Two kinds of design

Spring is, if not everyone's favorite time of year (some, like my wife and I, like Fall even more), is at least a popular one with, I'm guessing, almost every person. The whole "winter's over" mood is a great thing in itself; to say nothing of flowers and other flowering plants. The magnolia trees, lilac bushes and other blossoming things around Omaha and other cities can only be enjoyed in the Spring.

And seeing all this as one drives through the city makes an interesting contrast between two kinds of creation by design. You have all the varying expressions of God's design on one hand; His use of color and structure, animated and still life, and all of it continually reproducing or, in the case of non-living things, to preserve itself according to the power He gave each living thing to do so.

On the other hand, you have man's handiwork of design, instantly recognizable in its contrasting style. Whereas God constructs His creation by means of life processes and other means that produce the "natural" look, humans can only make use of things God made. This makes for a great difference; one which we should marvel at, even as Paul said, "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." (Romans 1:20). And, as God's nature is meant to be "clearly seen" through His creation, men are pronounced by Paul as being "without excuse" when they fail to recognize and honor God for His creative work.

So you have two kinds of design: one dynamic, always moving and changing, the other static, able only to decline and deteriorate, never grow from within. You have one that follows the principles of life, and so grows in sometimes unpredictable ways, like the evergreen tree above, growing around the rock it took root by. You have another design, man's, that must follow rules of "what works" in fashioning the finished product. And when some of men's designs follow a more dynamic principle, such as using heat or pressure to modify the shape of something, they are using a force available to them in what was already created by God.

No wonder a poet once spoke of being unable to see a "thing as lovely as a tree." The trees of Spring, and every other season, give evidence of a grander scheme of design than anything mankind can duplicate, because man can only make use of living things, not create or sustain them. How is it then, that some can look at human design and praise its creators, while they look at God's far greater design and call it "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"? If they cannot see the hand of God in His designs, it's no wonder then that they can't see the wisdom and glory of God in His Word. Maybe they need to spend more time looking at trees.

How do we now vote?

Conservative evangelicals have self-identified with the Republican party for a few decades, mostly over issues like abortion and gay rights. That coalition of interests has caused a number of debates, depending on who the Republican standard-bearer has been. John McCain alienated a number of Christian voters with a more moderate stance on some issues like immigration, and was dissed by others on his pro-fetal tissue votes.

But the political world and the spiritual world are always two different spheres of ambition and thinking, and Christians may have a lot more to worry about than McCain and embryonic testing. As reported by CNN, "Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one. Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned."

The Republicans are first interested in sitting in the White House, not standing before the White Throne of Revelation 20. Political expediency always trumps religion with the average politician, and compromise, not religious conviction, is the path to success for most with the voters.

There are many who think the Republican party has been too cozy with the "religious right", as they call evangelical voters and those who speak for them. And I have often been concerned that the lines have been drawn too straight to divide between one party and another, as they relate to the issues a biblically-based citizen would call important. Democrats of today are in some ways a lot like Republicans of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt's day, at least on social issues like civil rights and equal justice.

Too bad for Christians there isn't a political party that sets its platform by the Bible, instead of by a national committee. But then, such a party would not likely succeed in getting a major candidate elected or even nominated. And, just so we recall, we're not citizens of this world anyway, and shouldn't expect to have our interests fairly represented in our government, any more than they were in Paul's day.

Our job is to testify to the resurrection and gospel of Jesus Christ, the real King. Give to Caesar what is his, OK, but don't expect him to "earn your vote." And if you vote for him, don't expect him to feel the same way about all your issues. But maybe he's still a better earthly ruler than the other guy (or girl). In the end, it's still the Lord who oversees them all, for His own "platform".