Politics

A Lesson in Power

CanadianFederalElection2015PollingStation.jpg

By Jojo Ruba

When we were younger, my parents only let us watch one show on school nights, the nightly news. Back then, it was only half an hour long and it aired at the right time—just after dinner and before we had to do our homework. Though I first resented the rule, I quickly began to enjoy knowing about what was happening in the world. I particularly loved the back-and-forth of political news. I enjoyed watching the debates and following the candidates and on rare occasions, I would be allowed to stay up late to watch the election results roll in.

That is probably one of the reasons why I went to our nation's capital to study journalism and politics in university. What I found in Ottawa was a great political community. Everyone was either working for the government or was related to someone who was, and so they deeply cared about how our country runs.

CanadianFederalElection2015PollingStationI also found Christians who were passionate about making government work. Whether they were civil servants or partisans on Parliament Hill, they truly wanted to bring our values as Christians to the marketplace of ideas. They strongly believed Christians had something positive to contribute to the country. There were days where I even imagined running for office and gaining political power.

Yet as I watched the most recent election results roll in, I couldn't help but feel personally rejected, as if Christians like me would never be part of the political world again. This had nothing to do, of course, with which party won the election—Christians have been involved in all the major parties, and we at Faith Beyond Belief take no partisan stance. But it has everything to do with what was said during the election—that Christians who didn't take a pro-choice view on abortion or pro-same-sex marriage stance were not even allowed to run for office on behalf of some parties. And when Canadians chose one of these parties to govern us, they wholeheartedly said they had no problem with this view. For the first time in Canadian history, then, no practising Christian with a Christian worldview will sit on the government benches on Parliament Hill.

When I point this out, I get pushback. Some Christians argue that there are practicing believers in government, like the health minister who apparently attends a Mennonite church.[1] But the point I am making is not that there aren't people who call themselves Christian on the government side of the House. It's that there is no one who holds a Christian worldview on that side of the house. Columnist Rex Murphy said it this way:

As things now are, a truly religious person must actually stay out of politics—must forgo an active role in democratic government—because in our brazen and new age, he or she will be faced with irreconcilable moral choices. If elected, he or she will be required to betray their faith and themselves, and on those very issues that matter most: issues of life, family, autonomy and the dignity of persons.[2]

When a political leader insists that those who run for his party must be willing to put that party's beliefs ahead of their faith's teachings, then its clear their faith is compromised. Abortion particularly is a tricky issue to enforce such a rigid morality. Given that Christians, and frankly many people of many faiths and no faith, believe that abortion takes the life of a human being like us, it is impossible to be "pro-choice" on taking those lives. It would be akin to saying I personally oppose killing gay people but it's okay if others choose to kill gay people. From a Christian perspective, killing innocent people is not something you can just be "pro-choice" about and still be a faithful Christian.

It's ironic that so many Canadians argued that requiring a Muslim to temporarily uncover her face while voting was prejudiced and anti-Muslim, but requiring a Christian to compromise her faith's teaching to value all human life before she could be part of the government, was not.

Of course it isn't just practising Christians who are excluded. Muslims, Hindus and even many atheists take the same life-saving position. I met a Sikh representative at my door of one of the parties who takes the radical pro-abortion stance that abortions even at the ninth month of pregnancy should be legal and publicly funded for any or no reason at all (the current law in Canada). He was trying to get me to put up a lawn sign for them. But as I quizzed him about his faith, it was obvious he didn't agree with his party's extreme stance. I asked him, "How can you support a party that won't let you run for them unless you compromise your faith?" I was expecting an argument but instead, he glumly agreed saying I was right and walked off visibly shaken.

Unfortunately, the lack of Christian representation also gets another response: sheer happiness. Many Canadians are glad to get rid of any religious, particularly Christian, influence from the public sphere. One Canadian I debated in an on-line forum insisted that religious people could only participate in politics if they first swear allegiance to the government. I told him that's exactly what the Communists in China and North Korea insist on doing and the comparison didn't bother him.

In fact, it's an ongoing story in Canada: BC's Trinity Western University has a biblical moral code for its staff and students, and because of that code, is in courts across Canada just to ensure their law students can actually practice law. In Quebec, all schools except for a handful must teach that religious views can't be right or wrong—they are all equal. In Ontario, an African church is banned from using public property in downtown Toronto because city officials think singing "There is no God like Jehovah" is proselytizing.

When I debated a top Canadian atheist at the University of Calgary, she insisted that all religious influence be removed from political life. Christians and other religious people can practice their faith, but that faith should have no influence on public policy.

I responded by saying that religious people, particularly Christians, have positively influenced politics too. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist pastor when he fought for civil rights for African-Americans, and one of the founding fathers of the NDP was a Baptist pastor named Tommy Douglas who fought for nationalized healthcare because of his Christian views of taking care of others. Interestingly enough, she conceded this point but said only values that can benefit everyone should be allowed to influence government.

And that's why the move to exclude faith from the public sphere is so heartbreaking. These arguments come from people who don't realize that Christ did come to earth to benefit everyone. That's not an invitation to force people to become Christians through the government (as I pointed out during another debate with that atheist, Christians don't consider people who are forced to convert to our faith as actual Christians, so we have no incentive to do so), but it is a reminder of what Christians ought to do in a culture that is increasingly hostile to us.

Rather than lamenting about being excluded from political power, I realized that the power Christians have isn't found in Ottawa or in politics. It is found in what Jesus said about who is greatest in His kingdom. In Mark 9, in response to His disciples arguing about who was the greatest, Jesus said, "If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." Jesus' life showed that real power didn't come through the one who wielded the biggest sword or who made the most brilliant campaign ad. Instead, His message transformed the world because His power was accepting how much others hated Him and His views and then choosing to serve them anyway, even at the cost of His life.

And this is our commitment at Faith Beyond Belief too. Regardless of who is in government and how much they want to exclude us, we will continue to speak from God's word; we will continue to share how much He cares both for the preborn and the poor; we will continue to offer as an alternative to this culture's insistence that any sexual act will do, His plan for real wholeness for the sexually broken and confused; and no matter how many times we are told that we are no longer welcome in the public arena, we will continue to go those public places so we can proclaim that there is no God like Jehovah as we wash our enemies' feet. And in doing so we pray many understand that power that raised Jesus from the dead is alive today in a church that still chooses to be a servant of all.


[1] Dick Benner, "Philpott Named New Health Minister," Canadian Mennonite, November 4, 2015, accessed November 12, 2015, http://www.canadianmennonite.org/stories/philpott-named-new-health-minister.

[2] Rex Murphy, "In Justin Trudeau's World, Christians Need Not Apply," National Post, June 21, 2014, accessed November 12, 2015, http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-in-justin-trudeaus-world-christians-need-not-apply.

Cutting Through the Rhetoric on Election Day

polling-station.jpg

This post is by guest blogger Paul Buller. Though FBB doesn't take any partisan stands, what Paul writes is an important part of understanding what we should think about as Christian voters.

As anybody in Faith Beyond Belief can tell you, Christianity is far more than just an internal set of beliefs about the hereafter. It is an all-encompassing worldview that informs and clarifies every aspect of life. One area of life about which Christianity has much to say is the area of government, but even with respect to this domain of human activity, Christians can vary widely in their perspectives. What exactly is the "Christian" view on various political issues? Self-proclaimed Christians spread themselves right across the political spectrum.

Politics has been on the radar for many Canadians lately, with the upset victory of the NDP in Alberta as well as the impending federal election looking to be a game-changer. As competing political philosophies spar for our vote, wouldn't it be nice to cut through all the rhetoric, philosophizing and divergent theological interpretations of "How would Jesus vote?" and just consider a more basic question: which political philosophies actually work and which don't? Which political policies actually have a track record of making life better for people, and which have a track record of making life worse?

By knehcsg (Ontario Election  Uploaded by Skeezix1000) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsTo this end, I have penned a short book titled For the Love of Alberta. In this book I present a very brief and introductory case to the effect that left-leaning political philosophy makes promises that are both grander and more compassionate than right-leaning policies, but, when implemented, these policies not only fail to deliver their promises, but actually end up making life worse for people. Although policies from the right end of the political spectrum don't sound nearly as compassionate or concerned for the "little guy" as policies from the left end of the political spectrum, they end up having a significantly more positive effect when implemented than do policies originating from the left. Right-leaning policies are actually much better for the little guy, contra the caricatures that often come from the political left.

To make my case I document the following:

  1. Canadians are more likely to move out of a "progressive" province than move into one. This is especially clear when we consider the history of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
  2. Provinces with progressive tax policies (higher taxes on the wealthy, lower on the poor) have more people in, or near, poverty and they also have a lower median income for all citizens.
  3. Higher taxes on corporations produce much the same results as described above.
  4. Increasing the minimum wage also has much the same impact; people tend to leave the province, earn less if they stay, and are flirting with poverty.
  5. The "gold standard" family structure is (and always has been) children being raised by their biological parents, who are in a life-long, stable, married relationship. Deviate from this standard and not only do children suffer, but so do the adults who experiment with alternative family structures.
  6. As evidence of the previous point, communities in Calgary with a higher proportion of so-called "traditional" families have lower crime, higher education, and less unemployment.

If you are looking for a quick read to wrap your mind around why right-leaning policy has a better track record (despite sounding less compassionate than the alternative), or if you would like some kind of resource you can share with your left-leaning friends, perhaps For the Love of Alberta could be such a resource. I have made the book available for free as a PDF at my website, www.ForTheLoveOfAlberta.ca, or you can buy a hard copy if (like me) you prefer something tangible in your hands.

Scrubbing the Sin List

RFRA_Indianapolis_Protests_-_2015_-_Justin_Eagan_02.jpg

By Scott McClare

Do you believe that Christians should be compelled to stop regarding homosexuality as a sin? According to his op-ed article published on Good Friday, New York Times columnist and gay activist Frank Bruni does.

Last month, the state of Indiana passed SB 101, a state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which has been part of U.S. federal law since 1993. In short, RFRA prohibits the government from burdening a person's free exercise of religion, unless it is to further a compelling state interest and does so in the least restrictive manner. RFRA is not absolute protection of religious practice, but it does provide one avenue of recourse for those who feel that their religious rights are being unduly restricted.[1]

After Indiana SB 101 was passed, prominent politicians, corporations, celebrities, and the media immediately piled on the state and threatened boycotts. The backlash was so intense that governor Mike Pence promised swift revisions to the law. One media outlet found a Christian-owned pizzeria whose proprietors said they would not cater a gay wedding; the restaurant received threats that caused them to close for several days.

Photo by Justin Eagan, via Wikimedia Commons

Photo by Justin Eagan, via Wikimedia Commons

The shaming of Indiana might lead you to believe that SB 101 was an anti-gay bill targeting homosexuals for discrimination. For Christian florists, bakers, restaurateurs, and photographers, the issue has not been refusing to serve a certain class of clientele. The pizzeria might decline to cater a gay wedding, but they also stated that they would not refuse to serve LGBT customers who patronized their business. Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington florist who was sued and fined for discrimination after declining to supply flowers for a same-sex wedding in 2013, had been happily selling flowers for a decade to the couple who sued her. Rather, the issue has been participating against their consciences in a religious ceremony.

With his column, "Bigotry, the Bible, and Lessons from Indiana,"[2] Frank Bruni joins the anti-Indiana dogpile, asserting that SB 101 was intended to target gays. However, he sets a poor intellectual tone right from the start by employing the bandwagon fallacy. Homosexuality and Christianity need not be in opposition, he writes, because "several prominent denominations . . . have come to a new understanding of what the Bible does and doesn't decree." In other words, several liberal denominations have decided that homosexual behaviour is compatible with authentic Christianity, and so should you. However, the three largest Christian denominations in the U.S.—the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, and United Methodist Church—currently all officially declare homosexual behaviour to be incompatible with Christian belief and practice, though each denomination has varying degrees of internal dissent.[3] Bruni wants us to get on the bandwagon, but can't explain why we should get on his bandwagon.

Bruni's next fallacy is the one C. S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery": assuming that old ideas are intrinsically inferior to new ones. He writes that viewing LGBT people as sinners "prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since—as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing." By contrast, he recommends the views of "gay Christian" authors and supporters such as David Gushee, Jeff Chu, James Brownson, and Matthew Vines. The Christian church has declared unambiguously that homosexual activity is sinful for nearly 2,000 years, but everything that really needed to be said about LGBT issues and Christianity was published in the last two?

(Bruni argues that scriptural opposition to homosexuality is sparse and obsolescent, whereas Vines, whom he cites favourably, claims that the Bible is authoritative but its teaching on sexuality is misunderstood. I wonder whether Bruni recognizes his contradiction?)

The biblical teaching on homosexuality is "scattered" and "sparse," we are told. What of it? A truth told infrequently is nonetheless the truth, and the scattered pronunciations on homosexuality in the Bible are uniformly negative. (For more details, refer to my earlier post, "God Hates Shrimp?")

Bruni also approvingly cites Matthew Vines' argument that people in the apostles' day didn't know about homosexual orientation or loving, committed same-sex relationships. However, Vines was simply wrong. In 2000, James B. DeYoung's examination of ancient Greek literature, such as Plato's Symposium, clearly shows that their understanding of homosexuality was very much like ours. They discussed homosexual orientation and desire as well as behaviour, committed and promiscuous relationships, obsession with the body and physical attractiveness, even a form of "gay pride."[4] Paul may or may not have read Plato specifically, but we can be reasonably sure that as an educated and well-traveled man, he was aware of these issues.

Bruni's secular worldview clashes sharply with the Christian worldview in two significant ways in this article. First, he sees morality as fluid and evolving, based on the march of progress and the winds of public opinion. If right and wrong are malleable, then of course we can add or subtract sins from the catalogue as we please. Hence he closes his op-ed in agreement with gay activist Mitchell God, who says the church must "take homosexuality off the sin list." However, for Christians, morality reflects the character of a perfectly just and righteous God, "with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17).[5] The church can't take homosexuality off the sin list. It's not our list to edit.

Second, Bruni agrees with Gold's assertion that "church leaders must be made" to stop thinking of homosexuality as sinful. He advocates a statist worldview in which government must correct the moral positions of organized religion and its practitioners if they fail to comply with the spirit of the age. He fails to recognize that government itself is subject to the laws of God. "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), said the apostles to the authorities, because they were told not to do the work the Lord Jesus had given them. The civil government's authority comes from God (Rom. 13:1), and hence it has a duty to promote godliness and to let the church be the church. This is why Paul instructed Timothy to pray "for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Timothy 2:1-2). The church must be free to carry out its divine mandate of proclaiming the gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ. RFRA laws like SB 101 provide one avenue of recourse for Christians and others who religious exercise has been unjustly restricted by an overreaching government.

It is somewhat surprising to see one of the world's most influential newspapers give voice to such a radical screed. Frank Bruni's op-ed is long on assertion and opinion, but short on arguments supported by evidence. It is little more than an ultimatum: "Join the 21st century with the mainline Protestant denominations, 'gay Christian' authors, and myself, or else." Or else what? I'm not an alarmist. We don't need to fear the guillotines or lions, but advocates of sexual liberty are becoming more vocal in their call to restrict religious liberty. We need to remember that we are in an ongoing spiritual battle, and the tools of spiritual warfare are the same as always: practical holiness and effective apologetics. "[T]he weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

[1] For examples of successful and unsuccessful RFRA challenges, see Mollie Hemingway, "Meet 10 Americans Helped by Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana's," The Federalist, March 30, 2015, accessed April 12, 2015, http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/meet-10-americans-helped-by-religious-freedom-bills-like-indianas/.

[2] Frank Bruni, "Bigotry, the Bible, and Lessons from Indiana," New York Times, April 3, 2015, accessed April 12, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html.

[3] For the sake of argument, if Christianity is defined broadly enough to include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then the five largest denominations (the fifth being the Church of God in Christ) officially oppose homosexual practice and same-sex marriage.

[4] James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000). See especially Excursus 3, "Homosexual Behavior and Discussion in Plato," 205-13.

[5] Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

Développer une vision du monde politique : des suggestions

Centre-Block-under-construction-1863.jpg

par Pasteur Stéphane Gagné

Récemment, le premier ministre du Canada a fait un commentaire au sujet de la légitimité de l’usage des armes à feu pour la légitime défense. Cela a engendré plusieurs commentaires sur la blogosphère y compris parmi la population chrétienne canadienne qui a traditionnellement l’habitude d’être moins impliquée sur les questions sociales politiques que leurs contemporains américains. Parmi les blogueurs chrétiens francophones les plus médiatisés, j’ai vu passer des questions plutôt inusitées telles qu’« Un bon chrétien devrait-il avoir des armes à feu? » et d’autres plus fréquemment entendus comme le fameux « Un bon chrétien doit-il forcément voter conservateur? ». Vous avez probablement déjà entendu la suivante : « Un chrétien ne devrait pas se mêler de politique. Où est-il écrit dans la bible que l’on devrait se mêler des affaires du gouvernement? »

On voit dernière cette dernière question que notre mentalité « chrétienne » en matière de politique est loin de ressembler à celle de nos frères chrétiens américains qui eux sont généralement beaucoup plus partisans. Qui est responsable du flou directionnel en la matière? J’ose prétendre que ce sont nos leaders religieux canadiens. Normal, puisqu’eux-mêmes ont été enseignés avec les mêmes manquements en la matière!

L'édifice du Centre de la Colline du Parlement, en construction en 1863.Le fait est que la Bible regorge littéralement d’exemples de personnages qui ont été en contact avec les autorités gouvernementales de leurs époques respectives. Abraham, Isaac et Joseph ont traité avec des rois et des pharaons. Ensuite Moïse, Josué ainsi que plusieurs des juges d’Israël, Esdras, Esther, Néhémie, de même que Daniel et la plupart des prophètes mentionnés dans l’Ancien Testament. Le Nouveau Testament ouvre avec l’arrivée de Jean le baptiste qui a lui-même fréquenté le roi Hérode. Le roi rencontra aussi Jésus. Même chose pour le gouverneur de l’époque : Ponce Pilate. L’apôtre Paul s’est entretenu fréquemment avec le gouverneur Félix et ensuite Festus ainsi que le roi Hérode Agrippa II. En étudiant chacun de ces faits, on peut réaliser que l’influence politique des hommes de Dieu tout au long de l’histoire de la Bible est d’une portée tout à fait inouïe.

Cela rend d’autant plus surprenant le fait que cet aspect des faits historiques répertoriés dans la Bible ne soit pas davantage mis en lumière dans notre culture chrétienne. D’où nous vient cette crainte à aborder les réalités politiques de notre nation? Peut-être vient-elle des mêmes craintes qui ont longtemps porté l’église à s’éloigner de la musique contemporaine propre à chacune des époques où elle a vécu. Au fil des époques, la plupart des églises qui se croyaient conservatrices face à la musique contemporaine utilisaient en réalité, une musique de style ancien, mais que leurs prédécesseurs avaient refusé avant eux pour les mêmes raisons. Nos grands hymnes classiques d’aujourd’hui étaient jadis boudés par plusieurs chrétiens sous prétexte qu’ils étaient modelés sur les airs de chants de soirée dans les pubs et les tavernes de leur temps. Ironiquement, ce qui était pour l’époque considéré comme des chants au style plus approprié aux soirées de beuveries est désormais considéré comme inspiré d’une époque de plus grande révérence spirituelle. Autrement dit, cela relève tout simplement d’une certaine crainte à faire la mauvaise chose, et possiblement aussi d’un manque de vision et de connaissance. Il faut avouer que le sujet de la politique (tout comme celui de la musique à l’époque) a le potentiel d’amener la division s’il est mal interprété.

Trop souvent, le simple mot « politique » inspire des images d’idéalismes qui frôlent parfois le fanatisme. La triste raison en incombe pour beaucoup à nos dirigeants politiques qui projettent parfois cette image eux-mêmes. Pourtant il n’en demeure pas moins essentiel de s’éduquer à développer un point de vue (vision du monde) chrétien sur le sujet.

J’ai été à même de constater un fait particulier de plusieurs pasteurs sur le sujet. En effet, des pasteurs m’ont plus d’une fois confié que de leurs confrères, j’étais celui qui connaissait le mieux le sujet de la politique. Pourtant, j’ai aussi pu constater qu’à leurs yeux cela ne représentait pas une grande valeur pour le ministère. Il ne s’agissait pas d’un quelconque mépris de leur part, mais simplement d’un manque de compréhension. Cette réalisation m’est apparue lorsque j’ai vu répétitivement ces collègues aller vers de mauvaises personnes chercher des conseils sur des sujets qu’eux ne connaissaient pas. Il pouvait s’agir de conseil en matière de droits, de commerce, d’éducation, de communications, de marketing; divers sujets que plusieurs pasteurs ne connaissent pas particulièrement, mais pour lesquelles aucun d’entre eux n’a pensé à venir me voir. Éventuellement, je me suis assis avec certains d’entre eux pour prendre le temps de leur faire réaliser que la plupart des premiers ministres n’ont pas de diplômes d’études en tant que politiciens, mais plus souvent des formations en commerce, en droit, ou comme journalistes, ou même médecins (l’actuel Premier ministre du Québec est neurologue). Autrement dit; je leur ai fait comprendre que la politique n’était pas un domaine fermé avec une définition close et limitée. Souvent, notre vision de la politique se résume à une poignée de gens idéalistes et fermés d’esprit qui se réfute obstinément une chambre remplie de leurs collègues. Nous en venons à oublier les enjeux et le grand savoir social contenu dans un tel groupe et qui représente un grand potentiel éducatif… sous les bonnes circonstances.

Je soumets que la bonne manière d’éduquer les chrétiens ce sujet doit passer par une redéfinition de ses bases. Premièrement, les bases sincères de la politique ne sont pas les enjeux de pouvoir, mais le désir honnête d’améliorer notre monde. Pour cela, il est aussi nécessaire de définir nos valeurs et nos philosophies et de s’y éduquer. Voici quelques exemples possibles :

Les rôles légitimes et l’importance :

— des gouvernements ou de la gouvernance

— du travail

— de la communauté (Exemple : le besoin de l’autre)

— de la cellule familiale et ses divers impacts sociaux et démographiques

— De la science et de la technologie

— de l’impact des communications et des médias sur notre perception et dans notre société

— de la vérité et de l’honnêteté

— de la responsabilisation et l’importance de participer (ce qui signifie : faire sa part)

— des bases des droits et libertés de la personne, le tout accompagné par des exemples de progrès de l’histoire dans ce domaine.

— des bases de la création de la richesse pour une société, pour un entrepreneur, peut-être même aussi pour un individu. Le développement et la maximisation du potentiel de chacun de ces domaines. (Par exemple; dans la même veine, on peut même apprendre à l’adolescent à maximiser l’utilisation de son temps.)

— de comment l’altruisme et la générosité constituent une richesse pour la société. (Idéalement, j’inclurais un exercice d’échange d’idées sur les manières qu’une église peut constituer une valeur ajoutée pour la région que Dieu lui a confiée.)

— de l’éducation (accompagné possiblement d’un échange d’idées sur les problèmes que notre système éducatif actuel rencontre. Les parents ont généralement beaucoup à contribuer à ce sujet.)

Il s’agit ici de simples exemples et non pas d’une liste exhaustive, mais le point à retenir est le suivant : pour développer une saine vision [vision de monde] de la politique le chrétien doit regarder au-delà des jeux de pouvoir et des questions de parti-pris et réaliser qu’il s’agit avant tout de questions de philosophies et de valeurs. La responsabilité du croyant consiste alors à définir ce qui constitue ses propres valeurs et par la suite il sera en mesure de déterminer ce qui lui ressemble le plus lorsque vient le temps d’intervenir ou de prendre des décisions. Je demeure abasourdi lorsque je vois des chrétiens qui, encore de nos jours, demandent à leur pasteur pour qui ils devraient voter en tant que chrétiens. Un bon leader d’église n’a pas à dire aux gens pour qui voter, mais serait plus avisé de leur enseigner des critères ou sujets tels que ceux mentionnés plus haut afin que chacun apprenne à prendre ses propres décisions de façon éduquée. Cela devrait faire partie de la nécessité de développer une bonne vision du monde que chaque église devrait intégrer dans ses objectifs. Après tout, si je me fie à la bible, nous semblons aussi appelés à conseiller les rois.