Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The <ehem> big issue on the ballot was a referendum defining marriage. 10 years ago I would have set a destination of my local voting precinct and exercised my right to have my opinion on issues and candidates tallied.
On Facebook, there were many intense conversations about "Amendment One." Some of the most vicious tones were modulated by those who supported it.
Okay - Here's where I trip up. A few revelatory paraphrased principles pop in my head like "blah...blah... let your light shine in such a way that others may see what you do and bypass you and give glory to God in heaven...." and uh - "that hope you have in you? - be ready to share it..... but do so with gentleness and esteem.. blah, blah...." The demeanor by most in support was far from lining up within these productive parameters.
Let there be NO misunderstanding. I haven't moved anywhere on a horizontal spectrum that would pigeon hole me as an advocate that behavior clearly outside of what has been designed by a Creator and by functional common sense - - - is simply a matter of "preference." But I have not placed any expression that results purely from self-interest on a hierarchical totem pole.
My problem with this referendum is an issue of "convenience" and IMO laziness.
I found myself in Matthew 23 reading the concentration of Jesus emphasis on, what I correlate to legislative parameters. It seems like some view pulling a little lever in the state of North Carolina as an act of righteous obedience. I think it equals "do everything they tell you" (εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν τηρεῖν) and is lazy.
There is far more investment in engaging the culture and sharing God's global concern with the mingling of grace and truth. Paul's distress in Acts 17 is toned down when he meets with idolaters. Jesus' authenticity with the woman at the well provides a sense of newness freedom where she proclaims her discovery of God's mesheach to her community.
Vitriolic campaigning and a checked box are poor substitutes to yeast spreading among the batch.