daily. Yet we cannot change what the Word of God say's about this condition. As clearly as adultery and fornication is sin, so is homosexuality. We love the adulterer and the fornicator as well. Yet in the oft quoted account of the woman caught in adultery, what liberal quoters of this passage leave out is that after Jesus pardons her; He instructs her to sin no more.
As to the politics of these issues. It is the gay and lesbian lobby that is forcing a change in the very definition of marriage which has been the union of a man and a woman since the beginning of time, for the purpose of the creation of the family. Even if you don't believe the Bible there are some obvious biological reasons for this. For at least some 6,000 years this union between a man and a woman has been the nucleus of the family and its worked.
Marriage is the first human institution and it was ordained by God. To work to change the definition of marriage in this manner is an outworking of the denial that there is a design in the creation. This goes near the very heart of the Christian faith, and human judges and legislators want to change this institution and force everyone to accept the change. This is what is happening, yet there is hardly a homosexual hater in the true church. Yet the slander goes on.
Also concerning women's rights: Pro-life Christians recognize that life starts at conception. It is quite clear that this is true. Only a strong desire for it to be otherwise clouds this issue. The basis for the pro-life view is that if you have the authority to protect this human life and do not do it, or create deliberate roadblocks to the exercising of this authority. It is a grave wrong indeed. It's called human rights. A group that women are a subset of. To cry women's rights is a political ploy to divide us into voting blocs.
Jim's use of the terrible inhumanities occurring in the civil war in the Central African Republic, to project blame on the Christian Church, just seems to me, to be typical of what Jim does in all of his letters, for there are clearly forces at work there other than that of the direction of the Lord Jesus.
Though Jim seems to be an intelligent man, he doesn't seem to have the depth of understanding to write thoughtfully concerning the subjects he chooses to write about. So I think Jim's Center for the Study of Absurdity is a good thing for Jim, for mocking is what Jim can do.
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 417