Letter to the Editor: Politicians should be ambassadors of Christ

Every semester I read a few columns about the SSA [Secular Student Alliance] on campus and the voices of human sovereignty here at Missouri Southern and I always ask myself one question: If this group’s status became very positive on campus, would others call it a breakthrough or an abomination?

I’m positive that it isn’t profitable to be completely closed-minded to ideas of a group whose moral view is unevenly yoked with that of believers [in Christ].

In The Chart’s article last week, the SSA club president mentioned discussion on why politics and religion don’t mix, which is actually very arguable given than there is a constituency that does not acknowledge a God in political and human affairs.

Take the same-sex marriage issue, for instance. When President Obama endorsed his support for same-sex marriage, he entered into a secular realm of human rebellion against God.

It is not to say that we should “put all the gays and lesbians into a cage and see if they survive,” ordeal, but acting as an ambassador for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20) first, and a politician second, one ought not to supersede the command of God to appease the will of man.

The same is true for the mixing of believers and non-believers. I would think that people be aware of the lack of maturity people have when it comes to discussing religion and spirituality. More people die “in the name of God,” than for any other reason.

The concept and efforts of the Secular Student Alliance are commendable, but the main objective is for believers to convert non-believers and vice versa.

It will not work. If it were that easy to get along with everyone who has distinct differences from us, there would be no such thing as religion at all.

The way I see it, converting to another religion (or no religion at all) comes from one thing; something traumatic happened that made you believe or disbelieve.

You can’t convince people to serve another God or believe there is no god at all. Relational acceptance of a god is relative. Not everyone will have the same experience or account. And the subject is so ambiguous because the act of faith is to accept God as Lord without prior proof that he exists. The religion debate dies there; there is no discussion from that point.

The bottom line is this: There are only two answers to any question of life or existential theory, there’s God’s answer, and there’s everyone else’s, and everyone else is wrong if you stand as a believer.  

People are asking the wrong question when they discuss matters of religion. They ask whose side is God on, rather than who’s on God’s side? I choose to be on God’s side.