Let Me Introduce Controversy

This blog is probably to sound totally off the wall, but I ran across this paragraph in Being On God's Side – please note that I’m not advocating the site, but find myself asking/answering questions from paragraphs such as:

For example, many of them are likely unaware that the largest Protestant denomination in America, Southern Baptists, cannot even tolerate a centralized church government, much less a central government controlled by the church. Thinking that a nation full of Southern Baptists wants to establish a theocratic regime is about as absurd as believing anarchists want to create a centralized government.

There is much more in the article that I found to match my own views, but this one hit home. I grew up in a Southern Baptist congregation, though now I belong to an Independent Baptist congregation because it is closer to the teachings of the church I knew then.

Yesterday I wrote of Peter’s statement:

But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Acts 4:19-20)

That’s very much what “Being on God’s Side” says – and it’s directed as “An Open Letter To The Religious Right.” Yes – that means me, and I’m being convicted by much in this article. For example, would you agree with their quote from Lincoln:

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was purportedly asked if God was on his side. “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side,” said the President, “my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”

The next couple of paragraphs include some interesting definitions :

. . .  it contains three of the most controversial ideas in American politics: that it is legitimate to invoke the name of God within the realm of political discourse; that God’s existence isn’t merely symbolic, but that he is always right; and that since God takes sides on certain issues, some people will be divinely justified while others will stand in opposition not only to their political opponents but to the very Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.
If you find these ideas absurd and repugnant, you are most likely a secularist. If you find them to be embarrassing truths, you may be on the religious left. If you find them so obvious that they hardly need stating, you are probably a member of the so-called “religious right.”

I do fall within that last category – I find that God exists, He is always right, He has given us definitions for issues and when sides are taken, some are in opposition “to the very Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.” Guess that throws me to the right.

Protecting the sanctity of innocent human life and defending the traditional definition of marriage are clearly essentials. Those matters are based on principles that can be clearly derived from our traditions and holy texts.

That was written five years ago – in 2010 – and now we have not only lost the sanctity of innocent human life but the definition of marriage. I can accept that a portion of our populace does not support this, but that does not mean I should change my position, does it? My beliefs certainly did not change the position of the opposition – and that opposition is not supported by tradition nor holy texts.

I appreciate your thoughts – and comparisons with scripture.