Saturday, September 20, 2008

This man speaks for me

Imagine with me that you're on the committee to replace your church's senior pastor. There are about a half dozen applicants, but two men have really impressed the committee. They each have plans on how to lead the church forward.

One of the principle applicants is a smooth public speaker, and would be an impressive pastor. It would open up opportunities for increased revenue because his speaking abilities could be broadcast on TV and the Internet. Many people would pay to see his fantastic messages, and because he is young, handsome, and sharp, many people will be ready to give money to support his policies. The only problem with his applicant status is that he has many policies and positions which are against conservative biblical doctrine. He intends to take the church in a direction that is less evangelical and extremely more progressive on social issues.

The other main applicant is not so brilliant a public speaker, but his long and distinguished service at other congregations is well known. He is known to have only one serious moral failure when he divorced his disabled wife to marry a rich young woman. As opposed to the other main applicant, most of his policies agree with biblical doctrine. One of the principle reservations you have with this applicant is that as you look at his former congregations, he was financially irresponsible and left his congregations in deep debt when he moved on. The other reservation you have with his candidacy is that from talking to the deacons in his former churches, he acted as though he were not bound by the rules of the individual churches.

Most everyone on the committee plans to vote for one of these two applicants. They are notable and well-known in the congregation.

But there is also a third applicant that not many have heard of. He has lived a life that confirms the policies and tactics by which he plans to lead. He has never led a church congregation before, but he has been financially responsible is his past business ventures. In your personal interview with him, you found that he agreed with you on how to lead the church in a Biblical manner, how to conduct one's life as a disciple outside church walls, and how to be a good financial steward.

Now it is time for you to vote. Almost everyone in the room has voted for one of the original notable applicants. Your vote could swing the results one way or the other. But you have serious disagreements with the main applicants.

By your vote, you will be saying, "I give this applicant the right to speak for me in matters of church policy and the direction of the church."

4 comments:

Historicus said...

Whatever the results of the vote, one of your first jobs as a member of this congregation is to help mold and shape the other voters, so that they will not be swayed by lesser applicants again.

Anonymous said...

Questions:
* Did McCain leave a disabled wife?
* Who/ Where did he leave left with a debt burden?
* Has he said he is 'above the law'?

~Seriously Curious

Anonymous said...

Questions:
* Did McCain leave a disabled wife?
* Who/ Where did he leave left with a debt burden?
* Has he said he is 'above the law'?

~Seriously Curious

Historicus said...

Serious Curious,

You can find the story of McCain's divorce here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

It's very easy to be generous with other people's money. McCain has demonstrated, with his votes, that he does not mind leaving America's future generations saddled with tremendous debt. He just voted to steal over $700 BILLION of taxpayer money to give to unethical financial institutions.

McCain is not the only current politician in Washington, who thinks they are above the law. The Constitution explicitly forbids federal departments like the IRS, Education, Environment, FEMA, Agriculture... And yet McCain has continued to fund these departments with his votes. He wants to perpetuate the status quo where the federal government trashing the Constitution in order to gain more power that has been explicitly reserved for states.