In The News
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
@
"Now fear the Lord and serve him with faithfulness," Joshua enjoined the Israelites. "But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:14-15). While concerned for the choice they will make, he does not attempt to coerce them.
This recalls the wide range of issues and approaches especially evident as we approach election time. Which of these seem most critical, and what means are we to employ to get the desired results? It is a topic deserving of a much more detailed discussion than possible on this occasion.
Take the controversial case of abortion. It is customary to distinguish between pro-life and pro-choice constituencies. However, this can be misleading. If for no other reason, because a large percentage of persons identifying themselves as pro-choice would prefer to have the instances of abortion greatly reduced. So that some might be classified as pro-choice but anti-abortion.
Then by employing public funds to provide abortion services, encourages the practice. On the other hand, were these funds to be applied to the adoption alternative, it would introduce a contrasting incentive. If the funds were distributed equally, it would assume a more neutral stance.
Thus are we introduced to a five-fold level of involvement. One that consists of prohibition, discouragement, neutrality, encouragement, and coercion. Whether intentional or not, the current approach to abortion is more along the lines of encouragement. Although public support diminishes with the later stages of fetus development.
Another critical concern has to do with the amendment prohibiting the establishment of a religion, or its free exercise. Initially, it should be noted that these appear as opposite errors, which should be avoided. C. S. Lewis was of the opinion that opposite errors are common, since when we try to avoid one extreme, we fall prey to the other. After which, we attempt to justify that which we have embraced by pointing out the problems with its alternative.
Having lived a full life, I can readily recall a time when religion was allowed to play a much more active role in public life. For instance, it brings to mind when one of my grade school teachers would read one of the Psalms to her students at the outset of the day. So far as I know, no one thought this was improper, while today it is hard to imagine it taking place.
Now the establishment of religion consists of giving privileged recognition to a particular religion. Given one’s definition of religion, a secular establishment appears to be no less acceptable. Especially when religion is interpreted as ultimate concern, as is sometimes the case.
Conversely, the free exercise of religion should allow public input from a religious perspective. Rather than interpreting it as an expression of a religious establishment. Apart from this, it would appear largely irrelevant.
In any case, we are left to determine which approaches are most appropriate. Initially, it seems that the options of prohibition and coercion are unacceptable in this instance. Since the former violates the free exercise provision and the latter the establishment alternative. While currently the dismissal of religious perspectives from public discourse seems to be the more pressing problem confronting us.
Meanwhile a neutral option is exceedingly difficult to establish or maintain. One tends to lean one way or the other, and be critical of those with whom he or she disagrees. Even so, some would prefer to approximate this option rather than embrace one of the alternatives.
This leaves us with the discouragement and encouragement options to consider. While it seems to me that the latter is more in keeping with the amendment concerning this issue, especially when taken in context of the freedom of speech. Granted this is a difficult decision, given the pros and cons of the various options.
Whereupon, we return to Joshua’s urgent challenge. First, this issue is of great consequence. If God exists, as he alleges, our choice is of critical importance. This being the case, it should not be relegated to the periphery of life.
Second, Joshua allows that the choice is ours to make. Along with its consequences, whether for the better or worse. Thus not to assume divine prerogatives.
Finally, he declares that he and his house will serve the Lord. Perceived as the one who creates and sustains life, and to whom we will give account for the way in which we have lived our lives. Thus setting a precedent for others as they approach the plethora of issues with which we contend.
PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE
This article has been read 579 times < Previous | Next >
Free Reprints
Main Site Articles
Most Read Articles
Highly Acclaimed Challenge Articles.
New Release Christian Books for Free for a Simple Review.
NEW - Surprise Me With an Article - Click here for a random URL
God is Not Against You - He Came on an All Out Rescue Mission to Save You
...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them... 2 Cor 5:19
Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Acts 13:38
LEARN & TRUST JESUS HERE
FaithWriters offers Christian reading material for Christian readers. We offer Christian articles, Christian fiction, Christian non-fiction, Christian Bible studies, Christian poems, Christian articles for sale, free use Christian articles, Christian living articles, New Covenant Christian Bible Studies, Christian magazine articles and new Christian articles. We write for Jesus about God, the Bible, salvation, prayer and the word of God.