Faith Differences
My friend Josh Elek recently posted this response on Ryan Kumpf’s blog. It’s safe to say that my dialog with Ryan Kumpf is mostly about our differences and very different approaches to government and foreign affairs. I enjoy discussing our differences for a variety of reasons but first and foremost, I think it’s healthy and to highlight the differences (in a respectable and intellectual way) between people of the same faith is desperately needed in today’s society. Josh, Ryan and I are all Christians but there are differences in how we believe. How VERY important this is cannot be underestimated. Christians are allowed to disagree on political issues and certainly allowed to be of varying political parties and ideologies.
I need to acknowledge that I agree with the following few paragraphs that Josh posted. At this point, based on my knowledge of the Bible and life experience, I think it is an accurate understanding of the Gospel (again, as best as I can understand it) and it brings forth many of the points that I have made in much of my writing (but Josh just happens to have a better way with words) I think Josh’s words explain Romans 12 very well, mainly that it is our response to the grace of Jesus that compels us to obey, not the other way around. But I’ll let Josh explain it, he does a better job. Thank you Josh for putting this so succinctly and again, highlighting what I believe to be one of the single greatest differences between Christians (politically speaking) in America today.
Context: Josh is responding to Ryan Kumpf’s post. They have been going back and forth a bit. Ryan’s original post was titled: “Iraq, Christian Injustice.”In an attempt to take nothing out of context, I’d advise you to go to Ryan Kumpf’s blog for a further and more detailed context of the dialog:
“…It all rests on what I expect from non-Christians. I do not expect non-Christains to behave as Christians. In fact, I do not even go so far as to encourage or request non-Christians to behave as Christians.
In my opinion, if we try to change people’s behavior before they are Christians, we run the risk of succeeding. If we succeed, and people behave as Christians without ever having accepted Christ, they will experience the peace that comes from Christian obedience, but will not experience the grace of God that comes from submission to Jesus. This would be serious indeed. I believe the thing that drives people to Jesus is the great disrupt in their hearts. They sense something is wrong, and want it fixed. If we were to lull the world with the peace that anyone can get through following the law, we would in effect drug them with the peace and rob them of the true gift of the cross, which is God’s grace.
Notice, it is the old covenant that relies on the law. The new covenant relies on grace. The old covenant began with laws and granted grace. (The law was the foundation.) The new covenant through Jesus begins with grace and grants the law. (I hope I am making sense.)
Because the US Constitution is not a Christian document, I do not expect it to behave as if it were. Therefore, I do not believe the US Constitution should behave in a Christian way. I believe the US Constitution should behave in a way that is consistent with itself. If it does so, and people see that even the beautiful US Law does not grant peace, maybe more people will look toward the grace of Christ.
My political support for issues that oppose Christianity is not meant to imply my consent for those depraved behaviors. My political support intends to support the US in what it is, a fallen broken system of the world. I do not want to pretty up US Law and make it more Christian, because I run the risk of succeeding. Again, if we did succeed, and people found peace through US Law, they may be less likely to feel the disconnect that drives men to God.”



