By Dean Lusk...and I'm proud that he isn't afraid to talk about it.
Many headlines have been issued, this one from
FoxNews.com: "Alabama Gov: Non-Christians 'Not My Brother.'" Oddly,
the CNN.com story seems to be a little more fair to the governor, putting his statements within better context.
A couple of bits from the
FoxNews article:
"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother," [brand-new governor Robert]
Bentley said Monday, his inauguration day, according to The Birmingham News...
"Does it mean that those who according to him are not saved are less important than those who are saved?" Taufique said. "Does he want those of us who do not belong to the Christian faith to adopt his faith? That should be toned down. That's not what we need. If he means that, I hope he changes it. We don't want evangelical politicians. They can be whatever in their private life."I say, "Way to go, Governor Bentley! But..."
Gov. Bentley didn't misspeak. He spoke truth, and I commend him for coming right out of the gate as the new governor and leaving no doubt as to who he is. Much of the commentary I've seen on the event puts forth that Gov. Bentley shouldn't use his political office as a platform for speaking about his religious views.
It's been said that he can do that on his own private time. It's also been opined that
he shouldn't use his position in a way that will attempt to convert anyone to his faith.My only issue is that the new governor talked about things in terms that people just aren't going to universally understand, and he surely knows that. He was saying things that followers of Christ should understand. But
to the majority of people, his choice of words just said, "Only people who love Jesus are in my club. The rest aren't." And to most people, I'm sure the logical tag for that statement is,
"...and club members always get preferential treatment." Did he mean that? Nope. I'll guarantee he didn't. In fact, though his statements may sound to some like they're exclusionary, they
should tell people that he will be more than fair to everyone. (
1 Peter 2:11-25,
Luke 6:32-36,
Romans 12:17-18, etc.) The Roman emperor Julian "the Apostate," said about Christians in his time (a little after 360 A.D.): "the impious Galileans [Christians]
support not only their own poor but ours as well.". Their lives screamed, "We love Jesus and we love you. A lot."
(Interestingly, the fact that they were Christians virtually guaranteed that they would be more than fair to everyone. That's what Christians were like in those days. Is that what people think of the typical Christian today? I see political rhetoric that says, "This governer just can't be fair to everyone if he doesn't think they're his brother/sister." Is it really a biased media that says that Christians often don't do what they say they believe?)In a Facebook comment about the article, an old friend of mine said that
the governor should attempt to convert people to Christianity "by setting an example, not by telling people they are not his brother." I agree that such a glass of ice water in the face of every non-Christian person might not have been the best vehicle of sharing the Gospel in this particular scenario, and
there may have been more gracious words for him to use to start his term as governor (I can't help thinking about how
Paul addressed the philosophers on Mars Hill in Acts 17, and what he wrote in
Colossians 4:5-6).
But that's small. He said what he said knowing that he would be roundly criticized in the press, and that people would likely call for his resignation.
He spoke plainly in spite of the potential consequences.I fully
disagree that the governor should set aside his relationship with Jesus for observance only on his personal time, which is what many people have stated. That's one major difference between someone's religion and someone's relationship.
It's simply not possible to "turn off" a relationship and save it for your personal time. Religion? Maybe so. But not an honest-to-goodness relationship with God.
I don't know if this is a perfect analogy or not, but my love for my wife goes with me everywhere I am, and I wouldn't stop talking about her at work if I happened to work with a gay guy and he found my relationship with her personally offensive (to use an extreme example). However, if I have a passion for preparing sushi, but my co-worker nearly vomits every time I bring it up because he hates sushi, I'm going to stop talking about it. That IS something I can partition off for another time.
It's an activity or a hobby that I can decide to do or not to do, which is completely different from what we experience in a genuine relationship with someone.Loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength (
Lk. 10:26-28) does not allow a part-time commitment. And regarding politicians, honestly, would you believe that a politician is actually a Christian if you heard religious things from him in his "off" time, but never saw any indications of a relationship with Jesus Christ while he was serving in his official capacity? I'd think that he was using a religious façade for his own personal and political gain.
But nobody ever does that, right? (Cough! Cough!)
So for my take on it all, though I'm not really convinced that Gov. Bentley used speech that was "with grace, as though seasoned with salt," (Col. 4:6), I'm proud of him!
I'd love to see this kind of thing from all followers of Christ.
Recommend
Comments (18)
I don't think people were concerned that he was talking about something he is passionate about. They were concerned that the principle of separation of Church and State might be undermined. Having said that, I don't know why there is such a big fuss about this. Bush did the same thing, even claiming that God talked to him, and nobody seemed very concerned.
I personally don't care what his religious views are, as long as he doesn't impose them on the way he carries out his job. Absent that, if that's his view, there are Free Speech principles that give him a right to express them. Interesting post.
AMEN! I wanted to call up our Christian radio station so badly when they were discussing this, but I can never get the darn number down fast enough. Of course I do not know, but I feel the same way, he was misunderstood by the general public... I was happy he shared this. He was completely open about his faith, while saying, "but let's live equally." At least that's how I took it. Could he have left it out? Sure... but I'm sure he had meaning and purpose behind this with the entire speech. I have yet to hear the entire speech (yes, seriously), but if you think about it, words link together to create an entire story, and just focusing on this sentence, well, it ruins the story. Thanks for sharing!
So as a self-proclaimed Christian, he'll be fair to to non-Christians? I'm sure you're not that gullible to give anyone who claims to be Christian a free pass in your good books. For one, I'm afraid evidence found in history weighs against your argument. How did Christianity spread throughout the world if it weren't for violent conquest? Okay, perhaps I'm being a bit mean. all that stuff happened centuries ago, right? Given the divisive language he uses - which you say yourself, he surely understands the consequences of - I'm afraid I'm a bit pessimistic. I highly doubt he'll be executing heretics, but also doubt he has a secular agenda, which respects the spirit of the Establishment Clause. He'll be making things as Christian as he possibly can, by the sounds of it, without a care for what non-Christians of his electorate think. That or providing kickbacks for the corporations that funded his campaign. Ah, corruption. Sweet corruption.
Very bold for a politician. There seems to be an unwritten rule which goes like this: 'it's better to not believe in anything than to believe in something.' This gives priority to non belief.
We know that it is better to believe than to not believe. Without God we are not complete; with God there is a community, a society.... that is how the US became what it is.
@Sunrise_Hope_Joy@xanga - "I personally don't care what his religious views are, as long as he doesn't impose them on the way he carries out his job."
-I don't know about you, but I sure hope his religious views impose themselves on the way he carries out his job. The world can use some rationality, integrity, and compassion.
@silver_puddles_of_light@xanga - Well there we disagree. I don't think a majority religion should be allowed, through government, to force its views on other people. Government and religion can't be mixed that way.
But...in the gospel, does Jesus put requirements upon who is his brother sister and friend? He doesn't.
So what gives us the authority to say that nonChristians are our brother or sister?
he was kind of a douche about it
sorry, but i don't buy it. you can't truly treat someone equally if you see them as lesser than yourself. if i lived in Alabama, i'd be moving ASAP. as an agnostic, i don't expect a Christian like him to treat me as well as he would another Christian.
@Sunrise_Hope_Joy@xanga - Well, in that case, I'm sure you're pretty upset with the current establishment. Darned Humanists. And there I agree with you.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - "as an agnostic, i don't expect a Christian like him to treat me as well as he would another Christian."
-You might not expect that, but I'm pretty sure Jesus does. Just sayin'.
@silver_puddles_of_light@xanga - Jesus isn't the one running for office. it's not really much of a consolation.
@silver_puddles_of_light@xanga - To bad that's unconstitutional. I don't mind if a person has faith in whatever or not. In fact, I don't mind if they talk about it. I don't mind if they do their job while still having faith. But one thing I do NOT like is people passing any sort of law, or decision made in this government, with a religion in mind. It's not even allowed. If you want someone to have their views of religion incorporated with their job, that means ANY religion can do that. Keep that in mind. Also note that rationality, integrity, and compassion are in humans without ANY faith. And as far as rational, religions aren't rational. That's why you have faith. I'm not saying it's wrong or not true, I'm saying according to religious texts, it's literally fallacy after fallacy. Not just your religion, either.
This is definitely messed up. If you are an important political figure, you can't just "cast out" people because they don't have the same beliefs as you. Americans are free to choose whatever religion they want & there is a such thing as separation of church & state. Just because they don't believe what you believe doesn't make them unworthy. That's the message he's conveying. He's now the governor of a state that had better be religious or they should get out. That's the message i'm getting, anyway.
No one is sure if there is a god or not. No one has solid proof. Books are not proof. So until we're sure, save the condemnation of others.
@ohheybbyitscorixx@xanga - Judging by what you say about religion, we're probably working with different definitions of religion. Allow me to substitute 'worldview' for religion, since the term is closer to what I mean.
Premise 1: All values are rooted in worldviews. All worldviews have something to say about theology. (Even if, like in the case of Secular Humanism, that theology is atheism).
Premise 2: All laws express some value system. No laws are neutral.
Conclusion: All laws express a particular worldview (or 'religion' if you prefer). It's inevitable. Thus, it can't be unconstitutional. And since 89% of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were Christians (only 3 were Deists), I think it's fairly evident that the Constitution itself is largely the product of Christian worldviews (or worldviews which were sympathetic to the Christian position: Deism).
What do you think? Is that a fair assessment of legislation? (And not that you care, but I'm of the opinion that what is meant by "separation of church and state" isn't a separation of religion and government, but rather a means of prohibiting an official state church such as the one jolly ol' England had--the Church of England--which lead to so much trouble.)
"Also note that rationality, integrity, and compassion are in humans without ANY faith."
-This is true, my point was merely that Christians recognize (or ought to, in any case) that they are accountable to God for their actions.
"And as far as rational, religions aren't rational. That's why you have faith."
-Well, I agree with you there: Mormanism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are all irrational. Christianity, however, is different. Christianity in America is often more Americanism than Christ-ism, so unfortunately, this isn't as evident as it ought to be. Christians are never called to a blind faith. Rather, it is supposed to be a faith in response to evidence, not one without evidence. Blind faith is not just unchristian, it's pagan. It has absolutely no Scriptural foundation.
Nevertheless, I'm curious to hear more about this "fallacy after fallacy" phenomenon you mention.
@silver_puddles_of_light@xanga - Christianity is NO different from any other religion. They all have fallacies. All of them. "World views" as you put it, were formed by evolution. Psychology can fully explain why something is right or wrong with science, and without religious texts. So, yeah, every country has these world views. Some of these views are based on logic. Some aren't. As far as the constitution is concerned, I'm not interested in trying to bend the meaning of it to let one group overpower another. Separation of church and state. Exactly what it says. But if it isn't somehow, that means not just Christianity can be involved in this conversation. Every other religion would have a reason to want to make laws based on faith. I strongly believe that when the constitution was created, it kept in mind ALL people. Of all religions, and lack of them. It was created so no power can overpower any other. Also, since this article was about someone expressing their religion when they are involved in the government, I would like to say that your view on only Christian being logical is completely subjective. If you really want to say that this man can have Jesus involved in his decision making with his government job, then any other religion can talk about their God. And to them, it would also be completely logical. And about the fallacy after fallacy thing. Sorry, but saying just because the bible says so or your religion says so is NOT logical. But one of the main ones that concern all religious texts is appeal to belief. Just because you believe something is right, doesn't make it automatically right. It's what religious texts rely on. Without that, most of the things in the bible make no sense, because none of it is logic. Again, that's why you have to have faith. All religions have little to no facts. And if I'm going to follow laws, I want those laws to be based on some sort of logical evidence that those laws should be in place. But like I said, I don't care what he believes in.
@ohheybbyitscorixx@xanga -
"Christianity is NO different from any other religion." -How so? That's fine to say, but I fail to see how that is.
"They all have fallacies." - Well, I don't agree with you, but if it's so riddled with fallacies as you say it is, do you mind sharing the top 20 or so?
Also, you mention that if one religion can be expressed in government, then they all possess an equal right to be expressed. Well, if you believe that, then you ought to be furious with Humanists, since Humanism is the only religion which is "acceptable" in government and in schools. (And it most certainly is a religion. I know a Humanist minister.) Humanists have a religious monopoly, but I've never heard an atheist or agnostic complain about that. Strikes me as odd.
"Just because you believe something is right, doesn't make it automatically right." - I agree with you, there. Which is why, as I said, Christianity is not a religion based in blind faith. It's one based in a reasonable faith which is a response to evidence, and not a faith despite evidence. I'm glad you bring this up, because I hate it when people hold beliefs that don't make sense and that they can't defend. It's a good point.
One last thing. You keep saying that religion is illogical, based on "little to no facts." How, exactly, does Christianity violate the rules of logic? And which facts does it need which it does not have?
@ohheybbyitscorixx@xanga - I should also say that I admire your tolerance for other viewpoints. True tolerance isn't a wish to end debate by forcing all people to agree. I think that tolerance reaches its highest point in sincere debate and argument. That said, kudos to you.