I was planning to write on the pending collapse of Canada's real estate bubble, but came across something a bit more current. I still intend to offer up some analysis about why home values are poised to drop, but I don't see that slide being truly evident until later this year and into early 2010.
What caught my eye? Another surfing session at bloggingtories lead me to reading "Business. Church. Politics" Kevin R. Bourne's blog. His most recent posting is titled: "Christian Heritage Party of Canada- A Viable Option? It reminded me of something I'd written about in February: Will Christian Right Stick With Harper's Conservatives?
I'm not interested in going over the same ground again, so rather I'd like to approach this question from the perspective of a fundamentalist Christian, also frequently referred to as born again or evangelical.
I believe readers deserve to know of an author's biases up front, so here are mine. While I identify myself as being Christian, I in no way consider myself to be an Evangelical, or a fundamentalist. With that being said I have attended numerous Churches such as Pentecostal and Baptist which typically identify themselves as being 'faith based'. As such I believe I have a pretty strong understanding of the Christian frame of reference.
Is the Christian Heritage Party a viable option? That's the question being posed by Mr. Bourne, who incidentally lists among his many accomplishments that of being an ordained minister. In his writing, Reverend Bourne opines that..."they should consider a partnership with the Conservative Party". I must disagree, not from a political perspective, but rather from a religious one.
In his blog the author offers up the Old Testament story of Joseph and the Pharaoh, for those less familiar with Biblical teaching you may wish to reference Andrew Lloyd Weber's ' Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat'. Joseph brought solutions to the problems facing Egypt, and as such was able to attain a high political post, courtesy of a grateful Egyptian monarch.
But Joseph did not seek out high office, it was granted to him because of his faithful adherence and belief in the God of Abraham. Joseph never compromised his beliefs or his faith. The questions a fundamentalist Christian voter should be asking in my opinion, are these.
Do I compromise on my religious beliefs, and vote with a larger party that has a more legitimate chance of attaining power?
Rather than vote for a party which is true to Christian teaching, should I vote for a larger party that comes closest to them?
Pastor Bourne seems to think that political expediency should trump faithfulness to one's beliefs. Obviously the Conservatives, as currently constructed, have a better chance of electing sizable numbers when compared to a party like the CHP. But is that what Christianity is about? Did Jesus instruct his disciples to ignore His teachings so as to obtain power and influence?
Canada's fundamentalist, evangelical Christian population has certainly found a home with Stephen Harper's party. But if significant enough numbers remained true to their faith and voted with the CHP, this small fringe party might very well be able to elect enough members to have the Christian voice heard in government. Like Joseph with the Pharaoh, Christians remaining faithful to their core beliefs and to the teachings of Jesus might very well be blessed, as Joseph was blessed.
What issues are of importance to Canadians who believe strongly in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Bible? One that is certainly front and centre right now is that of homosexuality. For those who accept Biblical teaching as literal fact and absolute truth, it must be very disconcerting to see their tax dollars being used to celebrate that which is considered a sinful and unnatural lifestyle.
Already Stephen Harper's Tories have funded Toronto's Gay Pride festival, as well as similar events in cities across Canada. Sure they denied funding to Montreal's Gay Arts festival, but they have not repudiated their earlier decisions. In an effort to avoid controversy Montreal's organizers were simply told there were too many events applying for funding.
To me it reeks of hypocrisy, something Jesus was none too keen on. Like the Pharisees of the Gospels, Harper and his ilk seem anxious to appear devout, but in reality it strikes me that they're merely paying lip service to their socially conservative base. I strongly suspect Montreal's funding would have gone through had it not been for Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost taking the issue to a socially conservative news service.
With news out that Stephen Harper's Conservatives were doling out big cheques to festivals and such across Canada, festivals that celebrate: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) lifestyles....damage control was needed. Montreal had its funding denied and Diane Ablonczy was sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
That's the operative word here in the final analysis, 'expediency'. Firm adherence to Christian beliefs and principles has never been Stephen Harper's political forte. If it were I don't see how he could have fired the first stone in Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's direction during his trip to Italy. Stones thrown without provocation, ...striking back at the cheek of an academic who questioned Canada's relevance at the G8...not those of the Liberal leader.
Am I suggesting that Michael Ignatieff is more of a Christian than Harper? Absolutely not, in my opinion they are both cut of the same cloth...they're both politicians.
So again I'll return to expediency. Are voters who identify themselves as believers in the true Gospel going to continue to support Harper? Or will they turn to the Christian Heritage Party, a political party in keeping with Evangelical tenets?
In the final analysis some will choose to serve two masters. Some will proclaim fidelity to their Christian beliefs, while holding their noses and voting for Harper's Conservatives in the hope of attaining political power. While others who opt for the CHP will refuse to compromise on their faith.
The only question is: Will Canada's true Christian party garner enough votes to elect any members? Christian voters who refuse to compromise can be thankful that federal funding of political parties is still in place. At least then, even though the CHP may not elect many (or any) members, they'll at least receive increased funding to make their message heard.
I'm sure many Christians would rather see their tax dollars being used to spread the Gospel as opposed to promoting Gay lifestyles.
What caught my eye? Another surfing session at bloggingtories lead me to reading "Business. Church. Politics" Kevin R. Bourne's blog. His most recent posting is titled: "Christian Heritage Party of Canada- A Viable Option? It reminded me of something I'd written about in February: Will Christian Right Stick With Harper's Conservatives?
I'm not interested in going over the same ground again, so rather I'd like to approach this question from the perspective of a fundamentalist Christian, also frequently referred to as born again or evangelical.
I believe readers deserve to know of an author's biases up front, so here are mine. While I identify myself as being Christian, I in no way consider myself to be an Evangelical, or a fundamentalist. With that being said I have attended numerous Churches such as Pentecostal and Baptist which typically identify themselves as being 'faith based'. As such I believe I have a pretty strong understanding of the Christian frame of reference.
Is the Christian Heritage Party a viable option? That's the question being posed by Mr. Bourne, who incidentally lists among his many accomplishments that of being an ordained minister. In his writing, Reverend Bourne opines that..."they should consider a partnership with the Conservative Party". I must disagree, not from a political perspective, but rather from a religious one.
In his blog the author offers up the Old Testament story of Joseph and the Pharaoh, for those less familiar with Biblical teaching you may wish to reference Andrew Lloyd Weber's ' Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat'. Joseph brought solutions to the problems facing Egypt, and as such was able to attain a high political post, courtesy of a grateful Egyptian monarch.
But Joseph did not seek out high office, it was granted to him because of his faithful adherence and belief in the God of Abraham. Joseph never compromised his beliefs or his faith. The questions a fundamentalist Christian voter should be asking in my opinion, are these.
Do I compromise on my religious beliefs, and vote with a larger party that has a more legitimate chance of attaining power?
Rather than vote for a party which is true to Christian teaching, should I vote for a larger party that comes closest to them?
Pastor Bourne seems to think that political expediency should trump faithfulness to one's beliefs. Obviously the Conservatives, as currently constructed, have a better chance of electing sizable numbers when compared to a party like the CHP. But is that what Christianity is about? Did Jesus instruct his disciples to ignore His teachings so as to obtain power and influence?
Canada's fundamentalist, evangelical Christian population has certainly found a home with Stephen Harper's party. But if significant enough numbers remained true to their faith and voted with the CHP, this small fringe party might very well be able to elect enough members to have the Christian voice heard in government. Like Joseph with the Pharaoh, Christians remaining faithful to their core beliefs and to the teachings of Jesus might very well be blessed, as Joseph was blessed.
What issues are of importance to Canadians who believe strongly in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Bible? One that is certainly front and centre right now is that of homosexuality. For those who accept Biblical teaching as literal fact and absolute truth, it must be very disconcerting to see their tax dollars being used to celebrate that which is considered a sinful and unnatural lifestyle.
Already Stephen Harper's Tories have funded Toronto's Gay Pride festival, as well as similar events in cities across Canada. Sure they denied funding to Montreal's Gay Arts festival, but they have not repudiated their earlier decisions. In an effort to avoid controversy Montreal's organizers were simply told there were too many events applying for funding.
To me it reeks of hypocrisy, something Jesus was none too keen on. Like the Pharisees of the Gospels, Harper and his ilk seem anxious to appear devout, but in reality it strikes me that they're merely paying lip service to their socially conservative base. I strongly suspect Montreal's funding would have gone through had it not been for Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost taking the issue to a socially conservative news service.
With news out that Stephen Harper's Conservatives were doling out big cheques to festivals and such across Canada, festivals that celebrate: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) lifestyles....damage control was needed. Montreal had its funding denied and Diane Ablonczy was sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
That's the operative word here in the final analysis, 'expediency'. Firm adherence to Christian beliefs and principles has never been Stephen Harper's political forte. If it were I don't see how he could have fired the first stone in Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's direction during his trip to Italy. Stones thrown without provocation, ...striking back at the cheek of an academic who questioned Canada's relevance at the G8...not those of the Liberal leader.
Am I suggesting that Michael Ignatieff is more of a Christian than Harper? Absolutely not, in my opinion they are both cut of the same cloth...they're both politicians.
So again I'll return to expediency. Are voters who identify themselves as believers in the true Gospel going to continue to support Harper? Or will they turn to the Christian Heritage Party, a political party in keeping with Evangelical tenets?
In the final analysis some will choose to serve two masters. Some will proclaim fidelity to their Christian beliefs, while holding their noses and voting for Harper's Conservatives in the hope of attaining political power. While others who opt for the CHP will refuse to compromise on their faith.
The only question is: Will Canada's true Christian party garner enough votes to elect any members? Christian voters who refuse to compromise can be thankful that federal funding of political parties is still in place. At least then, even though the CHP may not elect many (or any) members, they'll at least receive increased funding to make their message heard.
I'm sure many Christians would rather see their tax dollars being used to spread the Gospel as opposed to promoting Gay lifestyles.
Thanks to you Canadian Soapbox is now listed in the Top Ten at Canadian Blogosphere. To help this blog climb even higher click on their icon, then hit the green button to vote - limit 1 vote per day per IP - thank you.
Posts
Seed Newsvine
13 comments:
I think that you have the mistaken belief that most Evangelicals, or conservative Christians are betraying their own beliefs by voting Conservative.
I don't think they are. I think they believe that voting Conservative is perfectly compatible with their beliefs.
I think it would help if the CHP ran candidates in every riding, or at least a majority. It's hard to vote for a party when there's no candidate in your riding.
I suspect that a heck of a lot of so-cons are disillusioned with Stephen Harper right now, and are open to voting for something else-- or just staying home.
I don't think Stephen Harper will be able to count on the Christian vote this time-- at least, not to the same degree.
I think you'll find that the CHP doesn't receive public funding. To receive funding a party has to have:
* at least 2 percent of the valid votes cast, or
* at least 5 percent of the valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the party endorsed a candidate
And, as an evangelical, I would say that the CHP doesn't reflect all the beliefs of an evangelical, far from it. Their attitudes on the environment, which the Bible says is God's creation, is subpar, their positions on taxation etc... are unfair, etc...
When you hold any set of beliefs, it will be difficult to find a party that meets all of them. You have to eventually decide which aspects of them you think are most important. And Jesus mentioned helping your neighbour, giving to the poor etc... more than homosexuality. In fact he never did, that's Paul.
I would like to correct your statement that the CHP ie either evangelical or fundamentalist. the party was founded by two couples , one Catholic, the other Reformed, and the party is not a relaigious party in the sense that they would govern theorcratically. The CHP believes that the country was built on judeo-christian principles and tenets, and the results, compounded over time, is what we refer to as heritage. Canada has a Christian heritage, which is being dsacrificed on the altar of political expedience by politicians who put politics first, principle be damned. Basically whatever the polls say, is what they believe in this week. The best example I can think of is paul Martin. When Svend Robinson introduced the first so-called same sex "marriage" bill in 1999, the most vocal opponent o it was the same paul martin, who, in 2004, and 2005 rammed so-called same sex "marriage" through parliament in Barack Obama/Rahm Emmanuel style.
The CHP runs candidateswho would govern according the principles on which canada was built,time tested, tried and true principles which resulted in (until we turned our backs on them) a free and just society that was the envy of the world, and its remnant still is.
As for Suzanne's comment, I am mostly in agreement, especially with her assertion that the party needs to run more candidates in order to have an impact. I would say a minimum of 150 would open many eyes, after all that was about the threshold where the Greens became a force. Unlike the Greens, there are actually some ridings where the social conservative vote would carry the day. It is theoretically ossible that the CHP could win a dozen or so seats if they were taken seriously as a viable force. With a few seats, they could swing some votes in parliament, but just as importnatly, it would send a message to governing parties that things like funding pornographic films, gay pride festivals and the like are not acceptable. It would speak more loudly than EGALE showing up with some push-polling they did.
Remember how the NDP was viewed by many as "the conscience of Parlaiment" when they had but a dozen of so MPs under David lewis and Ed Broadbent. The CHP could fulfil such a role from the traditionalist/so-con perspective.
I also agree with Suzanne that if Mr harper thinks he can count on the so-con vote in the next election to the extent the Conservtives have had it since the party wss formed , he is mistaken.
He would do well to remember that one of the reasons Reform was born, was because many Canadians thought that Bian Mulroney had betrayed the pro-life principles that he campaigned on in '84. Let's not forget that the CHP and Reform were both founded in '86.
That said, watch Alberta where the Wildrose Alliance has just been launched, and may actually take down the Progressive Conservatives, who under Ed Stelmach have placed a bit too much emphasis on the "progresive" component of their name.
Young Liberal, If I may address some of the points you made:
The CHP DOES believe that we should be responsible stewards of the environmnet that has been entrusted to us, for our use, I might add.
This does not mean that we buy into what most of us consider to be junk science, ie the Global Warming myth.
As for homosexuality, if we start with the proemise that Christians subscribe to, ie, that Jesus was God by virtue of the Trinity, it also follows that He was fully the author of the law as it was laid down in the old Testament.
Who said this?
Mat 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Yes, the law still applies... Wha is meant by Grace, is that by believing in Him, and accepting him as Lord and Saviour by virtue of His Sacrifice on the Cross to pay the sin debt of each of us as a free gift, it means we do not pay the PENALTY for our transgression, since he did. Any attempt to pay it by ourselves is an insult to Him in the same way that someone insisting on paying for a gift you offer them would insult you.
We repent in gratitude for what He did for us, not in payment for it.
However, the law still stands, and we must choose to accept the gift of forgiveness in a spirit of gratitude. Ifsomeone brings you a gift, and you do not accept it by laying claim to it, you do not have the gift, even though it was offered.
Thus, Jesus DID speak out against homosexuality, divorce, lying, cheating , covetousness, stealing etc. Not only did he speak out against it, he MAGNIFIED it as Isaiah prophesied he would:
Isa 42:21 ¶ The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make [it] honourable.
Seethe rest of the Sermon on the Mount: Mat 5:21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Mat 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Mat 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Mat 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
again to Young Liberal:
Are you going to try to tell me that this is some hipster dude coming down to liberalize the law as set down by the "angry misanthropic God" of the Old Testament.
If anything, he raised the bar.
Speaking specifically concerning how the CHP would deal with homosexuality, we simply do not believe that the state should involve itself in any way with promoting, enabling or otherwise facilitating the lifestyle. Ask yourself why the government spends millions of taxpayer dollars to discourage smoking and excessive drinking, and to encourage healthy eating and exercise, while at the same time, spending millions on promoting homosexual and other promiscuous behaviour, which have been proven to shorten lifespans, due to illness, and suicide brought on by depression?
How can you justify spending money to discourage some destructive lifestyle choices, which are a drain on our state run medical system, while promoting another destructive lifestyle choice that has the same result?
Indeed, if one is going to try to argue for stewardship over the evironment, should not one argue for the same responsible stewardship in terms of our healthcare resources? Why should people with non preventable illness like MS , ALS, Breast cancer etc have to wait for treatment because we are allocating too many resources toward other conditions which are totally preventabl by behaviour modification?
We believe that many of the social conditions that exist today that have given rise to promiscuity stem from the abandonment of the values that kept things stable for so long... It was not long ago that sexually transmitted diseases and crisis pregnancies were the exception rather than the rule. However, with the rise or moral relativism and secular humanism, the historical boundaries which were not to be crossed have been wipod out by an "anything goes" culture of license, and we have seen the results, and nobody can argue objectively that we re better off for it.
Hi Gordie. I agree with Young Liberal in that it's difficult to find a party that meets all of our beliefs. Eventually you have to decide which aspects are most important to you. I spent 23 years in the Anglican Church where it is very liberal in its beliefs and I've spent six years in the Pentecostal church where it is very rigid, and I've seen that both extremes, reliously and politically, are not effective. I find that Christian political movements usually only discuss issues that are important to Christians or that are "moral". That makes us only relevant to Christians, but not relevant to Canadians. How effective can that be? The reason I've decided to support the Conservative Party is because they uphold a lot of my foundational beliefs, yet they are involved in discussing issues that Canadians are discussing right now (not just moral issues). A few things would have to happen in order for me to support a Christian political party. First, they would have to have opinions on everyday issues ("now" issues) not just the typical issues that Christians talk about. Second, they would have to have more of a presence. A few candidates here and there doesn't tell people that you're serious. We don't hear any policy statements or press releases in the media. We don't see any position papers being distributed. We don't see the brand anywhere. If they aren't going to have seats in parliament they could at least focus on advocacy but we don't hear about that. This party would have to let people know that they are another option, but they aren't doing that.
Thanks for continuing the discussion!
Kevin,
While I agree that the CHP needs to run more candidates, I alo agree that while holding the moral positions we advocate we must also get the rest of the policy out there in order to dispel the impression many people have (those who have actually heard of the CHP) that we are not just concerned about pro-life and traditional morals, but rather propose a limited government. I for one, believe that limited government must go hand in hand with responsible self government, which is possible when people attempt to live by the princples that gave rise to our judeo-chirtian heritage. To wit, a free society is not one where anything goes, but one where people guide their behaviour according to time tested standards of right and wrong. capitalism is not Bernie Madoff or Earl Jones: These guys are swindlers whose behaviour hurts people, and allows proponents of big, intrusive government to argue their case with a degree of effectiveness.
If we want a limited government allowing citizens to innovate and keep most the fruits of their labours, thus motivating them to produce more and better and cleaner products, then government needs to get out of the way except as providing objective laws that are focussed on preventing and punishing the use of force and fraud in transactions.
When one lives by Judeo-Christian principles, one also recognizes the need to provide for those who fall on hard times, or who cannot provide for themselves, and Cjristian charity is second to none. However, that presupposes that we are allowed to keep enough of of he fruits of our labours that we can support worthwhile projects to help our fellow man, not being required to pa for abortions, condom distribution, and foreign aid to governments of countries that spit on basic human rights.
If we are to have a medical system such as we have in place now, we need to stop taxpayer funding and governmental promotion of destructive lifestyles, whatever they are. If people want to partake in them, they may do so without being persecuted, but should not expect the government to celebrate or finance any part of it.that is resposnible stewardship over the emdical system which brings costs and wait times down.
I could go on, but we do have a whole list of responsible policies, based on principle.
We just need to get them more out in the forefront.
BTW, there are many good Tory MPs whom I would support, but there is a socially liberal establishment that is in control of the party at the moment.
YL...you'll notice I specifically referenced the Gospel of Jesus and the Bible. You're right about homosexuality being a topic ignored by Jesus. But it is a topic dealt with in great deal by both Paul and the OT writers.
In my experience, evangelical...or born agains, or fundamentalists (pick your adjective) believe that the Bible is the irrefutable word of God.
Christians of an evangelical stripe in my experience don't pick and choose with the Bible. They accept the entire book as God's divine word and teaching.
Obviously there will be individuals who have differing views...but (again) from my experience 'faith based' fundamentalist churches approach the Bible in this fashion, and homosexuality is absolutely considered sinful and unnatural.
My own views are more secular, and I've even met one pastor who told me not to refer to myself as Christian.
Kevin...thank for you the genesis of a very lively discussion.
If I may...the Christians I know talk about everything, not just matters of morality and faith. And as far as the CHP party is concerned, they have a full platform with policies on everything from Immigration to the environment, from foreign policy to domestic affairs.
I think the problem the CHP is having is similar in many respects to the problems Jesus Himself sometimes faced.
There were many Jews who refused to follow Jesus during His lifetime because there wasn't enough flash...Give us a miracle they'd say, and Jesus would admonish them for being of shallow faith and for testing the Lord.
I think Neal's words about Canada being a nation with a Christian Heritage could find resonance with a good many Canadians....but not with those who are more concerned with immediate "show us a miracle" results.
Well said Gordie! We expect to get kicked around , spat on, and put down... if respectability is what you're after, don't follow Jesus....
Even though many in His day walked away because of the fact that he didn't "perform tricks for the crowd" look at how what he taught, and his life affected the world thereafter!
Some of us,like Moses, may only get to see the promised land from the top of the mountain, while others like Aaron, may never see it al all, but perhaps, there is a Joshua who will lead the minions in.
I think Kevin misunderstood me. I did not say that as a Christian i believe that Jesus made God hipper and that he doesn't care about homosexuality. Far from it.
I also agree that Jesus, as God, is author of the Bible and thus the parts dealing with homosexuality. But, what did he focus on when he was here on earth?
I was just remarking that there is not a party, or at least the CHP does not seem to be, a party that presents a point of view that Jesus would entirely agree with. Jesus wanted to help the poor and the outcasts: "what you do unto these you do unto me".
The way the government helps the poor is through social services that are funded through taxes. The CHP wants to cut these taxes.
Gordie, I agree with what you said. I do not pick and choose with the Bible.
However, the political spectrum makes it impossible to not have to when it comes to supporting a political party. That's what I was saying.
Kevin, again, if you support limited government, and so does the CHP, then I would not vote for them.
There are too many issues and one has to decide which are more important.
For anyone choosing a political party should be difficult to varying degrees. Otherwise, they are not approaching their choice with reason, but rather subscribing dogmatically to whatever they say.
Post a Comment