Back To Michael's Sword Homepage


Christianity is a Democracy?

by Michael L. Gonzalez

November 12, 2000


The UMNS Commentary by Erik Alsgaard, assistant general secretary for communication for the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, exemplifies a common misunderstanding of Christianity by non-conservative Christians in the United States:  That Christianity is supposed to be a democracy.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm as much in favor of the principles upon which our country was founded as anyone, but the God of the Bible does not say that the will of the people shall prevail, but rather that the Will of God WILL prevail!

Of course it's not any surprise that an official of the GBCS would write such an article, as the GBCS acts as if it's a wing of the Democratic National Committee.  To radical liberals, such as the leaders in the GBCS, politics is a primary function of the UMC, whereas the Great Commission is set aside as being a demonstration of arrogance by those "self-righteous right-wing" Christians.

Take a look at the article and you'll see that politics is the basis of the article, not Christianity:

The headlines in my Nov. 9 morning paper said "Nation Braces for a Long Count" and "A Landslide Victory for Confusion."

One of the columnists in my paper pointed out the obvious: Whoever takes the oath of office next January must realize that he has no mandate from the people; winning 49 percent of the popular vote means the majority voted against you.

Here we have the GBCS now priming the UMC for division, just as the DNC primes the nation for division.  It seems that these liberals have forgotten that their great immoral leader, Bill Clinton, received fewer votes in both of his two presidential elections than did either Al Gore or George Bush receive this past week .  In fact, Bill Clinton received only 43% of the popular vote in 1992.  Did we hear from the democrats in 1992 saying that Bill Clinton would be hamstrung as president because of this extremely poor showing and low popularity?

The following statement by Alsgaard is descriptive of how the liberals see people:

What is fascinating to me in observing this election is how the trends among voters seem to mirror those in the United Methodist Church. Political pundits and exit polls show that division exists in this "United" country: men voted differently than women, whites voted differently than blacks, poor voted differently than rich. Even by geography, this country divided along classical lines for its 43rd president. One could not help but notice late on election night the "blue" states for Gore on the West and upper East coasts, and the "red" states for Bush in the heartland and the South. 
Who's doing what to try to heal the divisions in our nation and in our churches?  Well, it's certainly not the liberals in politics or the liberals in the UMC.

The liberals in politics campaign on emphasizing the differences among people to the greatest extent possible.  Al Gore's number one theme in the debates was "the richest one percent," which is an effort to fuel class warfare.  The Clinton/Gore administration has led the democrats in a campaign of "scare the elderly" since its inception, which is meant to pit the old against the young (they know that older Americans vote at twice the rate of the younger Americans).  For decades people like Jesse Jackson (and lately, Al Gore) have depended on African Americans to blindly follow them, regardless of whether these leaders will ever take any kind of action whatsoever to help this constituency; what have these so-called crusaders for the minorities accomplished since 1980 that might permanently benefit African Americans?  For the most part, these leaders are interested in preserving their personal and party power, NOT furthering the well-being of the minorities.

In kind, the liberals in the UMC campaign on emphasizing the differences among people to the greatest extent possible.  Instead of treating everyone as equals, UMC liberals pigeon-hole every human being based on generalizations and immutable characteristics such as skin color, gender, or surname.  If you've ever been around liberals when they're forming committees and such, you'll see that the first thing that everyone must do is take on a label to accept their pigeon hole.  Then the committees are formed with the "balance" and "diversity" that they so love to emphasize.  How in the world can we ever look at each other as equals in the eyes of God when every time we get together, the first thing required is to categorize people and place labels on them?

How divided are we? Issues like homosexuality, reproductive rights and inclusion of all God's children in the church are causing clear lines of division -- not 50-50, but the division is still there.
In the above excerpt from the article, Alsgaard presents an excellent question:  How divided are we?

As you can see from a previous column by this writer, the division among the rank-and-file membership is about 0.2% supporting the homosexual agenda, with the remaining 99.8% NOT supporting their agenda.  The radical liberals, like Alsgaard, continue to try to beat the membership into submission to think that everyone else is in favor of the homosexual agenda; but the numbers show this isn't the truth.  Such manipulation of public opinion has been honed to a fine art by the liberals in the nation in the latter half of the 20th Century.

Alsgaard got it right when he asked this question in his article:

Where -- or more correctly, to whom -- shall we go to find a leader who will bring healing and oneness? 
Well, we've seen that the various boards and agencies of the UMC only bring further division (as explained above).  And, even though nearly 100% of the UMC membership does NOT support the homosexual agenda, the Council of Bishops is still unable to lead the UMC to wholeness.

And what is Alsgaard's response?

The easy answer is Jesus.
Actually, the ONLY answer is Jesus!
But even here, the interpretation of Jesus can pose problems.
And with this final statement, Alsgaard demonstrates the epitome of where the radical liberals have their complete misunderstanding of Christianity:  Their insistence upon interjecting democracy into choosing the most applicable portions of the Bible.

The reason why we have votes in Protestant denominations is because people are fallible in discerning the Will of God, and so we must seek God's guidance -- the infilling of the Holy Spirit -- as a group of Christians assemble to interpret the Bible.  To the extent that the Christians are allowing the Holy Spirit to guide their actions, the Will of God will be apparent in the votes.

The false use of democracy in Christianity is when people think that they can pick and choose parts of God's Word as applicable and dismiss other parts as simply myth, or old fashioned, etc.  Such a "will of the people" is an effort to completely override the Will of God, and such an effort will fail 100% of the time.

 

[Click] button If you would like to add your yourcomments.gif (1566 bytes) to the UCM Article


<Back to News