Traditional Famil Values (A Christian Perspective)

By Paul R. Green, Jr.

Focuses on Christian's involvement in the political process and includes as assessment of the need to hold candidates to a standard that requires them to identify their source for their positions on moral or social issues.

Written by: Paul R. Green Jr., Candidate, State Senate District 6

Church leaders often are under pressure from the government (Attorney's General or IRS, to name a few departments) to not involve themselves in providing parishioners access to information to make up their own minds about candidates or ballot issues.

They claim that pastors, by doing so, are in violation of what has become known as "separation of church and state." Typically this is done whenever someone does not want a person who professes Christ as their Lord and Savior to use the doctrine of the faith as foundation for their choosing between competing points of view or candidates.

There are two problems with this so called doctrine:

1. Pastors have a God-given right and responsibility to preach and teach "thus sayeth the Lord" from the pulpit and parishioners have a corresponding right to "choose ye this day who you will serve" relative to moral issues.
2. The term, "separation of church and state," is a misnomer. It implies that a Christian's faith is somehow outside of or otherwise "attached" to the follower of Christ rather than it being from within as the Holy Bible tells us, because our "body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]" + the place where God resides within us -- and "... ye are not our own.". (1 Cor. 6:19)

Christianity therefore is the essence of a Christian's being. It is his or her character. It is the foundation for their decision making, and as such, is who Christians are. And since they cannot be separated from themselves, the idea that they should not bring to the table who they are is ridiculous.

I believe that the intent of this effort to separate church from state has two purposes:

1. To remove the God who judges both behavior and persons from the discourse even in the house dedicated to his honor and glory.
2. To curtail the influence (especially in the political arena) of those who profess to be Christians so as to move an agenda forward that is contrary to God's revealed word.

I will provide the source references for two such "hot button" issues that are in the news today as examples, but first must provide you with my definitions of two terms: position and opinion.

1. Position: taken where the proof is inviolate and a conclusion can be made
2. Opinion: given when there exists the ability to have more than one conclusion.

Why are these definitions important? Because candidates for office who stridently cite scientific studies, poll data, etc., as authority for their position on secular issues, even though the so called "experts" they cite may disagree among themselves, must similarly be made to cite their authority for their position on moral issues.

I believe that there are two main reasons candidates might profess agreement with a bible-based position but not cite the bible as their source:

1. Their position was derived at by happenstance and represents only the opinion they have arrived at without the use of an absolute standard.
2. Their position truly is taken from God's Word, but they are ashamed of the author of the truth they speak because they fear man more than they fear God.

Scripture, however, admonishes us against this. We are to fear God and not man (Mt. 10:28) and to "Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord . . . but be though partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God." (2 Timothy 1:8)

Christians therefore need to be wary of those who merely present an opinion that, in truth, just happens to agree with the biblical principle that applies, but that may only be a matter of expedient personal choice or preference and not necessarily a position someone is committed to as we would be as non-ashamed persons indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

The fact that there is no standard against which a candidate may come to a conclusion other than what is in his or her own mind is even more egregious with regard to moral issues than it is were the issue to be a secular one. And both are inconsistent with representing the public interests.

And even worse, if some who truly are Christians are fearful of or ashamed to publicly acknowledge such and therefore withhold boldly speaking about what they know to be true; they thereby cause other Christians to struggle to identify them.

As for me, I take positions on moral issues based upon my understanding of God's Word and am not ashamed. (Please note that this does not imply that I received a unique revelation from God, merely a revelation that is consistent with that received by others who know and love the Lord as do I, and who then have studied His Word to show themselves" approved.")

Now let us look at two "hot button" issues of the day as examples. My plan is to provide biblical references that apply, and finally note what is going on at the nation or state with regard to them so as to distinguish myself from other candidates seeking office.

Issue #1 + Homosexuality (including same sex marriage: Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:22-28 and Genesis 2:21-24

o Le. 18:22 reads: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: It is abomination.

o Ro. 1:22-28 reads, in part: ... For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient. . . .

o Genesis 2: 21-24 reads: And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, "this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Issue #2 - Abortion on Demand: 1 John. 2:16, Exodus. 20: 3 and Psalms 127:3 and 147:13

o 1 John 2:16: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but of the world. o Exodus 20:3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. o Psalm 127:3: Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. o Psalm 147:13: For he hath strengthened the bars of thy gates; he hath blessed thy children within thee.

NOTE: The verses I used regarding these two issues are not all inclusive. There are others that, when viewed with the understanding that the Bible interprets itself, but does not contradict itself leaves room for some to choose to use other verses rather than the ones I selected.

These are but two examples of the types of issues that heretofore were not a part of the domain of government, but which are now. A partial list of others that should be dealt with in the same way are: prayer in public schools, crosses or other Christian symbols on or in public buildings, assisted suicide, and whether or not there exists a collective responsibility to care for both the elderly and the young.

Today, many elected government leaders have chosen to make policy that goes against what is found in the Bible and is understood by Christians as being directive upon them.

The reasons they do this stems from their misunderstanding of the role Christ is in the life of a believer: Christians accept Christ in two ways and not one as customarily is believed.

1. Christ, who died for all our sins, is Savior. Many, even some Christians who stop here or those who disbelieve, accept a Christian's right to believe this because it is not visible and looks to the after life and does not effect them for the most part.
2. Christ is Lord who must be obeyed by Christians. This is hard for others to accept because obedience to Christ is not a passive activity; rather it is active involvement.

God requires Christians to be involved in the world and that includes in positions of leadership where they can contribute to the general well being as the Lord honors their faithfulness to Him by blessing their actions. Two examples come to mind immediately:

a. Joseph. After he was sold into slavery in Egypt, he rose to a position of authority second only to that of Pharaoh "in the throne." (Genesis 41:40) b. Daniel. Taken into captivity because of his talent and skill, he too rose to a position of "ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon." (Daniel 2:48)

Neither forgot God while they served those who were allowed by God to be in a position superior to their own and their appointer.

So too should Christians who govern. God should not be forgotten. Neither should Godly principles be ignored.

To see how Christians should apply their status to positions in a secular government made up of those who believe and those who do not, there needs to be a brief explanation about the decision-making process and its meaning when competing belief systems attempt to coexist.

When making a decision, I subscribe to a traditional decision-making process: (1) define the problem (not using the symptom as the problem), (2) list the assumptions, (3) identify the factors that bear on the problem, (4) develop alternatives and finally, (5) select the alternative considered to be the best.

The most difficult step with regard to moral and ethical issues is found at the assumption step. Christians, for example, accept that God is real and that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16)

But others do not, and until such time as they do (since that assumption is foundational to who we are in Christ) we and they cannot agree upon a meaningful solution to the problem that is before us.

Consequently, we should not be involved in public debates about the merits or pitfalls of the moral and ethical issues that today are before our government leaders.

Any attempt to have someone who holds an antithetical assumption to your own regarding an issue undoubtedly will not arrive at the same alternatives or consider the one you choose as the best.

There therefore is no common ground to be reached because any attempt to decide either for or against represents man attempting to decide by majority vote whether or not to accept God's word as a higher authority. And, of course, man does not have standing to do this.

With this in mind then, how do those who advocate positions contrary to God's word attempt to ensnare Christians into a fruitless debate with them. They obfuscate the truth. I will use abortion on demand as an example.

Abortion on demand is the law of the land based upon the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade and Christians, who are to "... render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's," (Luke 20:25) are not to take that decision as their own liberty to partake of abortions, but also are not to sin in their attempts to convince others to not do so.

Since that decision, all later discussion has been in the context of "pro-choice" or "pro-life." Those who choose pro-life are considered to be "out of touch with the "mainstream." Those who choose pro-choice are considered to be "enlightened." Discussion also has become technical: "when exactly does life begin," for example, at conception or once delivered from the womb.

But we should remember that so long as Christians engage those who wish to give mankind control over life and death using worldly definitions and compartmentalizations, they will be ensnared and lose any discussion.

The fact that the choices are posed as they are implies that man has the right to agree or disagree with God and that man can understand the intricacies of birth and life more than what God has revealed to him.

So I choose not to become embroiled in answering the question of pro-choice or pro-life in the context in which it is asked because it is a lose + lose situation. I either go against my understanding of God's word or am labeled as someone who wishes to impose his own opinions on others contrary to the not-so-long-ago determined constitutional "right to privacy."

My answer therefore is: "I believe everyone has the right to choose to disobey God at his or her own peril."

And once God is included in the answer, there no longer can be any discussion about my authority to tell anyone else what to do or not to do with their body. They must now refer to the Bible to verify what God has said should they seriously be looking for answers. And should they accept God's word as authority, they will either act in accord with it or will disobey him.

But none of these issues is of the Yes or No variety. There are various, interrelated portions of scripture that apply as we define how we will respond to them.

Merely accepting God's broad or umbrella position on them does not necessarily specify how we should respond at the detail level in any given circumstance when making policy that affects not only ourselves, but others, as well. That's what governance is all about. And that's what I am seeking your support to do + to become part of the governance team of the state of California.

What follows are some of the verses I use to demonstrate that scripture dictates to me how I am to conduct my personal life, but that I am not mandated to be the policemen for how others conduct their lives. Caring about and praying for are not the same as demanding that others obey God.

The result is that I hate the sin and love the sinner (note: I define this to mean that because I too am a sinner (only a different sin) that I can get along with the "sinner," work on agreed upon goals with the "sinner" and otherwise treat the "sinner" as a human being without compromising my core beliefs).

• Ezekiel 33:8-9 (and 2-7 - Watchman): When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood shall I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou has delivered thy soul.
• James 2:10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
• John 8:7: So when they continued asking him, he lift up himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
• Proverbs 22:6: Train up a child in the way he should go: And when he is old, he will not depart from it.
• Matthew 5:44 and 46: But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you ... For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?
• Matthew 28:19-20: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

• Tell others about it or provide me with the forum to do so.
• Volunteer to or encourage others to assist the campaign with their time and talent.
• Provide or encourage others to provide financial support.

-----------------------------------------------------------

You may contact me by phone at (916) 332-6180, by E-Mail at: prgreenjr1@juno.com, and by FAX at (810) 222-1778. My mailing address is: 3709 Bainbridge Drive, North Highlands, CA 95660. My website is paulrgreenjr.com.

I look forward to your comments regarding this paper.

God bless.

Paul R. Green Jr. Candidate, State Senate District 6