The Bible and Politics

As always, these blog posts begin as Facebook Status updates where I get on a roll and rant:

Many have asked me how I can hold my views about social, economic, and political issues and still be "Christian". Ok, it's a fair question. I'm pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, a low-grade feminist, I believe in equal rights, the social safety net, that justice should be just and fair, that wages should be fair, and that people who try deserve another chance to succeed. But I also believe in working hard, doing your best, and believing that one's effort is rewarded by abundance. 

So what does that mean for my beliefs? It says that I'm capable of having political views that aren't weighed by the views of a few narrow-minded people who read The Bible like stereo instructions. Who interpret the words of a 66-book cannon which was complied by a group of Catholic Monks in 367 A.C.E. That I'm capable of reading The Bible in the context and times and cultures for which it was written, and that I'm scholarly enough to understand the difference between Jesus' spoken words (The Red Letters), and the words spoken by people who were observing events through the lens of their time and culture or people (The Old Testament) or people writing post-Jesus commentary related to the events and circumstances in which life placed them (The Letters and Epistles). It means I understand that Biblical literalism is one of the most heinous lies of this generation ever observed to this date. And, I understand that the only document purported to be written directly by God is the 10 Commandments (See Exodus), and the only thing that is says is Worship God by these rules, and Don't be dicks to each other (excuse the harsh language, but it's to make a sharp and pointy point.) 

And finally what it means is that Christians everywhere need to wake up and cast off these jerks, these false "prophets" who claim to have God's ear. Who claim to speak as though they're the Pope, or Jesus himself. Who steal your money to enrich themselves, and fill your mind with dogmatic falsehoods. Who pit you against the very poor people as lazy or sinful or corrupt or faggots. Guess what fellow “believers”…THOSE ARE WHO YOU SERVE! YOU SERVE THE UNDERPRIVILEGED! The call of The Great Commission is to go unto all the world baptizing those in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Not to conquer in Jesus' Name, not to berate, or oppress or judge or condemn or to steal, kill, and destroy. And most definitely not to force compliance of a warped version of Christianity that is fraudulent, cruel, and oppressive.

Christianity is not a club, it's not a mace or a morning star or a broad sword. It's a scroll, it's a vision, it's a purpose, and most greatly, it's a message of hope for all mankind. Your only job is to live that hope, and be there for when someone asks you about it. Nothing more, nothing less. Live and let live, but help others live better too by following Jesus’ example; through his demonstrations of love, compassion, hope, and justice. If you can't do that, then you're not a Christian that I recognize.

Liberal Christianity and Public Benefit Systems

An interesting debate seems to have been brought by those identifying as "Liberal Christians" and "Evangelical Christians."  Does the government have a role to play in caring for the sick, poor, and parentless?

It's an interesting theological question.  The Bible contains no real context exclusivity on this topic.  State-level socialism didn't really exist in Greece or in Rome.  Any hunger that was addressed was done by those who had surplus or by those who ran religious institutions.  It does not exclusively say nor does it explicitly prohibit or dictate the means in which charity must be delivered.  Programs like SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and other assorted public programs provide massive real-world benefits to those that would otherwise end up on the streets, starving, stealing, and hurting others to survive.  This is my professional quote of this segment:

"When one believes they cannot meet their basic needs within the confinements of their society, and by the rules it establishes regarding the procurement of those resources and needs, then that individual will seek those needs outside the system imposed upon them."

So, we as humans, being hierarchical beings, establish systems of order to work in.  We create mechanisms of efficiency to create a stable flow of order and productivity.  It is the very foundation of human civilization.  We establish food delivery systems to provide for the whole of society.  We create aqueducts to deliver fresh water to plants and animals in a farm setting.  We build dams to generate electricity.  We create systems of social order to create a society where humans can bring grievances and questions of justice against one another without violence, but under the rule of law.  We build corporations to deliver goods and services to a vast consumer public.  We build all these structures and systems of order to create efficiency and establish regularity.

Regularity is the key to creating a stable and sturdy ladder with which one climbs from the bottom to the top.  In areas where there are no profits to be made, government can establish that regularity and stability to ensure that those who are building or rebuilding their lives can work themselves to a state of self-sufficiency and become tax-paying, productive members of society.

Now, in regards to the Biblical case for Food Stamps, TANF, and other similar programs:

Christ, as part of his ministry routinely spoke about individual generosity.  He spoke often about the mandate that if you can give something of yourself, then you are giving to me.  That blessings come to those who give selflessly, anonymously, and privately, and without motive for any return or reward.  Give simply to give, and no other reason.  And I believe that philosophy 100%.  If/when I do give, I give anonymously...just as I do with prayer...anonymously.

But, let is also consider this:  We've established the religious mandate to care for the poor, sick, and parentless.  But what about government?  Why should it have a role?  What justifies it?  How about Romans 13?  Paul spoke in Romans 13 that if you are due to pay taxes, pay taxes, if Tribute, then tribute...if respect, then respect.  That leaders are established by God to do the Lord's work, and deliver justice to all.  That the leaders of government are held to account to be arbiters of justice to all people.  And that, yes, you should even fear your government (in the righteous respect context, not the Area 51 government taking my guns context).

I first want to dismiss a position that is often expressed.  That position is this: that state-imposed charity robs people of the blessings that come from charity.  This myth is often expressed to oppose state-run social services with the belief that there is a material loss caused by "The State" taxing it's citizens and redistributing it to those in need.  I would argue that those who are truly charitable will give as their heart leads them to give.  If you are justifying not giving just because the government taxes you...then I'd say you should re-examine your motives behind it.  Giving shouldn't be something you do only when you have excesses.  It should occur naturally from your relationship with Jesus.  As the spirit works in your life, you will feel the need and desire to give strictly for the reason of wanting to give.  The argument that social programs rob people of that opportunity is totally off the rails and is an excuse to argue against a systematically functional public policy that establishes people in workable and sustainable patterns of survival.  You as an individual are more than empowered and able to give to your local food bank, homeless shelter, or charity.  If you're blaming food stamps for your lack of generosity, then you're just plain not generous period.

Religious liberals, like myself argue that having a solely religious justification for public policy is not enough.  That there must exist in any government policy a real world, measurable, scientific reason for any said policy to exist.  Religious liberals would dismiss the assertion that "God told me to do this or to sign that" in regards any government policy.  When any politician of any faith agrees or disagrees to a policy, that politician must have a rational and material reason that can be argued and debated in order for that position to be viewed as a valid position.  Simply to hedge on faith serves no purpose and is fundamentally poor governance.

It is not wrong is to have religious conviction that reinforces your political views, but with that influence, you must have real, present, physical, provable evidence to demonstrate the issue can be argued with more than just religion.  For example, if conservatives argue that food stamps are state-imposed charity...there's no arguing with that fact.  It's true.   Currently, there are more politicians who say "We believe that those without the means to buy food should be given a grant to buy food at tax payers' expense."  Now, if I were to stand up and say..."Jesus tells me to feed those who don't have food using tax payers money."  That in of itself is not a rational argument to justify a state program.  But if I say "My faith teaches me to feed those who hunger...but here's what this study, and this study, and this study say about what feeding those who can't buy food does to improve society..."  I have introduced real, tangible scientific evidence to support my beliefs, and therein, we've created a rationale that penetrates all lines of division or conflict.  Simply stating, "My faith tells me to do it" while offering no tangible, real-world evidence to support your belief politically is not sufficient reasoning to support the position.

It is not Leftist-Christian theocracy to feed those who cannot be fed.  Such a viewpoint is shared among multiple faiths and belief systems across the globe.  Islam (who actually did institutionalize this view), Judaism, Hinduism, many numerous Native American belief systems and cultural systems, as well as regional and tribal faiths teach the same thing.  If you feel compelled to give, then give.  Do as Christ commanded and give anonymously, give in secret, and give simply to give.  But what you cannot avoid as a citizen of a state-level society is copping out of your obligations to your society.

The Biblical rationale for public assistance isn't really present either direction.  Such systems of subsistence didn't exist in the single-digits A.C.E. of the Roman Empire.  But what is justifiable scripturely is what Paul teaches in Romans 13.  To obey the laws imposed upon you, to respect your leaders, pay your taxes, and give respect when due.  He's talking about being a rational member of society, and that through your obedience, that your example of Christ-like love and life may spread to others.  Now let's be clear, governance and public policy depend on one being able to argue facts.  If you can argue with evidence taht Food Stamps is more harmful than good, then do what you feel is right.  However, to simply rip it away after people have been dependent on a system for years, crafting their finances and living circumstances around that system...then you as a legislator have a responsibility to ensure that you don't hurt anyone as you pull the rug out from under them.  If you're going to remove a system of provision, then you have to replace it with something else to keep them from being harmed.

While you may not agree with your tax dollars feeding the hungry, it is not leftist theocracy that dictates the view.  It's the view that solving hunger solves crime, solves drug abuse, solves childhood chronic illness, and systematically and measurably benefits the lives of millions of Americans across the country, and the world even.  Solving hunger in a systematic, regular, consistent manner, such as through the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), you are assisting in solving the problems that cause larger more systematic problems if left unsolved or unsatisfied.  There is the measurable, rational, systematic reason that we provide SNAP to the public.  You never know if you will be in that position, and you as a person who doesn't need it rests assured that a hungry and poor person won't try to rob you for your money so he can feed himself.  And while that does happen occasionally...just imagine if 50 million people were thrust into that position.

Secularism is not Anti-Religious

Secularists do not desire to drive religion from the public sphere. A society's expression of faith is one that defines the fabric of that society. How our society treats those who are spiritual in any form defines the people of that society. 

But also consider this: it is important that while individuals are free to express their faith, it's also important that your faith no dictate your decisions in public policy. Using faith to justify public policy exclusively is harmful to society, and blurs the veil that separates church and state. The church and state argument derives from Thomas Jefferson's belief that there should be a wall between the government and the churches. He saw the corruption that existed in the UK where the Church of England is a public church, funded by tax payers. The government and church both engaged in highly questionable political and religious interactions, trading power and money for offices of worship and spiritual guidance. 

Consider also the 500s through the 1700s, where for 1200 years, the Catholic Church actively interfered or in some cases even outright ruled nations using faith to instill fear, suppress the spread of education, and demanding full and unquestioned fealty, or face persecution by the Church. It was a dark age in Europe where science was dismissed and condemned, and questions glared at with disgust. The only people who benefited from that system was the Church, and it was the state that suffered at the hand of the Church. 

So when I say I favor the separation of Church and State, I base that view on the history of interactions between church and politics. It's important that we understand that the separation of Church means keeping the judgments of churches out of governance, but not your expression of faith from guiding you as an individual. Christianity extols the values of ethical conduct, righteous administration, and servant-based leadership. It begs people to fight injustice, to expose the dark areas, and to bring judgment to those who commit wrongs.

Coming Out on Many Fronts - The Mini-Memoir of Me

I don't know if you'll share this but, I thought I'd make a stab at it anyway.  When I was very young, I was not sure why I was drawn to men.  I didn't understand it, I was confused about it, and honestly, women never did anything for me in any form.  When I was a teenager I tried to pretend I was attracted to women, had a girlfriend in High School and in College.

I came from a rather conservative and fundamentalist background, accepting the words they taught up to a point.  I was anti-gay, anti-gay marriage, anti-gay anything for a long time because I was told that’s how things were supposed to be if you wanted to be a “good Christian man”, even though I myself knew to some degree what I was.  I even got to chatting with a few guys online, deluding myself that I was just looking for friends, when, in fact, I was looking for a boyfriend, but didn't quite realize it.  I kept this facade up for a long time.

But alas, it was so not meant to be.  What did it for me was me and her were at a restaurant eating a late dinner.  One of the cooks came up to me and we chatted it up for about 45 minutes.  I felt real bad afterword cause she was left there in a dumbfounded silence as I engaged this guy (who was very attractive) in a rather intense conversation about theater and food.  Sadly he wasn't gay, but the experience opened my eyes quite a lot.  I had felt infinitely more comfortable talking to him and engaging him in discussions than I did with her.  And it wasn't because I didn't
care about her, but because the connection wasn’t there.

Also during my 2nd year at LCSC in Lewiston, ID…I had resided in a house where about 30 people lived.  It was an old convent turned into a dormitory with kitchen and common area.  Most the people were nice and quite reasonable to be around.  I had a roommate who was a unique character to say the least but, he was good at brightening my spirits with invitations to come drink and the occasional driving him for his weekend imprisonment for a few slaps on the hand things he did.  A few other friends lived there as well.  But one day when I was walking back from class, it was about October or November, and I had left my window cracked to let air in.  I had noticed something that wasn’t on my seat last time I drove.  I remember it quite vividly.  Something designed to embarrass you or expose you before you’re ready or intimidate you never really goes away.  Someone had decided it would be funny to drop gay porn into my car.  And brightly as in front of God and everyone, had been a gay porn DVD.  Never in my life had I felt more dread and intimidation than that moment, knowing someone had decided to behave so insensitively.  Now I know this doesn’t compare to others’ experiences, but, this was truly something I could never forget.  I grabbed the DVD and quickly deposited it into the dumpster outside the dorm, and brushed it off like it was nothing.  I continued on my way as I normally do, but now with a twinge of dread in the back of my mind.  I asked myself questions like “Is this the start of something?  Is it going to get worse?”  Thankfully it didn’t…but it easily could have.

Courage: 90% of resistance is cautionary.
~Shigeo Shingo

After that, I slowly worked up the courage to start coming out to people.  My friend, Barbara was the first
one I came out to, telling her I was Bi, partially cause I was still confused, but knew enough that I liked men, but still wasn't sure if women were off the table.  Then finally about a year after that, I and a guy met onlin
e.  We decided to drive 8 hours to meet each other.  Oh we felt such a chemistry with each other, our chats were passionate, we loved each other’s pictures, and so, we decided to meet in the middle.  After finally meeting in our Motel, it literally was love at first sight.  We spent two amazing days together talking and cuddling and truly expressing our feelings to each other.  When we parted, I felt like he took a part of me with him, and him with me.  For a few days after that, every time I touched my arm, it felt like he was touching me, like the way we caressed in bed together.  We carried on with each other from a distance for eight months until we finally broke it off.  Neither of us could get away to see each other, and he was still closeted.  It broke my heart for a while…but I gathered my strength and moved on.  We still talk on occasion, but, I’m not expecting us to try again anytime soon.

The next chapter of my adult life started in 2009, when I entered Evergreen to finish my Bachelor’s degree.  The Evergreen State College is renowned with having one of the most active and vibrant college gay and lesbian groups in the nation.  As a centerpiece of social justice, I was drawn to the discussions about social justice.  Even bombarded with messages about full equal rights for LGBT Couples, I still sharply questioned the position, trying to be one of those (in my mind) people who take the road of least resistance and wanted to build a bridge between the two opposing viewpoints.   Looking back on the position, I can see now why I was so wrong in its viewpoint.  Though I don’t feel I was wrong for trying to find common ground.

Evergreen actually took this picture and made it a postcard

After I graduated in 2011, I
was politically active for the Republican Party, believing 100% in the views that given the freedom, the market will provide and everyone will have everything.  I voted fervently for most of the Republican candidates on the ticket in 2010 (trust me, I STRONGLY regret it to this day), and continued to try to build bridges of common view.  I argued fervently that government isn’t evil, but it should back off, and just let things work that can work, and control things it should control.  With the recent tea-publican menace worming its way into the party, such views were not accepted easily.

So finally, 2012 comes around, and I’m proudly wearing my Romney sticker on my car, and hanging on the words of both candidates passionately, absorbing their talking points, each of them…and what finally was the straw that broke the Camel’s back…”You didn’t build that….” Taken out of context over and over and over again, into utter absurdity.  At this point, I am totally disillusioned as to why I’m even supporting this party any more.  I took a hard long look at myself in the mirror and started inventorying my views.  I compared them aggressively against the party platforms of both parties.  Now I know my history.  I know what kind of damage church and state together can cause.  I know what kind of damage unregulated greed can cause, and I know from my Bible, that government is NOT evil but an arm of justice (See Romans 13 for a detailed scripture reference).  I was also pro-choice even before this as a Republican, because I believed that each circumstance bears a different level of morality…and it is not the place of the state to hold women prisoners in their own bodies by legislatively stripping women of this right to choose to reproduce…despite my personal views on abortion.  So finally, I started reading more.  End This Depression NOW! – By Paul Krugman, as well as his other books: The Conscience of a Liberal and A Return to Depression Economics.  I tore through all three books hanging on his every word…and it suddenly occurred to me, that I am a 100% Democrat.  If this was so on economics, and mostly on social issues, then, it would make sense.


In addition to coming out to my parents as gay, I also came out
to them as a 100% Dark Blue Liberal...which I think actually was harder for them to understand than me coming out as gay.  Looking back on my life, my experiences, my interactions with others, and finally, my faith…I understand more than ever why equality is important to me.  To me, coming out was the way that I could be truly an individual.  An individual with pride about who and what I am.  Throughout the last few years, I have continuously buried myself in history, in culture, and in science as best as I can understand it, to better understand what it means to be Gay.  To break it down to the simplest of explanations: Being Gay is nature’s way of creating uniqueness in an otherwise homogeneous world.  Instead of women, I love men.  And by love men, I mean I desire their companionship, their presence, their passion, their touch, their shoulder, their voice, their eyes, and finally, their unconditional Love.  Not “Love Because” or “Love IF”, but “Love PERIOD.”  Love without limit, reason, purpose, or condition.  The kind of love that would thrust me into a gunshot or throw myself on top of him.  The kind of love that Jesus gives us every day:  “Love Period.”

The Speaker of the House Philosophy

The Right-Honorable John Bercow

Speaker of the British Parliament, Elected 2009

No Party Affiliation

Speaker Boehner has worked himself into quite a pickle.  On one side, he has right-wing extremists who threaten his speakership if he concedes to Democratic demands to pass a clean Continuing Resolution…while on the other hand he’s facing a very angry electorate who will ultimately dump him like a bad habit if he doesn't pass a clean C.R..  So what ever should he do?

The Right-Honorable Sir Arthur Guinness

Speaker of the House, New Zealand, 1911

Well, before I answer that question, let’s look at what a speaker SHOULD be as compared to the speaker we have now.  The Speaker of the House is the 3^rd most powerful man in the US Government.  He’s 3^rd in line for the presidency, he’s autocratic leader of the entire Lower House of Congress, and he pretty much has the power to do whatever he wants in regards to the House business.  When looking at other types of speakers of the house in other systems of government, the speaker often elected by the entire body of legislators.  The Speaker of the United Kingdom Parliament is often one who is regarded as fair and entirely equitable, having no party affiliation or loyalty during his time in as the speaker.  He mediates disputes and maintains the house rules and delegates which members can speak at which time.  He’s also a non-voting member of parliament and does not vote except in cases of a tie.  And in even in that circumstance, the rules of voting while the speaker are very strict as to maintain a non-partisan status. 

John Boehner, 

Speaker of the House

Republican, Elected Jan 2011

The role of the speaker, in my view, is to serve as a servant of the houses factions.  He should be one who organizes the agenda proportionally, allowing all members to vote on whatever piece of legislation either side wishes to present.  Now, I’m not saying that there should not be any order to it…but I do believe that the issues discussed in the House should be representative of the house’s membership.  So if Democrats control 55% of the membership and Republicans 45%...then 55% of the issues discussed in the House should be from Democrats, and 45% from Republicans.  A fair, proportional, equitable division of the issues presented.  The speaker’s role in this regard is to make sure that the rules of order are followed, that the time to speak be divided evenly and fairly, and that the parties behave themselves in a civil manner.  Further, the speaker should never be a partisan in any way when an issue affecting national issues occur.  The Speaker’s role is to ensure that the rules of the House are enforced and not to selectively enforce them or give special preference to his or her own party. 

Nancy Pelosi, 

Former Speaker of the House, Democrat

Elected 2009

Some changes that I would like to see in the House in regards to a speaker is a 2/3rds majority vote for the job.  That a simple majority is insufficient to elect a speaker that is truly viewed as non-partisan.  A non-partisan speaker is essential to the functioning of the chamber and ensures a fair and equitable exchange of dialogue between the parties.  It also would ensure that the speaker maintains a good relationship with all parties and divides the work proportionally.  Finally, a vote of no-confidence which can be initiated by a petition signed by 1/3 of the chamber’s members.  This would also keep the speaker’s non-partisan status enforced and would ensure that the speaker appeals to ALL members of the chamber to maintain fairness and equality to all parties and members.

Thanks for your time, and please follow me: 

Twitter: @gdgivens, 
Facebook as well:  http://facebook.com/GabeGivens 
and http://facebook.com/TheLiberalPragmatist

God: Sometimes a Flood is Just a Flood

Colorado had one of the worst periods of flooding in over 1000 years according to climatologists and the oral histories of various native peoples who lived in that area before we "moved" in. Immediately after that event had concluded, but before the water even had time to recede, neo-conservatives jumped to the air waves blaming gays and abortion and "The Liberal Agenda" for provoking "God's Wrath".  This has the intent of inciting anger against liberals.  Furthermore, it's designed to deceive others into thinking and voting a particular way.

One of the biggest lies going around right now in Christian Circles is that God punishes the whole for the actions of a few. If we are to reason that God is a just god, and that God is the greatest of judges, and that we reasonably can say that judges' roles are to be arbiters of justice...then explain to me the logic of this: I'm going to smite the whole nation because a few people do this, or a few people do that. How is that justice? How is that judgment? How is that fair? God is the god of fair, the god of just, the god of equality and reason, God is the god of rational thinking. 

The 1720s, 1820s, and 1920s taught us one thing: That Christianity is about that personal relationship with Jesus, that that relationship is the centerfold of the Christian Faith, and that you literally make your own bed with whatever behaviors you engage in or do or whatever. The hell you live in is the one you create for yourself through your choices. So again, I believe 100% that God does not punish the nation because of the actions of a few. I believe it to be greatly contrary to the spirit and purpose of Christianity, as well as a viscous lie to instill fear in others. And as we know, God does not instill in us a spirit of fear. 

So is it reasonable to say that the premise of God punishing our nation for whatever is a lie of the enemy to deceive and to instill fear in others? Could it be that it is used as a manipulation tactic to get neo-conservatives elected? And is it reasonable to say that such inflammatory rhetoric accomplishes nothing except to manipulate those that are less informed, less grounded, and less secure about life into voting and thinking a certain way? Yes, it is. God does not punish us.   We do a pretty good job of that on our own. He (Jesus) waits there patiently for us to return TO him ready to start over. He doesn't pound us into the pavement til we say "Mercy, you win, I give up."

The Sabbath: A Different Perspective

I remember the first time I visited a Seventh-day Adventist Church.  I strongly recommend one if you ever feel the desire to understand what Seventh-day Adventists believe.  Though in the most basic of senses, Seventh-day Adventists believe in the same core values as any other Christian denomination.  That Christ is the Savior, and that by his blood, the sacrifice of the Old Law as required in the Covenant with God as detailed in the Old Testament, was fulfilled permanently.  And that Christ, on the third day of his death, rose and ascended to Heaven as the Son of God, but also God as described by the concept of the Holy Trinity.

One of the most significant beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church is that of "The Sabbath."  For those who are unaware, the Sabbath is the 7th day of the week, usually accepted as Saturday, where it is believed that God has commanded us to rest and take a day off.  On such a day, it is argued that man should do no work and that nobody with the Israelites should do any work either.  No the livestock or the animals or immigrants or guests or anybody.  Take a day off to remember God and his wonders, provision, and gifts that He has given us.  For a more detailed description of The Sabbath from a Biblical perspective, see Genesis 2:2-3, and Exodus 20:8-11.

But let me throw a little reason into the mix.  From a practical, real-world perspective, having a day off is a healthy and necessary thing to maintain a healthy body.  Most work cycles in our society are built around the two-day rest, five-day work cycle.  To maintain a good healthy body, the body must rest from strenuous labor from time to time to heal from the strain undertaken from any kind of work, whether physical or mental.  It gives the mind and body time to relax, to refresh, and for the mind, time to enjoy the pleasures of life, whatever those may be.  So, when we look at scripture, and we see a great deal of emphasis being put on observing the Sabbath...what that tells me is that having a day off was very important.  It also stands to reason that the Sabbath important enough to be codified with a death penalty for anyone violating it during the times of The Exodus.  It was also important enough for Jesus to speak about during his ministry as accounted and detailed in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

In the times of "The Exodus" as well as later up through even the 1800s I'd argue, the standard of living was low for many people.  Some civilizations had attained a level of advancement where there was a great deal of leisure time, and others required massive amounts of labor hours to keep things even at a subsistence level.  Would it stand to reason that in the times of the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, that God, and Jesus both would set aside a day for people to take a break?  And not just people, but land, animals, labor, and of course anyone.  Did you know, that Exodus commanded the Israelites to leave their land fallow once every 7 years.  On the 7th year of a planting season, they were demanded to keep the land free from planting, and let it lie fallow.  The scientific reason for this is so that the land could replenish it's natural nourishment.  A real world and relatively recent example of this going wrong is the Dust Bowl of the early 1900s, where the farm lands of the Midwest were depleted of any usable value due to over use and over-planting.  It resulted in a period of history where many farmers lost their farms and many people starved due to food shortages.

I personally believe that all people should have a day off.  There is no question in my mind that that is a necessary and proper part of being a healthy human being.  But also, do I believe the Sabbath is required as part of a Christian Walk?  I am of the viewpoint that, in the Character of Christs' teachings, and in line with the consistency of walking by faith simply to walk by faith and no other reason, no.  I do not believe that "The Sabbath" as defined by Judaism or by Seventh-day Adventists or any other denomination of Abrahamic Faiths is a necessary mechanism to reap the rewards of walking the path of Christianity.  I do believe that its a couple of things though:

1) I believe it is a necessary biological need to have a day off.  I believe that the emphasis was placed so heavily on the Sabbath was to instill with urgency that human beings cannot sustain in the long term, they're physical health, if they work continuously.  A day off functions as both biological rest and as personal self-reflection or spiritual renewal.  There's a reason why such Sabbath regulations in Exodus also included animals, aliens, strangers, travelers and/or other guests/non-believers.  It was to ensure that you didn't make others who were traveling among the Hebrews weren't forced to work when everyone else had the day off.  It was strict, and it was reasonable given the time.  "Honor the Sabbath and Keep it Holy" is a very a-typical demand as opposed to the rest of the 10 commandments.  Was it truly a mandated day off for all time in all generations?  Or was it a command that could be more loosely observed given the way life treats you.  Or is it purely pragmatic to ensure people get a day off from everything?  That's the mystery.

2) I believe that as a believer in Christ or any other variation of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Judaism, Islam, and the like, that having a day of worship is a VERY good idea.  That such a day should be observed for the purposes of refreshing yourself spiritually and mentally, as well as interacting with those in your faith community collectively.  It also is a launching ground for civic action and services for the poor and needy.  And I believe that worship, whether on a Saturday, Sunday, Wednesday, or Monday or whatever day you choose to congregate with other believers are equally important.  I don't see Jesus judging one because they chose to worship on Sunday rather than Saturday, or Wednesday, or whatever day.  Because, I argue in Christianity, it's the motives of the heart that matter most, not the dogmatic ritual of a thing.

Overall though, you must follow your heart on this issue.  If you believe the Sabbath is the literal Sabbath, then by all means, honor your conscience and observe the Sabbath as your faith and personal convictions require you to do so.  I personally don't think I give a lot of credit to the strict observance to the Saturday-Sabbath.  But I do believe in taking a day to rest, and taking a day to reflect on creation, on God, on the nature of the universe and to just flex those existential intelligence muscles.

Tell me what you think.  I encourage good dialogue.