Posted 2 months, 29 days ago in 
5 votes. Average 3.4/5
Loading ...
Some 10 years ago, a president committed adultery then lied to hide it. His opponents picked up stones to pelt him, but his allies wouldn’t have it. “We’re electing a president, not a pope,” they defended. “Besides, all parties were consenting. It’s really none of our business.” So the country was divided.
Today, the daughter of a VP candidate is extramaritally pregnant. Oh, she plans to marry the father and provide a loving home for their child, but her family is value-oriented. This isn’t supposed to happen in her kind of family. Those who defended a perverse, prevaricating president have picked up stones to hurl at the hypocritical hussy and at her mother. The people who were prepared to stone the president now defend the girl. “She’s admitted her sin and is seeking to make right what she did wrong.” So the country is still divided.
About 2 millennia ago, an angry crowd with stones in hand presented a frightened adulteress to Jesus. They demanded that he assent to her stoning. There was silence. Then Jesus offered to the angry crowd, “Let the one without sin among you throw the first stone.” There was more silence. Then the accusers and the accused were united in conviction of their own sins. The stones were dropped, and the crowd dispersed as Jesus admonished, “Neither do I condemn; go and sin no more.”
It is time for us to stop being divided in judgment of others and to be united in judgment of ourselves. Then we can come together for the cleansing that Jesus offers instead of facing the stones that our own sin deserves.
MICHAEL S. COSTELLO
Grand Junction
26 Responses to “On casting stones”
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t know about the Jesus stuff but I certainly agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately it has always been a part of our country’s politics from the very beginning. I’m afraid it won’t stop — ever. Who will stop first and then feel that it puts them at a disadvantage? And who will follow suit and not use it as an advantage?
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 4:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Michael, I think politics brings out the worst in the public. It seems scandal is more forgivable if the perpetrator is politically “our guy” (or gal) than if they’re the opposition. Democrats are willing to show grace to fallen Dems and stone the Republican who stumbles, but the GOP will do the same on their side. It’s all about getting into power, not redemption.
Followers of Jesus can’t afford to be swayed by political concerns when it comes to showing grace. Either we walk in such a way that grace is extended to all, or we wind up corrupting the good news of the Father’s love. The grace of God has to be TOTALLY non-partisan.
Thanks for your insights.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 6:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No Democrat I know of is condemning Palin’s daughter. The media is reporting it, yes, because they think it is newsworthy, but can you show me any party spokesperson who has lowered themselves to comment on this non-issue? Obama himself said this is off limits, and all of his supporters to my knowledge, down to this one here, agree.
Please let’s not pretend that the Democrats are jumping all over this pregnancy, because we are not.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 6:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I haven’t heard of any party spokesperson using Sarah Palin’s daughter to smear her. In fact, Sen. Obama’s camp is to be commended for saying “hands off” regarding the candidate’s families. Still, there are those — perhaps outside of the campaign offices — who have a vested interest in seeing Sen. Obama in office who would report “dirt” on the Republican candidates.
Let me emphasize that this principle is also true of the Republicans. There are those in the GOP who will be unrestrained in using accusations and even misinformation to sway voters to elect McCain/Palin. It’s just the nature of politics.
Such tactics are an embarrassment to the ethical within the party, as you seem to be. My point in commenting on Mr. Costello’s post is that from a truly Christian perspective, one cannot be partisan. I think too many evangelicals have sacrificed their soul to get their guy (or gal) elected.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 6:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks XSBC. We are in agreement there.
Whether Christian or “other”, we all should to strive to keep our humanity and ethics intact when it comes to political discourse.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 6:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well said, Ash. Character, ethics and honesty seem to be the first victims in politics. Keep holding the course.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 6:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lots of things, like character, ethics, and honesty, can get tossed aside, if you tell yourself you’re acting for a “Greater Good”. Like getting the person you believe in elected.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 7:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Good reminder too, MiniVan.
There are ways to help get your man or woman elected via the high road … in fact sometimes it works better.
(hey XSBC, you can have a siggie?! OK I am going to add one…)
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 7:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
True words, MiniVan. Every corrupt cause is energized if they convince themselves that God sanctions their mission. I cringe when certain evangelicals say, “If (insert the liberal candidate here) is elected, God will remove his hand of blessing from America.”
BTW, Ash, I love your “siggie.”
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 8:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The letter writer, whether he knows it or not, gives a strong argument to keep church and state totally separate. As ‘religion’ and one’s religious beliefs are exceedingly personal, they should be used to control ones’ own life, and not used to control the lives of others, no matter how strongly one believes that they are ‘right’. It is those who do not recognize the danger that, whatever door is opened, the traffic not only can, but will inevitably go both ways. It has since the beginning of time, in every society, and under every form of government. Those who believe that they are ’smarter’, and that it will not happen here, are illustrating a total disregard of lessons from history. Either that, or have never studied that discipline.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 8:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“It is time for us to stop being divided in judgment of others and to be united in judgment of ourselves.” If we forfeit the right to make judgments concerning elected officials and political candidates we might as well ask Big Brother to fill out our ballots for us. To some Clinton’s sex scandal was no big deal, to others it was. Don’t try to tell us what is important and what is not.
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 8:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres, I think your post has some merits but needs more clarification. The “religion” that wants to coerce the public to bend the knee to a particular religious perspective is dangerous and should be resisted. But America was not really founded to be a Christian nation. It was founded as a pluralistic nation where the laws of the land were to protect everyone equally. As such, it was not intended to keep religious thought bottled up in the closet.
I can’t agree with you that religious beliefs are strictly “personal.” Are “secular” beliefs strictly personal? Should only secular beliefs govern the thinking of our leaders in public matters? Your statement suggests that there is NOTHING in religious beliefs that has any public value. I think the abuses of religion in history (and there have been many) has driven some to believe that thoughts motivated by belief in God have absolutely NO place in the public forum. Can you clarify?
Posted September 4th, 2008 at 9:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC: “As such, it was not intended to keep religious thought bottled up in the closet.”
The key is that religion is a personal thing, as evidenced by the many denominations, even within Christianity. None, of which can be considered to be superior to another, except by those who subscribe to it. And, it is not to be “bottled up” as you say, but the individual, every individual must recognize the limits which he/she must impose upon him/herself. If they wish their beliefs to be respected, they then have to respect the beliefs of others.
XSBC also states: “I think the abuses of religion in history (and there have been many) has driven some to believe that thoughts motivated by belief in God have absolutely NO place in the public forum. Can you clarify?”
The difficulty really lies with the definition of “god”. Which god? What god? XSBC may wish to read the classic work by a Jewish theologian “The Eclipse of God” in order to gain a comprehension into how difficult that is considering our limitations.
One has to say that in this country “religion” itself has no place in secular affairs. One may bring one’s social conscience into the political arena, but not the “religion” itself. For then, one also brings religious dogma into play and, however well intentioned one might be, if one begins to use such dogma as the basis of any law and/or regulation, one is attempting to impose “religion” itself. And THAT is what must be guarded against.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 8:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you for the clarification, RLaitres. I agree with you that “religious dogma” is not to be imposed in the legislative forums. Case in point: The Zionistic end times theology that is so popular today among evangelicals is believed by some to be a basis for Israeli foreign policy. Modern Israel can do whatever it wants with impunity because, according to this misdirected doctrine, Israel is divinely chosen. This is bad theology shaping bad policy.
Thank you for the book recommendation, too. Believe me, I’m under no delusion about the complexities of God’s nature and being. As things stand, I’m of the belief that he is who he is without our having to stump for him, but he’s also very patient in not requiring us to have our understanding of him “perfect.” That his love and mercy prevails over my failures is good for me at this point.
Finally, religion gets “personal” because Jesus is institutionalized and denominations wall themselves off from one another and carefully guard their gates. Genuine Christianity pours itself out for the good of others. It was originally founded to build up people, not institutions (neither religious nor political).
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 8:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres: “The key is that religion is a personal thing…”
True, but only part of the truth. Like marriage, religiion is personal and intimate, but far from private. Just as married individuals wear rings and change their conduct toward the rest of the world because of the marriage relationship, so Christians publically profess their relationship with Christ and change their conduct toward the rest of the world because of it.
This does not change the fact, as you point out, that we must be respectful of one another. I just point it out because there have often been pushes for Christians to keep quiet about their Christ in public. It’s like asking married people to take off their rings act unmarried when engaging in the political arena–you just don’t do that to people.
Obama doesn’t hide Michelle; McCain doesn’t hide Cindy; Christians don’t hide Christ.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 9:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GKC,
What happens if the married people try to make everyone else act married as well, even if they’re not? That is what the evangelicals are doing, and many of them are trying to use the government to do it.
Not to bring up a sensitive subject, but the city council invocations are a good example. Someone shouldn’t have to act married to participate in city government, because marriage has nothing to do with it. By the same token, someone’s religious beliefs have nothing to do with city government, yet non-Christians have to “act religious” to participate. I grant that it’s not a requirement per se, but it doesn’t need to be there at all.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 9:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GKC: “…there have often been pushes for Christians to keep quiet about their Christ in public.”
That may be true, but that does not arise from the “religion” itself, or that people are against the others religion. The reaction is to a ‘religion’ becoming too much involved in secular matters; i.e. what they have done/or are doing to others. Like so many things, it is a ‘pushback’, to what some perceive as a danger or attempt by some ‘religion’, one in which they do not believe, to control them.
On a personal basis, what I frequently say is “If you have to tell me that you are a “Christian” in order for me to know, then you are not much of one.” In other words, what I tend to judge people by, is not by their words but by their actions. And, one of the central tenets of “Christianity” is to take care of my fellow man. Nowhere in there is any allowance to “control” him. The latter is a human addition, and can only arise from the conviction that because one is a “Christian”, one is better than another, and therefore entitled to do so. That my friends, arises from one thing, and one thing alone, PRIDE.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres: RE: “…what I tend to judge people by, is not by their words but by their actions.”
Jesus said he would judge both words and actions, as he put it:
“Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, proclaim on the housetops… Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10:27, 32-33)
“But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:36-37)
We certainly are to take care of our fellow men—to “do good to all, especially to those of the household of faith,” to “give a cup of cold water in his name,” “as much as it depends on you, live at peace with all men,” etc. There is also a compulsion to tell our fellow men why we do these kinds of things.
Sometimes the telling is motivated by pride, and, sadly, the rest of us have to manage with the boorish behavior that comes of it. This happens when we deal with pride whether it’s in a professor of Christ or not. Ideally, it isn’t motivated by pride, like bragging about a trophy spouse. It’s motivated by love, like publically praising your spouse because you’re twitter-pated.
I know a fellow who often tells others about his wife’s capabilities not because he believes himself superior on account of his wife, but because he really thinks she’s amazing. Usually, he’s also sharing something about her that could benefit those to whom he’s speaking—something like, “She can meet your need for a good violin player at your wedding” or “She can help with your choice of home-school curriculum.”
Likewise, Christians are delighted with Christ and the joy and peace he gives. We don’t speak of him because we’re proud of ourselves, but because he is wonderful, and because he can meet needs of those with whom we’re speaking.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Very well put, GKC.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
You are right; those who are not Christian should not be required to pray in Christ’s name. Nor should those who believe in no God be required to pray to anyone in any name. By the same token, those who are today’s partakers in the ancient Christian tradition of seeking the Lord in prayer prior to tackling major decisions, like those of governing, should not be prevented from doing so. Our nation has a very lengthy tradition of opening governing sessions with prayer. Even those among the founders who were not Christian patiently and respectfully waited through these opening prayers before tackling the issues of government. The challenge is how to respect one another in our different practices.
It is inevitable that people with very different beliefs will make each other uncomfortable. Is the answer to shove all of the things that make others uncomfortable into the closet? If so, very little could ever be said or done in public.
I believe the Virginia Tech memorial service after the April 2007 massacre provides a good example. At a public university, speakers from the predominant on-campus faith groups, but not all faith or non-faith groups, offered sympathy, theological perspective, and prayer. No banners were unfurled by Muslims to protest the Jewish speaker or vice versa. No atheists rushed the podium demanding equal time to offer the perspective that life, after all, is meaningless or to demand that faith be left out of this public event.
Instead, folks listened respectfully. They individually chose either to join in the prayers, or to wait quietly for others to pray as folks from many different traditions remembered together that they were dealing with something bigger than themselves.
Granted, city growth, traffic, or a shortage of downtown parking are not as significant as the tragedy at VT, but they are bigger than any one person’s agenda or sensitivities. Is it so bad for unbelievers to tune out while the local predominant faith groups briefly express the desire for wisdom as individuals are dealing with issues bigger than themselves? After all, believers are asked to respectfully listen or tune out when PBS, NPR, or the NEA uses their taxes to besmirch or denigrate their faith. Each situation makes someone uncomfortable, but respectfully listening (or tuning out) could make it the discomfort of growth pains.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 6:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GKC states: “…Jesus said he would judge both words and actions, as he put it”
That may be true, but I am neither “Jesus” nor any type of ‘god’. Therein lies the difference and what has to be remembered by every individual, whether “Christia” or a membrer of any other religion.
GKC also states: “We don’t speak of him because we’re proud of ourselves, but because he is wonderful..”
There again is what I believe to be a failure to detect the difference between ’speaking’ of what one wishes, and because one believes one is right, the danger of attempting to change ‘belief’ into action, thereby crossing over from personal belief to ‘imposition’ upon others, something that can only occur if one believes that by believing in something, one has a right to impose upon others.
The difficulty in getting that across to many may be that they are first unable to distinguish the separation within their own minds, something which is all too easy to say, but extremely difficult to do. Others simply do not want to do it.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 8:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, how do you see this statement from GKC as “crossing over from personal belief to ‘imposition’ upon others”:
GKC: “We don’t speak of him because we’re proud of ourselves, but because he is wonderful..”
While, on the other hand, you don’t see your lengthy explanation below as “crossing over from personal belief to ‘imposition’ upon others”?
RL: “There again is what I believe to be a failure to detect the difference between ’speaking’ of what one wishes, and because one believes one is right, the danger of attempting to change ‘belief’ into action, thereby crossing over from personal belief to ‘imposition’ upon others, something that can only occur if one believes that by believing in something, one has a right to impose upon others.
The difficulty in getting that across to many may be that they are first unable to distinguish the separation within their own minds, something which is all too easy to say, but extremely difficult to do. Others simply do not want to do it.”
GKC makes a statement as to why he, as a Christian, speaks of Jesus. You make a lengthy argument as to why his statement is wrong and you state such people (Christians?) are unable to distinguish (comprehend) they are wrong. In my opinion, your lengthy argument is a far better example of “crossing over from personal belief to ‘imposition’ upon others” than his one line statement. Not even in context of the entire paragraph the line was taken from did he do that. He did not say you were wrong or try to convince you of anything, you, however, did both.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 10:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, I’m confused. You said that you thought actions were the way to judge beliefs, then you said you thought it was dangerous for beliefs to lead to actions. It seems a little muddy to me. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, how is it that you *want* to see people’s actions to determine the merits of their beliefs (at least, the merits as you see them), yet you also want for people’s beliefs to steer clear of the danger of turning into actions?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GKC,
No one is saying that the city council members or anyone else cannot pray. What is being asked is that they don’t do it in a government setting. There is a subtle yet important difference there.
The Virginia Tech service is not a good example because it was not a government setting. That is they key to this issue. The conservatives seem to keep saying that all prayer is being threatened, when it is only government-sponsored prayer that is at issue.
If PBS or NPR broadcast something that you consider to be denigrating to your faith, then yes, you can tune out or change the channel. If you are at a city council meeting to conduct business, you cannot change the channel. The way it was structured, you could not even choose not to participate without drawing attention to that fact. Is it fair to ask non-Christians to draw attention to themselves because they do not wish to participate in a religious rite at a government meeting? That is all that is being asked.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I understand where you are coming from. It seems like you’re making a distinction between government-sponsored in a government setting vs. government-sponsored in a different setting.
Am I correct in reading your post that government-sponsored denigration of faith is okay on PBS or NPR because believers can tune out without drawing attention to themselves, but a short prayer before a city counsel meeting is a problem because non-believers can not tune out without drawing attention to themselves?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
NPR and PBS are got government entities. As far as I know, they are not even government sponsored entities, so there are no constitutional issues on what they broadcast. Even if they do receive funding from the government, as long as they have the standard disclaimer that the opinions are not those of the management, a group or individual can espouse any opinion they want without causing a constitutional problem.
The city council is a government entity, and as such is under the restrictions of the Establishment Clause, which has been defined by the Supreme Court as requiring government-sponsored prayers to be non-sectarian.
The two are simply not the equivalent situations.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.