Hi WW,
You know, I was considering this very question the other day when sharing my 'opinion' about all the political themes and threads that I have been finding on this board. As I explained on another thread, I thought conservative christians were those who had conservative views on the Scriptures and wasn't aware that it's for those who have self-proclaimed conservative political views.
I think it would be wonderful if we were able to do away with man-made denominations of the 'church' and tried to be more like what is described in the Scriptures as the 'church' of a particular city or geographic area and everyone who believed in Jesus as the only sacrifice for their sin and believed that God raised him from the dead worshiped together in one place. For example: the 'church' of Seneca and everyone who believed, whether there beliefs were in line with what some denomination might follow still worshiped and praised God with the singular 'church' in that area. Just think of the power and awe of unbelievers who would see, rather than 50 people going here and 100 people going there and 2,000 people going somewhere else if 30,000 people came together to praise the Lord in even small towns and cities. Yes, in larger cities you would need to have a 'church' designated by some name that would define a smaller area. Such as the 'church of South Chicago, or even the 'church' named by some smaller named area. Most large cities have within their accepted area smaller named neighborhoods. In the city of Miami for instance you have Allapatah, Liberty City, Little River neighborhoods for which you could name a 'church' building where a group from that neighborhood could come. Of course, no problem if people wanted to cross boundaries because they like a particular teacher better and quite honestly I can't see any problem if some wanted to visit different fellowships every other week.
So, you ask, you did ask didn't you? What has that got to with the question at hand? Well, I'm glad you asked! Why must people who feel led to seek an elected position have to join with any recognized group? Why can't John Doe, who wants to be mayor or legislator or president, run against Billy Wray who also feels confident that he would be a good choice for the elected office and they both also run against Sally Forth and Paul Bunyun and Jim Smith and Lisa Mona and they all raise for themselves whatever monies they need to promote their plans and agendas and we choose who's the best.
If Billy Wray and Lisa Mona and two or three others want to throw their hat in the ring for mayor of Bumpkinsville, then they ask among all their friends and supporters to make donations to their campaign and they run for the office and whoever the community decides, by popular vote is best, wins. Period. There is no, "Well, I vote republican..." or, "I vote democrat..." No! Everyone votes for whoever they think is the best person for the job and the popular vote wins.
Yes, I understand that in the larger national races there may be a need, as we have now, where the general public who wants to make money available to anyone for their campaign expenses can check that little box on their tax return and when it comes time all that money is evenly divided among the candidates. Yes, I agree that there may need to be some regulatory oversight to make sure that not just anyone says they want to run for president and gets the money and then never does anything. It could be that while the pot is evenly divided, to actually get the money it would be handled on a reimbursement program. You go line up national advertising and pay, at least some deposit from the cash that you have from personal and corporate donors, and then after the ads have run, bring the receipts and you will be reimbursed.
For sure, I don't claim to have worked out all the bugs as it is just an idea that allows us to make our elective choices based strictly on the merits of an individual without feeling beholden or loyal to some party affiliation. Just think how different our legislature might operate if there were no party lines. Votes were cast on issues based strictly on an elected officials personal ideas and conscience regarding the merit of whatever issue is being voted on.
It seems that, especially here in the healthcare issue, that I am constantly reading that, "all the republicans have voted one way, while all the democrats voted another." I can't help but know that some of those votes are cast as they are because one is trying to stay true to the party line, rather than actually weighing the merits of the issue at hand. How different would many of our legislative votes turn out if there were no parties? Today we read where the president is 'courting' the republican vote. But what if there was no 'republican vote'. He'd have to go and talk with each legislator or at least hold an open meeting where he might invite 20 or 30 various legislators to hear his ideas and plans, but even in that there would be no party affiliation among the various listeners. Each man would listen and decide with his own mind and discernment how he wanted to vote.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
