Something I said to Erica made me wonder. (theoretical political, heavy CC)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I was talking about my inability to speak kindly when talking of a candidate's politics just now and how that instead of talking, I would take a pass and go to sleep instead.

 

Here's a bipartisan (multipartisan?) question, as there are deeply devout Christians on both sides and on the Independent ticket or no ticket or 3rd party:

 

How does a Christian who is commanded to tame his tongue, have speech that is full of grace seasoned (as it were) with salt, and to avoid corrupt communication and avoid lies and half-truths by letting the "yea be yea and the nay, nay" reconcile the cheering on of taunts and jeers, attacks, sneers, personal digs, laughter at how feeble sincere community efforts were, who practically burst into song and dance with glee when awkwardly-timed pregnancies are announced, etc.

 

How does the edict to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly figure into the political equation? How does the recipe for an old age and the love of life that factors in such things as keeping one's tongue from evil and one's lips from speaking lies, turning from evil and doing *good* work in the political arena? Seeking peace, and not only seeking it, but pursuing it as well?

 

Back when I was Christian, I would scratch my head when very dear, kind in-love-with-God friends started listening to and quoting Rush back when he was newly on the radio and getting very popular. I didn't get it. Ditto to *that* kind of talking? I agreed with his positions back then, even, but wow, how he slammed people and tore them down and up. Verbal zingers and slaps. Backhanded insults and jeers. How could they reconcile the tone and the sneering and the vitriol with the clear commands for us (they and me at the time) to be light that shines in darkness? The command to turn the other cheek was not in force if politics was the task at hand.

 

Comments? I'm going to bed and won't interact til late evening, but I'd be interested to read your thoughts. And if you agree with me, I'm not really trying to instigate a pissing contest. (Really.) And if you've read any of my more recent posts (and retractions and apologies and frantic PM's) you'll know that I'm well aware of how my own speech lacks grace a good bit of the time -- way more often in real life if you ask my poor family -- and the sodium has done separated from the chloride in my salt molecules on any given day. I'm not pointing fingers or saying I don't indulge. But it turns into a FRENZY for some folks at election time. I'd just like to explore how people reconcile that, or if you think they should, or whether or not this is not the same thing in your mind.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

You are aboslutely correct!

 

It is such a fine line between speaking the truth with grace, mercy, and love to giving verbal digs to prove your point. As Christians, people should never rejoice when anyone of any religion or background is going through a painful situation. We should never get self-righteous about our own abilities to do the right thing, because, after all, our righteous acts are like filthy rags in the eyes of God. Anything I do that is right comes straight from the mercy and grace of God and not my own selfish nature, I can tell you!!!!

 

I get so passionate about politics that I have to reign myself in at times. I feel like what I say could really get hurtful or be taken poorly. At times on this board, I've so badly wanted to reply to something, but, because I couldn't find a way to do it with grace, mercy, and love, I refrained. Something I wouldn't have done just a few years ago. So, I have to say, there's been some progress!!!;)

 

I always try to remind myself that these are PEOPLE, people with feelings, families, and reputations. I am an example to my dc with how I speak. I find them parroting me so much, it's scary. If I want them to speak with wisdom, mercy, grace, and love, I need to set the example even when they aren't watching or hearing what I am saying.

 

They say out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Sometimes, we can choose to speak words that can change what is abundant in our hearts! We get to choose words of life or death. I'm hoping and striving to choose life-giving words.

[laughing lioness]

Honestly I don't see many situations in which we are salt and light politically in this country. Most people have their own party affiliation down pretty tight, or at least their canidate chosen. I am adamently pro-small government. No amount of persuasive speech is going to get me to vote dem based on that alone. I figure it's the same for others here. We are, after all, homeschoolers- independent and opinionated :001_smile:

I do see that some political issues require us to be salt and light (slavery, abortion, genocide) but so few of these issues are close to home and caught up in lots of beaurocracy and red tape. Until the church walks the talk with issues (say abortion) and puts their money where their mouth is (fostering and adopting, supporting pregnant women who desperatly "need" an abortion) we are not being loving- we are being prideful and arrogant.

I stay away from Rush and Ann Coulter. Dang, I love Ann C's wit and saracastic zing. But, it creates a bitter, ugly impatience in myself. I'm too close to saracastic zing on my own so I don't need it fostered.

I am in no way a peace maker so no matter how much I TRY to develop a meek and quiet spirit I doubt I'll get there- I am a passionate person. But my biggest regrets in life always have to do with what I HAVE said. I'm about 90% of the time correct in what I say, but it is too often mean.

Thoughtful post, Pam. I appreciate so much of what you "say" here.

[Alison in KY]

I haven't looked at very much of the political threads here. Lack of time and the knowledge that I tend to get bent out of shape keeps me away. However, I know exactly where you are coming from. In my area and I guess I assumed it was everywhere, if you are a Christian then you should also be a Republican...like you cannot be a Christian and be a Democrat. I do not understand that. I am not a well read very involved in politics person, however it just always seemed to me that Republicans are Christian because they are against abortion and against large government telling you how to behave...but then Democrats are the ones trying to "save the earth" (and we all know who created the earth) and diminish or put limits on guns (which can kill you and that's obviously a sin).

 

I know that's generalizing the issues but that is the way it appears in my neck of the woods. I was just telling my husband last night how frustrated I get when I hear people like Sean Hannity slamming others, making fun, etc....when he's supposed to be a Christian man. It all just gets ridiculous and is a big turn off.

 

Okay, I can't even think of what my point is in all of this. I guess I mean that those who are speaking up and claiming God should not be worshipping anything else, including political parties...and that's the way it tends to come across to me. We need to represent our faith better, but I guess it's always a work in progress (at least I am a work in progress).

 

Alison in KY

[Alison in KY]

Wow, Dayle's post said it so well.

[Lisawa]

Well I think it is because Christians are not perfect people.... we are sinners saved by grace and thats about it. Everyone... Christian, Muslim... what have you... get caught up in moments... polatics.... debates.... diferences.... and at times... bad things happen... poor choice of words... sarcasm.... attacks.... its not just Christians... we are all human....

 

Now as a Christian we are to strive for and seek love, forgiveness, kindness and gentless.... but because we are only human like the rest of the world... we fall short...

 

From a Christian view point.... believer or non... we all fall short from any moral standard and we sin or come up short. Thats the best I can do to explain it...

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I can't reconcile it. The vehemence and vitriol make me very uncomfortable, even when I understand it. I am so glad that my faith group discourages governmental politics from the pulpit. Even though I don't intend to vote for Obama, the fact that he is running a fairly clean campaign impresses me. In fact, dh and I have voted for Democrats before based on the fact that we would prefer to live next door to them than the Republican running for office, in spite of his/her political platform.

 

There are very strong political statements made in our home but I try to be mindful of how our words can impact our children. I don't believe in making personal attacks, so sometimes I give dh a nudge to tone it down. To give him credit, he usually realizes when he is getting carried away.

 

P.S. We no longer vote for either of the major two parties if we can help it.

[Lisawa]

PS: I have not read any other threads like this so I was just answering best I could to OPs question :)...

[GSMP]

I had an entire post ........hit a wrong button and lost it all.....crud!!

 

I will come back later......:glare:

[PrairieAir]

While I'm certainly far from perfect when it comes to keeping my tongue and temper in check, I agree with you. I have never liked Rush or quite a few others like him of varying political and religious persuasions. I do find Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert pretty funny, but I guess I see their humor as more lighthearted and less biting. Plus, it's humor. I tend to be suspicious of anyone who spouts off about how those with opposing views are so very evil and (my favorite word, used so often by these people) scary. Whenever certain people I know (my mom, for one) start talking about how so and so absolutely frightens them, it trips a little ignore switch in my brain and I start looking for a way out of the conversation or room. This is one of the things that turns me off most about politics. And religion.

[Marie in Oh]

as much as I agree at times with conservative talk radio hosts, I WILL NOT LISTEN because of the tone of their delivery. There is no grace in this type of discourse. I can not stand it. It makes my mother crazy when I criticize the conservative pundits becasue of their tone. She says they are speaking the truth. I say they need to season it with grace. They are so arrogant. She doesn't get it.

 

I don't even feel like they have to water down the message-- just get rid of the arrogance. I feel like that about Dr. Laura as well. I agree mostly with her advice, but she's so down right ugly about the way she delivers her message of truth that I hae to go the other way.

 

So Pam, there are folks who are still in your shoes. I just listen elsewhere. I especially love World Magazine. They cover the tough stuff with grace and humility and are often willing to admit when they are worng. That is Christ's type of grace.

[Sahamamama]

Hi, Pam. Well, I have no answer to your mind-numbing, multi-part question, because my husband is at work this morning, so I've only had Earl Grey tea, not coffee, which he makes, and your question definitely requires strong coffee. :001_huh:

 

That said, I'm wondering how on earth did you get NINE little green peas on your plate if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this board? Even if you think you are vitriolic at times, other people must think you add spice, rather than acid.

 

If I hang out only with people who think, talk, walk, and chew gum the way I do, then what is even the point of trying to have a life of the mind? The nature of a thread is that at times it can become "Borg-like," with everyone jumping on the band-wagon and chiming in with

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I ask: Why is there no little shaking head with "I don't agree" on it? Many times I've also been caught up in this :iagree: thinking, and then YOU get on here and shake up my little brain with your POV. I may not -- and often don't -- exactly agree with you, ;) but I like that you are here.

 

If my twins weren't wailing at me now, I'd write more, but I have to go be a parent. It's enough to say that, as my mother used to tell me, "It's your tone of voice, Sweetie. You need to modulate it." Gah, if I had a dime for every time I heard THAT growing up. But my mother was right.

 

How does TOV --tone of voice -- come through online? That's a tough one. I do agree, though, not every "I love you" is truly loving, not every "pro-family" speech is truly in the best interests of the family, etc. That's why we have to think, and not just react to speeches, ads, websites, etc. And in the end, we each get one vote this November. Life goes on beyond November, and people have to live with themselves.

 

I'm REPUBLICAN, and I didn't like the SP speech. [i don't like the SP pick for VP, either. There, I said it.] But the BO speeches bother me even more. I don't think anyone running this year really loves this country and its people. Part of me thinks that MAYBE JM does love us a bit, and his life is proof of it. So I'll go with what he has done for this nation up to now and value that. None of us knows what he WILL do, future tense. And the future IS tense. ;) My 2 cents.

 

Sigh. My twins both just pooped, I'm off to deal with more crap.

[Twinmom]

Sigh. My twins both just pooped, I'm off to deal with more crap.

 

I think that pretty much sums up the political process these days on both sides of the fence! :D

 

Pam, I understand and share your struggle with this. I do think that everyone, Christians and non-Christians alike, needs to just tone it down. We need to speak with respect towards one another and not engage in rhetorical battles. That said, there is a need for politicians to point out the differences in each others platforms, experience, etc. There is a need for debate and discourse, there is a place for telling someone they've done something wrong or have a position that's not viable. I just think it should be done with grace, respect and compassion...something lacking across the board these days. In the Bible, there are lots of examples of times when a leader/leaders are "called out" for behavior or positions unbecoming. Sometimes it is done loudly (think, Jesus in the temple). However, I cannot recall a time that it was done during an election, for the purpose of winning power. Perhaps that's the difference...it is for the sake of holiness, not for a power grab.

 

Frankly, it's not just the politicians that bother me...it's sort of the whole package. The pundits, the media, my DH (did I just say that?), my FIL, my neighbor, sometimes even myself. Kindness and respect is not part of our political discourse, but it should be. We should aspire to better things, no matter what our positions might be.

 

We're all just sinners, some of us saved by grace but acting like we're still stuck in the mud. Such is life this side of heaven, I suppose. That's why we need a Savior, IMO. ;)

[Just Me]

In thinking about your question, I would have to submit that not everyone who claims to be a christian actually is one. Someone may choose to follow a "religion" throughout their life, but that does not mean that that same person is a follower of Christ. Therefore, although they may "know" the basic tenants of their faith, they have not compulsion to follow those tenants.

 

That said, I also believe that there are folks who sincerely have a faith in Christ, but who are lacking in maturity and wisdom - things not automatically received at salvation! :) It would make debates much easier if they were! :D I think that oftentimes that (maturity and wisdom) is demonstrated on this very board by ladies (and gentlemen) who choose to defer to others or choose to give a kind reply. And I realize that this is often accomplished by those who do not profess to be Christian!

 

Just my .02.

[Jugglin'5]

I have a totally different take on this, I guess. This is not a defense of anything that any talk radio host might want to say.

 

Jesus, Paul, Elijah, to name a few, used some very caustic, pointed barbs at people they were having a controversy with. They didn't just use them randomly though. They were never aimed at the widow, orphan, or defenseless. They were usually aimed at the self-righteous, hypocrital, or a dangerous enemy. Not a pregnant teenager, or a homely one (the Chelsea bashing for instance). Whether they were the priests of Baal that prompted Elijah to ask if their god was on vacation or in the bathroom, or the Pharisees who Jesus likened to prettified stinking tombs, or Paul who suggested that if they were going to be circumcised they might as well cut the whole thing off (referencing those who were demanding that Gentiles be circumcised before they could become Christian) -humor and pointed sarcasm have always been biblically acceptable when aimed in the right direction. Biblically acceptable speech is not defined by what Americans think is "nice".

[Just Me]

I have a totally different take on this' date=' I guess. This is not a defense of anything that any talk radio host might want to say.

 

Jesus, Paul, Elijah, to name a few, used some very caustic, pointed barbs at people they were having a controversy with. They didn't just use them randomly though. They were never aimed at the widow, orphan, or defenseless. They were usually aimed at the self-righteous, hypocrital, or a dangerous enemy. Not a pregnant teenager, or a homely one (the Chelsea bashing for instance). Whether they were the priests of Baal that prompted Elijah to ask if their god was on vacation or in the bathroom, or the Pharisees who Jesus likened to prettified stinking tombs, or Paul who suggested that if they were going to be circumcised they might as well cut the whole thing off (referencing those who were demanding that Gentiles be circumcised before they could become Christian) -humor and pointed sarcasm have always been biblically acceptable when aimed in the right direction. Biblically acceptable speech is not defined by what Americans think is "nice".[/quote']

 

:iagree:

[LG Gone Wild]

I have a totally different take on this' date=' I guess. This is not a defense of anything that any talk radio host might want to say.

 

Jesus, Paul, Elijah, to name a few, used some very caustic, pointed barbs at people they were having a controversy with. They didn't just use them randomly though. They were never aimed at the widow, orphan, or defenseless. They were usually aimed at the self-righteous, hypocrital, or a dangerous enemy. Not a pregnant teenager, or a homely one (the Chelsea bashing for instance). Whether they were the priests of Baal that prompted Elijah to ask if their god was on vacation or in the bathroom, or the Pharisees who Jesus likened to prettified stinking tombs, or Paul who suggested that if they were going to be circumcised they might as well cut the whole thing off (referencing those who were demanding that Gentiles be circumcised before they could become Christian) -humor and pointed sarcasm have always been biblically acceptable when aimed in the right direction. Biblically acceptable speech is not defined by what Americans think is "nice".[/quote']

:bigear:

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I have a totally different take on this' date=' I guess. This is not a defense of anything that any talk radio host might want to say.

 

Jesus, Paul, Elijah, to name a few, used some very caustic, pointed barbs at people they were having a controversy with. They didn't just use them randomly though. They were never aimed at the widow, orphan, or defenseless. They were usually aimed at the self-righteous, hypocrital, or a dangerous enemy. Not a pregnant teenager, or a homely one (the Chelsea bashing for instance). Whether they were the priests of Baal that prompted Elijah to ask if their god was on vacation or in the bathroom, or the Pharisees who Jesus likened to prettified stinking tombs, or Paul who suggested that if they were going to be circumcised they might as well cut the whole thing off (referencing those who were demanding that Gentiles be circumcised before they could become Christian) -humor and pointed sarcasm have always been biblically acceptable when aimed in the right direction. Biblically acceptable speech is not defined by what Americans think is "nice".[/quote']

 

 

I see where you are coming from. However, I feel the need to point out that the Biblical examples you have given were from people who were considered the mouthpiece of God. How many of us can claim that distinction? How many can even compare ourselves favorably to Paul and Elijah, let alone Jesus? How many of us have examined our lives thoroughly before casting stones or attempting to remove splinters?

[Jugglin'5]

No doubt. But we are to model ourselves after Jesus. And I can totally see some smart-mouthed wisecracking fool making a mockery of the faith by spraying a random machine-gun of insults everywhere. It happens all the time. However, the dangers do not negate the fact that sometimes evil needs to be confronted in a powerful way. Sometimes the most effective way is a sarcastic or caustic metaphor which paints a much more vivid picture than nice circumspect prose. For instance, the whole camel through the eye of a needle metaphor, or the straining out a gnat to swallow a camel metaphor - all pointed barbs at the hypocrisy of the pharisees.

 

 

 

I see where you are coming from. However, I feel the need to point out that the Biblical examples you have given were from people who were considered the mouthpiece of God. How many of us can claim that distinction? How many can even compare ourselves favorably to Paul and Elijah, let alone Jesus? How many of us have examined our lives thoroughly before casting stones or attempting to remove splinters?

[Jane in NC]

Contributing to this perhaps is the fact that modern oration is reduced to the ten or fifteen second sound bite. Further, many people seem to follow the talk radio methodology of argument: when someone disagrees, just repeat your argument--ONLY LOUDER! (Also, suggest that the other party is an idiot if they disagree with you!)

 

Personally I believe in consensus building. What is good for Florida may not be good for Wyoming. Washington requires consensus, not alienation, to operate well.

 

Jane

[Aubrey]

Because we forget that those w/ different opinions are our brothers. Because we forget that their souls matter more than our own POVs. Because we forget that others are silently listening to our conversations, being influenced by our lack of grace. And finally, I think, because we hold our beliefs closer than we hold our God.

[Dawn E]

For me, personally, I had to separate myself from the threads. I was raised in one of those bible-beating households where "saved by grace" was preached and "saved by works" was lived out. I well know the bondage of pride and legalism. Thankfully, I've also experienced the true freedom of God's great grace. However, I am still human. I get angry. I sin. I am prideful and selfish and want to prove my point. Sometimes that leads me down the path of "vain quarrels." Sometimes I'm there before I realize it; sometimes I make the choice to dive right in. Either way, though, I have to realize that although I firmly believe this election is very important, my salvation does not rest in it.

 

That being said, I think that the main point is humility. Many people mistake humility for fearful, shyness. No, Jesus was not only the most humble man to walk the earth, but he was also the most bold. He spoke with authority, and yes, barbs. He knew who he was and why he was here. Because of that and because he was following only the will of God, he accomplished his mission without vain quarrels or the sin of pride. He was sinless. We are not. Pride, selfishness, vanity fill us humans up. As it has been said already, that is why we need a Savior.

[PineFarmMom]

Can I just say that you are right and that I do fall into the trap sometimes, more than sometimes. When I'm paying attention and fully surrendered, God usually gives me a different viewpoint on political situations and I'm able to view it from His pov more than from a republican or democrat point of view. The whole truth is that when I move above my party lines and choose to ask God for His pov, He gives it, and I see the flaws in both sides and the desperate need our nation has for prayer and supernatural intervention, that no party is without sin, no not one! I feel like Daniel's prayer is fitting quite often, where he asks God for forgiveness because "we" have sinned, not blaming it on his people but taking the blame upon himself as well. It is dangerous to take these strong political stands and excuse our sin (when it is sin and not standing for the right thing) as not as bad as the other guy. We will be fooled when that pride leads us to excuse our actions if they are flawed. Your points are valid!! I think the points can go both ways, though, republican and democrat, as there are many Christians on both sides. I can only allow God's spirit to speak to me, though, and cannot be that for another person.

 

I do believe, though, that there is a time for us, as Christians, to be willing to confront evil in speech and action. Jesus did use sarcasm. Think of how he spoke to the Pharisees!!! I think He was often offensive to those who opposed his views when it came to standing up to truth. He didn't walk around singing kumbaya all the time!

T

[Laura K (NC)]

My blog name is at the end of my post, "dormitantius." St. Jerome is one of the best of the Church Fathers, but he had a wicked temper. He would get into insult-slinging contests with some of his opponents, one of whom was named Vigilantius. In insulting Vigilantius, "the vigilant," Jerome called him "Dormitantius" instead -- "the sleepyhead," implying that Vigilantius should wake up and smell the coffee on the issue they were discussing.

 

So for about 10 years I've have St. Jerome as a sort of patron saint, and take Jerome's rebuke upon myself for various reasons. On some religious discussion boards I would often let my unbridled tongue say things that I would regret later. I still do this -- it's not something that I have been able to put aside yet. On the one hand, Jerome is a great saint to look up to because of his scholarship and his brilliant way with words, on the other hand, he's very real to me in a way that other saints are not. He's a sinner just like I am, and it's kind of a relief to know the "saints" aren't the perfect ones. There are no perfect ones.

 

My tongue is one of my greatest "crosses to bear," but like Jerome, I aspire to do better things with words. I think that's the case with anyone, no matter if they're Christian or another religion or agnostic or atheist. I don't think Christians have a monopoly on good behavior. I wish we really were better able to act in a "Christian" way, but from experience, it doesn't seem that we are. One Jewish lady here is a model to me, for example, of how to speak the truth in love.

 

I do agree that sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade, and sometimes the most charitable thing is a reprimand in no uncertain terms. It's very, very difficult to justify "righteous indignation" and sarcasm, though, because we just don't usually walk around with truly pure hearts.

 

I love words... I love the power of them. I was thinking as I watched Sarah Palin last night that she is one of those people who have a real gift with words. I don't want a nice friend as a VP. I want a bulldog with lipstick. I want someone who won't cower before Putin or al Qaeda if her vice presidency comes to that, but who will cut to the quick with surgical precision. I think she needed to prove that last night and she did so very well. Christians and politics seldom go together very well, but I don't think she crossed too far over the line in her speech last night.

[klmama]

It's hard to tame the tongue, that's for sure! I've been making a concerted effort to do so and to help my dc do so, as we watch election coverage and discuss the issues this year. We are a very opinionated, politics-loving family, so it's hard! Yet, I want to be gracious to those with whom I disagree. I have been catching myself when I speak ungraciously and rewording it more nicely. Yes, it's too late if it already came out of my mouth, but the practice helps for next time.

[muffinmom]

Good thread, Pam. I think Christians do need to examine themselves about their response to what's going on in this heated political atmosphere.

 

Speaking truth is important, and the reality is that truth sometimes stings. But if we are the speaker of truth, then we need to say it in "love", which I think means not for benefit of yourself but for the sake of truth being revealed (that means not saying something to get one up on somebody, or a whole host of other less-than-pure motivations).

 

If we are the hearers of the truth, then we need to accept what is being said--if it rebukes us, so be it. If it confirms us, then be grateful and humble. Even if it stings, we should not deny the truth in it.

 

The real trick in politics, though, is determining what the truth really is. And sadly, I have no good solutions for that!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

For me, personally, I had to separate myself from the threads.

 

Just to clarify, Dawn, I wasn't actually referring to conversation and debate on the board, or at least only as a minor afterthought in explaining that as people can clearly see *here on the board*, I'm not saying my speech is the example I would hold up for emulation! :tongue_smilie:

 

I was talking about society at large, politicos and politicians and talk-talk-talking heads, etc. And Dr. Laura. :)

[Dawn E]

Just to clarify, Dawn, I wasn't actually referring to conversation and debate on the board, or at least only as a minor afterthought in explaining that as people can clearly see *here on the board*, I'm not saying my speech is the example I would hold up for emulation! :tongue_smilie:

 

I understood that, and I actually didn't mean to imply that you were. I was simply implying that I, personally, have to make the choice to stay away from incindery (that may not be a word, but I hope it still makes sense) talk here or elsewhere to avoid making mistakes with my own tongue, or fingers as the case may be here. :001_smile:

 

You know you're one of my heroes, right? Even if we disagree a lot. I do not say that lightly.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I understood that, and I actually didn't mean to imply that you were. I was simply implying that I, personally, have to make the choice to stay away from incindery (that may not be a word, but I hope it still makes sense) talk here or elsewhere to avoid making mistakes with my own tongue, or fingers as the case may be here. :001_smile:

 

You know you're one of my heroes, right? Even if we disagree a lot, and I do not say that lightly.

 

Ah, gotcha! That makes sense. There are threads I stop coming back to for the same reason. Just a lack of ability to control my responses, otherwise. And they don't even have to be particularly controversial threads, either!

 

The idea of being anyone's hero is baffling to me. Come spend a week with me. I'll disabuse you of all notions of hero-hood. :lol: (You're so kind. You know I adore you.)

[Dawn E]

I'll disabuse you of all notions of hero-hood. :lol:

 

Somehow I doubt that. :001_smile:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Hi, Pam. Well, I have no answer to your mind-numbing, multi-part question, because my husband is at work this morning, so I've only had Earl Grey tea, not coffee, which he makes, and your question definitely requires strong coffee. :001_huh:

 

Oh, I'm sorry it wasn't clear. I have only one question. How does a Christian, in light of clear commands of scripture, reconcile the current political and parapolitical arena's atmosphere of sneers, jeers, hateful remarks, and politically expedient untruth?

 

That said, I'm wondering how on earth did you get NINE little green peas on your plate if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this board? Even if you think you are vitriolic at times, other people must think you add spice, rather than acid.

 

Well, I guess so. That or I talk a lot and it's just a matter of simple proportions. But I didn't mean to say I have nothing worthwhile to give to the board (??), I merely said that I know I'm not perfect, as my recent history of more frequent verbal and emotional gaffes give evidence to.

 

 

 

I ask: Why is there no little shaking head with "I don't agree" on it? Many times I've also been caught up in this :iagree: thinking, and then YOU get on here and shake up my little brain with your POV. I may not -- and often don't -- exactly agree with you, ;) but I like that you are here.

 

Likewise. And I think we need a whole new page of emoticons! LOL

 

How does TOV --tone of voice -- come through online?

 

See, though, I'm just talking about places other than this board. We discuss those other venues here, but I was mainly thinking recently, "Wow. How can this be? We are as a nation so casually cruel to one another when it benefits us to be so."

 

 

So I'll go with what he has done for this nation up to now and value that. None of us knows what he WILL do, future tense. And the future IS tense. ;)

 

Oh, I like that -- "The future is tense." True, that. And I can completely respect your reason for choosing Senator McCain. I was enthusiastically a supporter in 2000.

 

Sigh. My twins both just pooped, I'm off to deal with more crap.

 

:lol::lol: Here's to early potty training. And here's my hat off to you for taking care of twins in diapers. :cheers2:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

delete double post

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Honestly I don't see many situations in which we are salt and light politically in this country. Most people have their own party affiliation down pretty tight, or at least their canidate chosen. I am adamently pro-small government. No amount of persuasive speech is going to get me to vote dem based on that alone. I figure it's the same for others here. We are, after all, homeschoolers- independent and opinionated :001_smile:

I do see that some political issues require us to be salt and light (slavery, abortion, genocide) but so few of these issues are close to home and caught up in lots of beaurocracy and red tape.

 

Wow, now that's a different perspective for me. I always thought of light and salt as something one just was, as a default mode. It was up to the observer and the taster to see and taste the light and salt.

 

I think of being a light as consistent kindness, acceptable speech, etc. Not taking a stand. I think one can certainly be salt and light WHILE taking a stand, but the taking of the stand isn't -- to me -- what constitutes the salt or light.

 

Now I'm thinking about this differently. Hmmm.

[Rosy]

I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with the majority here...it seems that the original post in this thread was referencing the SP speech last night. I felt that in the speech for the most part she attacked the qualifications and the policies of her opponents. As a Christian, I don't see anything wrong with that. At times I think she may have judged the motivations (seeking power, etc.) of her opponents as well. Was that wrong? Maybe. As someone else said, many leaders of the early church did the same thing. Was it right for them because they're church leaders and wrong for anyone who was not a church leader at that time? I can't say that for sure.

 

Also, I feel that Barack Obama has openly claimed the name of Christ at least as much as Sarah Palin has, and has spoken equally harshly. Are you (generally speaking) equally willing to cast stones at him? I'm not saying that his speaking ill of his opponents makes it ok for her (or anyone else) to do the same, just that we should be careful of double standards.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I see where you are coming from. However, I feel the need to point out that the Biblical examples you have given were from people who were considered the mouthpiece of God. How many of us can claim that distinction? How many can even compare ourselves favorably to Paul and Elijah, let alone Jesus? How many of us have examined our lives thoroughly before casting stones or attempting to remove splinters?

 

And they were rebuking religious establishments, not political ones. Elijah's "quibble" was with the prophets of Baal. Jesus did not rail against Ceasar, but against the corruption in the temple and the religious emptiness he witnessed. Paul wasn't speaking politically, but religiously.

 

The examples given of confronting politics are Paul before Herod Agrippa. He was baited, but did not respond. Nathan confronted King David with a story and a revelation. (Though it could be argued that this was a religious rebuke, but David seriously disgraced his position as king and commander in chief with this murder/adultery scandal. So I would argue it political.) Jesus stood before Pilate but offered no stinging criticism of the corrupt Roman Empire. Daniel under Nebuchadrezzar, Beshazzar, Darius wasn't a railer or a sarcastic man. Hurling zingers was not what landed Daniel in the lion's den. Ridicule was not what landed him and the three Hebrew dudes in the fiery furnace.

 

Perhaps someone can find exceptions that probe my "rule," but this has always been how I see the examples preserved in the Christian bible.

 

And then to further confuse me, I need to figure out if I think the prophets major and minor were speaking religiously or politically.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with the majority here...it seems that the original post in this thread was referencing the SP speech last night.

 

Not really. Governer Palin's speech was the more moderate of the speeches I saw last night. My objections to her speech had only a tiny bit to do with her tone (and that only in very few places). More to do with the audience and the pundits and other speakers and previous speeches and reactions at the DNC.

 

There is a sense that I get that one side sees what they perceive as the "sins" of the other side as a precipitating factor for sharp reactions. No one side sees themselves as the attack dogs. I wasn't taking sides, actually. I had hoped that was clear, but I know the post was rather rambling in places.

 

 

I appreciated reading your thoughts. :001_smile:

[Jugglin'5]

I have three points in response.

 

First: Elijah and King Ahab, John the Baptist and Herod, Jesus and Herod. That.is.all. You are right they did not rail, but they definitely called them out.

 

Second, my examples were more to defend the idea of what Christian speech is or isn't. I didn't realize we were explicitly talking about political speech. I think we Americans tend to have a view of what is acceptable based more on what our notions of politeness are, rather than what the biblical examples are.

 

Third, Sarah Palin is a political figure, not a preacher, and it is perfectly acceptable for her to hit back with the truth. And it stings when your candidate is the target. Now, if she is lying, that is a different story.

 

But you know I love you Pam.:D

 

Part of the problem concerning your last sentence is that the Bible does not always separate the two. Yes, the Prophet, the King, and the Priest had different roles that they were not supposed to go beyond (for instance, King Uzziah offering incense got him punished), but there really was no such thing as a religion free area. The prophets preached against priests and kings alike.

 

 

And they were rebuking religious establishments, not political ones. Elijah's "quibble" was with the prophets of Baal. Jesus did not rail against Ceasar, but against the corruption in the temple and the religious emptiness he witnessed. Paul wasn't speaking politically, but religiously.

 

The examples given of confronting politics are Paul before Herod Agrippa. He was baited, but did not respond. Nathan confronted King David with a story and a revelation. (Though it could be argued that this was a religious rebuke, but David seriously disgraced his position as king and commander in chief with this murder/adultery scandal. So I would argue it political.) Jesus stood before Pilate but offered no stinging criticism of the corrupt Roman Empire. Daniel under Nebuchadrezzar, Beshazzar, Darius wasn't a railer or a sarcastic man. Hurling zingers was not what landed Daniel in the lion's den. Ridicule was not what landed him and the three Hebrew dudes in the fiery furnace.

 

Perhaps someone can find exceptions that probe my "rule," but this has always been how I see the examples preserved in the Christian bible.

 

And then to further confuse me, I need to figure out if I think the prophets major and minor were speaking religiously or politically.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

You are right they did not rail' date=' but they definitely called them out. [/quote']

 

I think it legitimate and IMPORTANT to call someone out. But that's not what I was referring to.

 

Second, my examples were more to defend the idea of what Christian speech is or isn't. I didn't realize we were explicitly talking about political speech. I think we Americans tend to have a view of what is acceptable based more on what our notions of politeness are, rather than what the biblical examples are.

 

You know, I'm of the opinion that on this board, anyway, threads can take any direction they want with all the side trips that make people amused and happy. :D I don't consider going a whole 'nother place with a topic to be a derailment. I consider it a bonus, value-added side trip. (Particularly when my favorite people *koffjugglin'5koff* are leading the sight seeing.) But when I answered Virginia Dawn, I was just following on her comments based on my own OP. So I don't think your examples are inappropriate at all. I just was steering the conversation back to political speech and how it is compatible or incompatible with Biblical edict and example.

 

Third, Sarah Palin is a political figure, not a preacher, and it is perfectly acceptable for her to hit back with the truth. And it stings when your candidate is the target. Now, if she is lying, that is a different story.

 

Mmmm, well, Governor Palin wasn't my focus, but I understand your perspective. It's widely shared.

 

I'm not invested enough in the Obama/Biden rah rah group for anything said or celebrated to sting on their behalf. The sting comes from the fact that things are said in that manner, period, no matter who is doing the saying.[

 

But you know I love you Pam.:D

 

 

We do have a good thing going on this little board of Susan's, don't we? :grouphug:

[PariSarah]

. . . after one too many people making comments about women who abandon dear, sweet babies at home, so that they can go off and have a career, and I probably shouldn't answer.

 

<snip, snip>

 

You know how they reconcile it? They don't. They're screw-ups. Christians are screw-ups. All of them. I'm a screw-up, too. I happen to have a better handle on not mocking people than they do, but they, I'm sure, could slap me senseless in other departments. Thanks be to God, my gentle, honest husband shamed me into being a more truthful person than I used to be, but, again, I'm still a screw-up.

 

The standard in Scripture is complete perfection. There's nothing that's not in there. There's not one area of life that doesn't get examined, fought over, and ultimately subjected to the Divine gaze.

 

<Little more snippage> But naked vulnerability is the one clearest vocation in the Gospel, isn't it? Even clearer than truth-telling, even clearer than good sex, even clearer than widows and orphans. Naked, in front of the whole world to see, crucified for our sins. So that's what we're stuck with.

 

We're also stuck with each other, boatload of screw-ups that we are. Sometimes that's one of the burdens that comes with the blessings, too.

 

We try our best, and we hope to learn a little something before we meet our Maker and Judge. But none of us is convinced, in his heart of hearts, that he will meet God as anything other than a screw-up.

 

So, I don't know exactly what they think about jeering, untruth-telling, and disrespectful speech. I imagine they think exactly the same things I think when I'm justifying my unchristian behavior. But they're stuck with me, and I'm stuck with them. And God is stuck with us both.

 

ETA: No, God is not stuck with us. What on earth am I smoking?! It's the mystery of faith: that God chooses to be stuck with us. Time. For. Bed.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

<snip>

 

 

Sorry you have had a bad succession of days. No need to take seriously criticisms of your good, well-planned family life. I hope you have good wine to sooth your nerves. Feel better soon. :grouphug:

[Twinmom]

 

Sarah, I also hope you have a better night and a nice glass of wine to soothe your nerves. You deserve it. That said, I also want to add that I think you are pretty darn smart. Actually, I'd amend that to say pretty darn brilliant. Seriously. You impress me tremendously.

 

For that matter, so do you, Pam. I admire you more than you could possibly know and I hope you find the answers you are looking for in many areas. You are a smart, thoughtful woman whose posts always make me smile and think at the same time.

 

Just a little lovefest here before I go watch the speeches and try to remain as Christ-like as possible! ;)

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

And they were rebuking religious establishments, not political ones. Elijah's "quibble" was with the prophets of Baal. Jesus did not rail against Ceasar, but against the corruption in the temple and the religious emptiness he witnessed. Paul wasn't speaking politically, but religiously.

 

The examples given of confronting politics are Paul before Herod Agrippa. He was baited, but did not respond. Nathan confronted King David with a story and a revelation. (Though it could be argued that this was a religious rebuke, but David seriously disgraced his position as king and commander in chief with this murder/adultery scandal. So I would argue it political.) Jesus stood before Pilate but offered no stinging criticism of the corrupt Roman Empire. Daniel under Nebuchadrezzar, Beshazzar, Darius wasn't a railer or a sarcastic man. Hurling zingers was not what landed Daniel in the lion's den. Ridicule was not what landed him and the three Hebrew dudes in the fiery furnace.

 

Perhaps someone can find exceptions that probe my "rule," but this has always been how I see the examples preserved in the Christian bible.

 

And then to further confuse me, I need to figure out if I think the prophets major and minor were speaking religiously or politically.

 

It is nice to be understood.

 

I would like to add that Biblical figures who were speaking on behalf of righteousness may have been straightforward and hard talking, but they weren't nasty or spiteful.

 

I'm done. :001_smile:

[PariSarah]

Why follow them?

 

I was not trying to go here, Pam:

 

"Judge not, that ye be not judged"

 

I mean, aside from the fact that I think you're way too lovely a lady to need any moral coaching from me, of all people, I don't know why you'd worry about that.

 

Grr. . . . not coming out right. Should shut down and reboot tomorrow, but I'll try one more soft reboot before giving up.

 

My post should not be construed as a criticism of your moral character. In no way, shape, or form do I hold you accountable to any part of Scripture. So the last thing I was trying to say was that you were being judgmental.

 

I don't know what you find compelling about Christ. If I didn't know he was raised from the dead, I would find him the least compelling moral guide ever. I might could get with some Judaism, if they'd take me--it's self-consciously reflective, adaptive, responsive. Either that or Nietzsche, because it would save me the work. Judaism is beautiful, but hard. But I find Christianity frankly offensive, if it's not true.

 

So that part of your post, I don't get. I don't have to. It's not my job to authorize or approve your moral sensibilities. It's just . . . my own moment of cognitive dissonance.

 

It's the calling people to account according to a faith system you don't believe that is just puzzling for me. Call them liars, absolutely. Call them disrespectful a$$holes--you'd be right on the mark. Manipulative, power-hungry hate-mongers? You could be right.

 

But why bother calling them unchristian? Why is that meaningful to you?

 

If I tell a fellow Christian that I find him to be in sin, it's because his salvation matters to me. The words are useful according to the use to which I'm putting them. To what use are you putting your words? I'm not asking out of judgment, but out of puzzlement. What use does calling people unchristian serve you? Why not simply call them liars and be done with it?

 

I suppose that when I'm speaking to a non-Christian, I try to find some moral landscape we both share--maybe the rule of law, maybe utility, maybe mutual self-interest. Is that where you're going? Because you know Scripture and like some of it, you can at least use that as a common ground from which to speak?

 

I guess that makes sense. Especially if your goal is restoration.

 

But . . . there I am, using Christian language. That won't work.

 

Lordy, can you imagine how much worse this would be if I did have some wine, Sister Pam?:tongue_smilie:

 

Forgive my verbal and theological incontinence. Will go to sleep. Pocket Sarah returns tomorrow. :o

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

But why bother calling them unchristian? Why is that meaningful to you?

 

What use does calling people unchristian serve you? Why not simply call them liars and be done with it?

 

I suppose that when I'm speaking to a non-Christian, I try to find some moral landscape we both share--maybe the rule of law, maybe utility, maybe mutual self-interest. Is that where you're going? Because you know Scripture and like some of it, you can at least use that as a common ground from which to speak?

 

 

 

I deleted my original reply, but not quickly enough. I'm sorry.

 

 

 

The King James bible runs through my head like salmon through a stream. Lines of hymns. Yes, I guess I "like some of it." (??) I suppose I should be a good agnostic and practice the replacement principle, pick up some Dawkins and Westermarck and Barnes and memorize whole passages to help guide my new life and fill the new hole in my head and heart. But somehow, I can't shake off 35 years of life immersion quite so easily. Perhaps you could do so. It simply isn't that easy for me.

 

I don't do well not framing my speech without the terms and cadences of Christianity when I'm speaking to the world at large. Much less so when I'm speaking to Christians.

 

I've always thought common ground is good. But I can see that it might be seen as threatening or condemning or patronizing. That was not my intent. At all.

[laughing lioness]

I'm not thinking of being "salt and light" as a default mode. After all, it is a "state of being." What I was trying to say was that most of the political discussion (on these boards and elsewhere) isn't really about trying to convince someone to change their mind, it is more about expressing one's own pov. What I was trying to say was that in order to truly be salt and light one must back it up with action, be that shutting up, serving, or speaking kindly. Sorry for the confusion.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I'm not thinking of being "salt and light" as a default mode. After all, it is a "state of being." What I was trying to say was that most of the political discussion (on these boards and elsewhere) isn't really about trying to convince someone to change their mind, it is more about expressing one's own pov. What I was trying to say was that in order to truly be salt and light one must back it up with action, be that shutting up, serving, or speaking kindly. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Right, I know. I got you, but I wasn't thinking of it that way, so I had to readjust and think about it as *action* and not *being*. I wasn't saying you were wrong -- you did understand that, right? I understood you, but I hadn't thought of it in the active sense before.