The correlation between marriage, raising children and giving is that each requires a sacrifice for the benefit of another. Giving, it seems, is a matter of practice. By the continual giving of oneself in one capacity, we learn to give in others.

Jesus displayed perfectly what this kind of sacrifice means. And somehow I don't think it has anything to do with liberalism.

Boundless, is the constant equating of conservative politics with being a Christian really necessary? [. . .] Jesus didn't preach Republican politics, he preached the gospel.

Where do you find this in the Bible? It's dangerous ground to assume we know what Jesus would and would not support, when such a system did not exist (at least not like it does today) in the first century. It seems to me that Jesus is pretty clear about our obligation to help the poor. Is the welfare system the best way to do that? Absolutely not. If the Church stepped up to the plate, then we wouldn't need the welfare system, but as far as I can see, that's not the world we live in. Can God work through the welfare system? I would like to think He can. We live in a fallen world, and therefore no system is going to be perfect, but I would give caution to those people that are quick to declare that Jesus is against food stamps.

Recommended Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications by D. A. Carson

[ECM writers' frequent use of “absolutist” language], perhaps, is the wry irony that lies at the heart of this movement, or “conversation.” In its tone and approach, it tends to see the world in very black-and-white categories. Of all the Christian writers who explore postmodernism, none is quite so modernist--so absolutist--as the emerging church movement leaders in their defense of postmodern approaches.

It is easy to understand why. Most theological aberrations appeal to particular segments of Christendom in general, or of evangelicalism in particular.

[. . .]

One of the striking commonalities among [ECM] leaders is the high number of them who come from intensely conservative or even fundamentalist backgrounds. When they describe the kinds of churches from which they spring, a very high percentage of them have emerged from a tradition that is substantially separated from the culture. These churches often lay considerable emphasis on getting certain doctrine, often cast in fundamentalist mode, nicely constructed and confessed. The passage of time has moved these churches farther and farther from the very different directions being pursued by the broader culture, and sensitive and concerned individuals within such traditions finally make a break, not least for the gospel's sake. It becomes a mark of freedom to have a glass of wine and watch some movies that our former ecclesiastical friends wouldn't approve. Understandably, the pendulum may continue to swing a long way.

None of this background is meant to determine whether the emerging church movement is right or wrong, biblically faithful or otherwise. Rather, it shows that a fair amount of its heat and overgeneralizing seems to spring from the mistaken assumption that most of traditional evengalicalism is just like the conservative churches from which they came. That betrays the narrowness of many of their backgrounds and helps to explain why their rhetoric and appeals to postmodern sensitivity sound so absolutist: this is the language and rhetoric on which they were weaned.

Read that last paragraph again, if you wish — I had thought to add emphasis but that would have meant italicizing all of it.

In summary: tradition-centered American Churchianity is contributing to a lot of this. In speaking the language of churchese, making up unwritten, extra-Biblical rules for God's House, and promoting antique evangelism, it's not only turning many people away from Christianity, but resulting in overreactions from ECM writer Brian McLaren and others, who despite their sometimes-accurate descriptions offer anti-Biblical prescriptions for the Church.

Ergo, thanks a lot, Churchianity.

But even then, as Carson points out, many of the ECM leaders' absolutist condemnations of the supposed evils of absolutism or “modernism” ignore the great accomplishments and work of God Almighty, inherent in even what now might qualify as irrelevant Churchianity. Some of those traditions were relevant at one time; we don't need a genius to remind us that traditions change.

And ECM proponents seem to forget that all they're doing is setting up alternate traditions. Scented candles, visualization-based “conversation” verbiage, and postmodernism-versus-modernism wordplay likely won't be playing in about 25 years. It won't be evil to cling to extra-Biblical tradition then, just as it isn't evil now.

Indeed, the Bible is clear that the only sin in following tradition is expecting everyone else to do the same and getting your head stuck in the clouds or elsewhere if other people don't. Is that not similar to what ECM proponents are doing now? Perhaps history — or at least the history of Church movements — is cyclical after all.

Recommended Nanny McPhee (Widescreen Edition)

“Perhaps it’s a witch.”

“‘Course not! Witches have brooms.”

exchange between the Banks children, in Mary Poppins

Okay, well...I guess I'm fighting a hopeless battle here. :P

Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked. Visit those who are sick or imprisoned. Comfort those who have had abortions. Forgive those who have wronged us. Give hope to the hopeless.

“Whatever you have done to the least of these, My brothers, you have done it unto Me.”

• Government members of this persuasion, because of sinful human nature, are all too eager to assume the power and exact resources from everyone they please, in the name of “benevolence.”
  
• People who don’t want to help (the stingy, the ultra-capitalists, a selfish libertarian here and there) are forced to “help” others, upon being forced by government. They resent the poor, and they are not personally helping others. If they’re outside the Church, that is not their job anyway! Which is more Biblical: God loves a cheerful giver, or, God loves a begrudging “'giver” whose clenched hands must be plied apart by government?
  
• Government, which is not the spiritually-minded Church, cannot differentiate from those who truly need help and those who will play the system to get what they want.
  
• But this next is perhaps the worst consequence. The Church, quite aware that government is Helping the Poor, will itself become lazy and retreat from its very real responsibility to help, voluntarily and joyfully, those who truly cannot help themselves. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, in particular, describe the Christ-followers in the ancient city of Corinth who gave joyfully, and sacrificially, to help others. They responded to the Apostle Paul’s requests for a collection, and they loved it. This is the duty of true Christ-followers: to help others with gladness, to be filled with joy upon doing so and thus further glorify God!

If Jesus were here on earth today, what do you think He would be doing? Would he be picketing with signs saying “STOP THE MURDER OF UNBORN CHILDREN”, panicking whenever the word abortion was mentioned, and would He be demanding the forbidding of gay marriage?

However, I don't like the general attitude that I have seen in Christians - the attitude of “I am a Christian and therefore I am moral and cannot believe that anyone would vote for someone who supported gay rights and the murder of unborn children”. [. . . W]ould He really, truly have this attitude of a high-and-mighty moral person who had all the answers and “knew” that if the Democrats had any political power it would result in an apocalypse and the end of morality in our country?

Jesus did not condone her sin, but he forgave her. He loved her unconditionally.

from what I have seen, Christians aren't doing too good of a job [helping the poor and such].

Hovind faces a maximum of 288 years in prison. His wife faces up to 225 years. Her charges include aiding and abetting her husband with 44 counts of evading bank-reporting requirements.

[. . .]

Defense lawyers for the Hovinds rested their case on Wednesday without presenting evidence or calling witnesses.