An apology and a clarification

I reread my last post and I think it comes across as mean or something so I want to apologize in case it comes across like that to you and also to clarify now that I have an actual moment to myself. I was in such a hurry to post that I didn't do my usual rereading before I posted.

One thing I've noticed during our conversations, both here and before this, via email, is that we draw different mental lines around what we consider spiritual or religious topics. So to try and clarify where things that I write might seem contradictory to you, while I firmly believe that the kingdom of God has nothing in common with the kingdoms of this world and that Christians can't commit fully to either one without the other suffering, at the same time, I see everything in this world, including worldly politics and civics as something that informs and elaborates on how God wants us to live. Everything in the world reminds me of God in one way or the other. I don't draw a line whereby I rationalize that "thou shalt not kill" doesn't include everyone, at every time, including wars and self-defense. Every subject has a God aspect to it, in the WWJD sense. To me, faith isn't an airy-fairy, head-in-the-clouds feeling, it is an act, a rejoicing whenever mercy (above all mercy) is shown even in matters that appear to be secular.

My rejection of *this* world, in the sense of preferring to not vote, etc, does not mean that I don't have an interest in politics. I am always glad when laws of the state are as fair as they can be in a world that is not run God. I don't expect the world to run by God's laws but I appreciate it when they coincide on the larger matters of mercy. I would love if there was no one poor in the world, no one hungry, no one in jail, and everyone loved each other. If the state works in its limited way to level the playing field for all its citizens, although it can't legislate actually caring, it is a step in the right direction. The final step, of course, I believe only Jesus and His return can accomplish. Still, every now and then, to hear the small still voice of compassion instead of the whirlwind of self-interest, is a grace.

But civics, politics, and how states act towards their citizens is certainly relevant to me as a citizen in this world. I can be glad when the state cares for its poor and at the same time not expect the state to adopt Christian values. Unless Christians are being forced to engage in same-sex unions against their will, it does not matter to me or involve me, that I would deny others something that doesn't affect most people at all. Poverty and hopelessness can't be addressed by a 'just pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Not all are born with boots on their feet. First you feed the hungry, then once their physical hunger has been satisfied, then one can address their spiritual condition. But it's useless to offer someone who asks for bread, a stone or a prayer.

And with regards to the discussion about socialism and capitalism, it is possible that what you refer to as "soft" capitalism is what I refer to as socialism. But what I seem not to understand is how Christians pick and choose which causes they think are importantly Christian, as to what to advocate the state for and what not.

So my interest in that isn't about civics in a secular way, but rather how Christians respond to the secular. Like why same sex marriage is worth protesting over but not universal affordable health care which affects a lot more people. Why abortion is protested but addressing social ills like poverty, lack of education and the hopelessness many people feel is not addressed, because of a feeling that many express that the poor and hopeless have somehow brought it on themselves. We are told to "not store up treasure on earth." A less capitalistic idea I can't think of.

And even if people do bring on a lot of their problems on themselves - what does it matter in the context of the New Testament? When Jesus says if a man asks you to walk with him one mile, we are to walk with him two, and if he asks for our coat, we are to give him - what was it? - our robe or something? Nothing here about the asker completing a quiz so that we can determine whether giving our coat or walking that extra mile is good stewardship.

Nowhere do I read an example whereby we first must determine their fitness for our help as Christians.

Even the "if a man does not work, neither shall he eat" which many Christians use to justify a lack of compassion for chronic welfare families, who in fact might actually not want to work, might actually be parasites on society - we've been given no instruction other than to give to whomever asks us. Jesus referred to the lilies of the field and how they did not work. Jesus and his disciples could easily be considered bums since they were sent out to beg.

Now society is not obligated to help anyone on a secular level, but when society does look after the least of them, how is that not better for everyone? Who could possibly object to that? That does not mean that as a Christian I would start advocating the state to put this into law, but if it becomes a law, then I would be very happy.

As to your last part, about how you feel that when God has a point to make He keeps pointing out signs. Again, I don't really relate in the sense that I know the church is far, far away from where it should be and has become obsessed with wealth and *this* world. So for me the sticking point is your use of the word "point." When it comes to how far the church has fallen from grace, I've always known that so I don't know why God would point me to something that is as evident as the nose on my face.

So I am a little confused in what you were saying there: are you saying that the fallen state of the church was not known to you and therefore you feel that God had to make a special point to point it out to you? Or? Because, yes, of course, I believe that God can make points to people of things they are missing. But specifically the failure of the church (in the broadest sense as a community of believers) is not a new idea to me, so it just seems that while I am sure there are many things I miss and that my understanding of many things is flawed and could do with pointers, the state of the church is not one of them.

Anyway, I hope I've explained my thinking better in this post and again, I truly apologize if anything I wrote came across as abrasive.

The photos you sent were lovely; I am envious, sitting here, once again freezing my butt off.