Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 22:48:20
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Delayed Response
Rob,
I want to (finally) respond to some very interesting comments you made last week. I want to talk a little about the "softer approach" concept. Here goes:
I think I really am beginning to understand and appreciate, thanks to many of our discussions. Which makes grappling with the issue difficult as I look for solutions, because understanding where they're coming from I'm not boxing them in with labels. A lot of my focus with you has been to persuade you that my politics are not "anti-Christian," that I do in fact respect your sincerely held religious beliefs, that my views of the constitution are not antithetical to your views of your relationship with God. If I can get through to you, maybe you and I can get through to the rest of the "right." And that street definitely goes two ways. As you get through to me, and you do, I take the message to the "left." Interestingly, when I put your objections to the "homosexual promotion" in algebraic terms, a light went on. So, while we didn't mean to go off on that tangent, it was actually quite helpful in finding a way to understand your beliefs without labeling you a "whacko." I've been trying to apply that formula to some of the other issues we've been dealing with. Sometimes I see it, sometimes I'm not sure.
You said quite a lot in the above paragraph. I feel like celebrating! On previous occasions, you've pointed out progress that I have made. I see some real progress in you as well. And that is our mutual goal!
Let me clarify something. I don't believe you are personally "anti-Christian." Some of your work may be perceived that way (referring to my take on your '89 memos), and it may well serve that purpose (from a Christian perspective) in the grand scheme of things. No, you aren't anti-Christian any more than I am anti-Semitic.
I said you may not be able to appreciate a Christian's stand on some issues. You seemed to want to try. So let me (speaking only for myself and my perception of situations others like Judge Moore finds himself in) try to help you out. (Drop your strong anti-Judge Moore feelings for a little while and just listen and try to understand what I'm attempting to convey.) When I profess that Jesus Christ is my savior, I try to live the way the Bible instructs, and do what I think would be pleasing to Him. As such, I cannot and will not do anything that even gives the appearance of denying my belief in God (the triune God). You know the story of the three Hebrew children and the fiery furnace, and the story of Daniel going to the lion's den. All they had to do to avoid such treatment was to deny their God. The Bible teaches that if we deny Jesus before men, He will deny us before His father. (I don't have a way right now of finding the verse that supports that.) The cutting edge of the "anti-religion" (meaning Christianity) is when a Christian gets put in a situation where he MUST make that choice. It may not seem like (to a non-Christian) that there is a choice being demanded, but there is. I know what you were trying to get across a few paragraphs above when you said, "...it was just a historical and literary representation of the origins of the holiday..."
For a Christian to say, "A nativity scene is JUST a historical representation..." Is, in effect, a denial or your true belief in the deity of Jesus. Without that belief, the very basis of your Christianity is gone. One might agree that it is "a historical..." but the word "just" puts it into an entirely different category. Perhaps in your view, Judge Moore should have complied with the order to "surround the Ten Commandments with OTHER historical documents." But the inclusion of the word "other" (were I in Judge Moore's place) would have moved the order from "reasonable" to the "confrontational." When you are in a corner and challenged, you only have two choices, fight or run. A good Christian will never run. Some probably thought the Hebrew children foolish. They'd probably be counseled today, "Hey, just go through the motions. It is only ceremonial, anyway. You can still be loyal to God in your hearts; just bow with your bodies." They wouldn't compromise when it came to their relationship with God. Daniel was told not to pray. Yes, he could have hid himself and prayed, but that was not his custom. The king was trying to restrict his religious expression (and I believe he was a member of the court, a.k.a. a government representative), and with that he could not comply. When the judge said "OTHER historical" Moore had no real choice, since the Ten Commandments are NOT historical documents, for him to surround them with historical documents (in compliance with the order) would have been for him to admit the Commandments WERE historical. The judge could have left out the word "other" and may have gotten compliance. Christians are being killed in other parts of the world because they will not renounce their belief in Jesus Christ. When the choices are only "Deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ or else.", there is no contest for a true Christian. Being in a position to advise judges as you are, help them to understand they need to give a Christian an acceptable option. Help them to understand a acceptable solution MUST not put the Christian in a position where he, in effect, is denying the Lord and his faith in Jesus Christ. In failing to do that, the Judge is, in the eyes of Christians, committing an unconstitutional act by overstepping his rightful authority and denying them their constitutionally assured rights to religious expression. Much diplomacy and Christian advice should be sought by a judge faced with such a pending decision. You know the saying that reality is how you perceive it?
Try to see how Christians perceive the reality. There are things that we all hold more dear than life itself. A Christian's love for and loyalty to God are in that category. The crisis in the Moore case was not created by Moore, but by the judge in his (perhaps) unfortunate wording of the order. I see Judge Moore cast into the role of a modern day Daniel. He was ordered to compromise on the uncompromiseable.
Now, I'm sure you are bursting with legal comebacks regarding the Moore case. Please restrain yourself. Moore and the merits of his case are not at issue in this dialog. The purpose is to help you understand the Christian way of thought and how certain words or phrases can make a world of difference to the Christian. Was the judge's words thoughtless usage, or was he deliberately trying to make Moore compromise on his religion? I hope the former. Regardless, the reaction by the right is due to the perception of the latter. If I could talk with the judge who gave the order in the Moore case, I'd encourage him to find a way to give Moore and acceptable way to "save face" before God. The same goes for other judges ruling on religious liberty cases.
Has any of this made sense to you? Can you understand such orders cannot be complied with? See, it's like this. I'm going to spend a lot more time with God, than I am with the government of the United States. Forced to a choice, the government will always take second place... always! A wise judge will avoid forcing such a choice. Now if you tell me that is foolishness for a Christian to see things that way, you have not understood, and you could be viewed as challenging my Christian beliefs.
Regards,
Frank
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment