Should Christians Avoid Politics?

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371

Tags: 

head in the sandFrom the archives. First appeared on 2/27/09. (Original discussion thread.)

If recent polls may be believed, most Americans now see their country as seriously troubled. For conservatives the times are especially disturbing. We are deeply opposed to the political philosophy now in power but are also alarmed at the resulting economic policies. We believe the solutions now in progress will be more damaging than the problems they are supposed to solve.

Among principled conservatives feelings about the situation range from intense frustration to utter futility. To many, the segment of Bible-believing Christendom that eschews politics is looking more and more like home. They are eying the creed that participation in politics has little or nothing to do with our responsibilities as followers of Jesus Christ and finding it increasingly attractive.

Over the last few months, I have also felt the appeal of tuning out. But certain realities have doggedly called me back to the belief that in a nation such as ours Christians can and must be involved in politics. And we have this responsibility even if—perhaps especially if—it appears we will accomplish nothing.

God cares what nations do

A principle feeding my conviction that believers should be involved in politics is the fact that God has expectations of nations. He is not “judge of all the earth” in a solely individualistic sense, nor is He concerned only with the salvation (and transformation) of individuals. Consider, for example, God’s rebuke of the nations in Amos 1:3-15. Here He finds fault not so much with how individual citizens have behaved but with how they have acted collectively as a nation. And they are judged accordingly.

Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they have threshed Gilead with implements of iron.” (NKJV, Amos 1:3)

What’s more, at least once in Amos the judgment of a nation has nothing to do with its treatment of Israel or Judah.

Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime. But I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the palaces of Kerioth; Moab shall die with tumult, with shouting and trumpet sound. And I will cut off the judge from its midst, and slay all its princes with him,” says the Lord. (Amos 2:1-3)

Here God holds the national entity called Moab to an ethical standard which it had violated by its handling of the remains of the king of Edom (a nation condemned for sins of its own in Amos 1:11). Apparently, God has ethical expectations for what nations do when acting as nations. In other words He cares about national policy.

Given the fact that policy in America is shaped by the involvement of the electorate, we cannot separate policy from politics. If God cares about what nations do as nations, He cares about what the United Sates does as a nation, and He cares about the politics that shape what we do.

We are the government

Amos and other prophets show that God expects nations to treat other nations properly. Similarly, Romans 13 reveals that God expects nations to govern their own citizens properly, and He assigns specific responsibilities to government. Verse 4 indicates that the governing authorities “bear the sword” and serve as diakonoi (servants) and ekdikoi (justice givers or punishers) for God. The words good and evil appear repeatedly in the passage, emphasizing that government’s duties are ethical and moral.

It’s impossible to take these verses seriously and conclude that God does not care what happens in Congress or in my state assembly. But the implications of the passage for a society such as ours extend much further.

By design, the United States is a nation of laws shaped by the influences of representative democracy. The founders did not aim to give every man an equal voice in state or national policy, but they did aim to give every man an equal voice in whom he would send to act on his behalf (not necessarily to vote as he would vote but to build policy that protects the best interests of his family and his nation). Regular elections—coupled with the right of public protest—were built in to ensure that policy-making is never wholly separated from the citizenry.

To say it another way, in America the difference between government and the governed is intentionally blurred by law so that citizens have governing responsibilities (policy-shaping responsibilities), whether they want them or not. To be a citizen is to be an indirect policy maker. In that sense, we are all “the government.”

The fact that we are all legally entangled in the policy-making process means that the question is not “Will I be involved in politics and try to shape policy?” but rather “Will I shape policy well or will I, by passivity and silence, shape it poorly?” What we commonly refer to as “not involved in politics” is just a way of saying “not putting any effort into policy-making responsibilities.”

Because our government is structured the way it is, the moral and ethical responsibilities of government in Romans 13 are our moral and ethical responsibilities as citizens. The only difference is that, for most of us, our involvement is that of indirect influence rather than direct execution.

The place of prayer

I have often heard that the role of the Christian in earthly politics is simply to pray. Isn’t this what we are commanded to do?

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. (1 Tim. 2:1-2)

What the Scriptures require here is clear. Believers must pray for and about those in power and do so with the goal that they will essentially leave us alone.

The passage might seem to imply that we should also leave them alone, but that view extends the passage beyond what it actually says. Rather, prayer is never a substitute for action in Scripture, just as action is never a substitute for prayer. For example, Jesus commanded us to pray that the “Lord of the harvest” would “send out laborers” (Luke 10:2), yet He still commanded us to “go into all the world and preach” (Mark 16:15). The apostle Paul said it was “his prayer to God for Israel that they may be saved” (Rom. 10:1), yet he included outreach to Jews throughout his ministry. Likewise the call to pray for “all who are in authority” does not preclude acting deliberately to influence them.

Taking action when we have neglected prayer is foolish and irreverent, but praying when we ought to be acting is foolish and irresponsible. Imagine that fire fighters have been summoned to the site of a burning apartment complex. They arrive, take positions, unpack the hoses, and connect them to hydrants. But rather than douse the flames, they pull out their cell phones and repeatedly dial 911 as the building burns.

The analogy is imperfect. God possesses the power to intervene directly in the affairs of men and “put out fires” in response to prayer alone. But should we assume that direct intervention by Himself alone is His intention when He has not said so and has given us the means to attack the flames ourselves?

Morality shapes everything

A final reality that keeps me from adopting the “politics is none of our business” stance is the fact that the moral condition of a community impacts everything else in it. I cannot fulfill my responsibilities as husband and father as effectively in Sodom as I can in better surroundings. And if Lot chose poorly in going to “the cities of the plain” (Gen. 13:12), am I not choosing poorly if I allow “the cities” to come to me? What’s certain is that we and our families cannot be unaffected if moral decadence descends all around us (2 Pet. 2:7-8).

Proverbs underscores this principle.

A wicked man accepts a bribe behind the back to pervert the ways of justice. (Prov. 17:23)

The proverb describes a perilous situation. A morally corrupt man influences or makes policy but does not do so according to principle or law. He perverts “the ways of justice” by seeing that someone is punished arbitrarily rather than for wrong-doing. As this blight spreads in a community, people see less and less relationship between their behavior and what government does to them. Lawlessness increases, and eventually no one anywhere is safe.

If I live in such a place, I can only successfully protect my family and my property (God-given responsibilities) as God intervenes to prevent what is otherwise the inevitable course of nature. But will He intervene in that situation if I could have stemmed the tide of lawlessness years earlier but chose not to?

Just as declining morality ruins the relationship between law-abiding behavior and personal well being, it also ruins the relationship between labor and personal prosperity.

Much food is in the fallow ground of the poor, and for lack of justice there is waste. (Prov 13:23)

This proverb can be taken to mean that lack of justice has allowed the poor to be robbed, but the view that answers best to the evidence is that injustice has somehow led the poor to let their land lie idle. This meaning is more clear in the ESV.

The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice. (ESV, Prov 13:23)

The proverb describes a situation in which the land of the poor could have been producing abundance, but bad policy (or poor execution of good policy) made waste more appealing. The poor here probably feel that growing the crops will do them little good because the fruit of their labor will be taken away, either by robbers or by oppressive taxation. Either way, immoral policy has guaranteed that citizens and their families see little relationship between hard work and food on the table. As that relationship deteriorates in a community, production falls off. Soon there isn’t enough of anything.

We’re foolish if we believe that bad policy and moral confusion can spread indefinitely without eventually hindering our own ability to live and serve God. Yes, God can intervene to spare His children from the worst that lawlessness and want bring on a society, but should we assume that He will do so if we have the means to influence policy and morality for good but choose instead to “avoid politics”?

Some may object here that we “cannot legislate morality.” But in reality government exists for no other reason than to punish “evil” (what is morally wrong) and reward “good” (what is morally right). To the degree Christians can influence policy toward effectiveness in that purpose, we are wise to do so. To do less is to welcome a future of violence, chaos, and poverty from which God will have no obligation to deliver us.

[node:bio/aaron-blumer body]

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/30/09
Posts: 521
Homerun

Thank you!

Pastor Mike Harding

Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 303
Excellent article

I'd add one point that I think is important on this topic and often neglected. Because good government has a positive impact on our neighbours, acting to improve the way our nation is governed is part of loving our neighbours. Where we have the opportunity to influence government for good, it is the charitable thing to do.

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 22
Your second to the last sentence . . .

These are great points that I do not believe any believer will argue against. But your second to last sentence is the point of contention. How much should we be involved? SHould we hold campaign speeches in our church? Should we picket and march and write letters and make calls? Should we support from the church treasury the candidates that need financial support? These are the questions that haunt us at every election time. How much should politics be a part of the ministry of the church or the believer's life. I don't have answers. I just ask the question for the smart people to answer.

Offline
Since
Wed, 4/27/11
Posts: 42
Should We???

Should we join the Black Robe regiment as our forefathers did?

http://blackroberegiment.ning.com/ BRR

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Difference between righteousness and tactics

Goodellsboy,

The question isn't how much you should get involved, but the how is really important. A few things to consider:

The church acting as an institution is different from the church militant (as in, all Christians now alive) getting involved as individuals. The church as an institution is to teach the word and apply it to daily life including government. But I think it's unwise for a preacher to say "thus says the Lord" very often about political policies unless its simply crystal clear. Not everything that's a sin should be a crime, and that's where a lot of Christians disagree. One could say that cheating at soccer is a sin, but not want the government to make it illegal. Two Christians could have the same position on a whether a sin is a sin, but differ on how the government should involve itself. For any moral issue I can think of, Christians can disagree on policy methods while still retaining a correct stance on the sin.

For example, I was an intern on Capitol Hill during the 2004 Marriage Amendment debate. Some preachers had a very "thus says the Lord" way of looking at whether the Amendment was a good idea. It made me uncomfortable to be honest, because they were giving the impression that God supported a particular method to achieve a righteousness goal.

So when you ask if "we" should picket and march and make calls: who is the "we?" Ask yourself if this policy is a way to reach a righteous outcome, and is therefore a method, or if it's righteousness itself that you're advocating. This would help you know if your church as an institution should be involved or not. For example, a church could speak out against the evil of abortion, but I don't think it would be wise for a pastor to advocate publicly that his congregation picket outside abortion clinics. That's a tactic that should be left up to the individual believer's conscience and wisdom.

I'm currently reading a new book http://www.amazon.com/Body-Broken-Republicans-Democrats-Same/dp/1936768305 ]"Body Broken: Can Republicans and Democrats Sit in the Same Pew" by Charles Drew , and it's been helpful. I'm supposed to write a review for my church and I may submit it to SI as well.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
Intellectual involvement

Goodellsboy wrote:
SHould we hold campaign speeches in our church? Should we picket and march and write letters and make calls? Should we support from the church treasury the candidates that need financial support? These are the questions that haunt us at every election time. How much should politics be a part of the ministry of the church or the believer's life. I don't have answers. I just ask the question for the smart people to answer.

I think there can be no hard and fast rule for how involved Christians should be (I'm not all all for campaign speeches in churches, though). So much of that has to do with vocation.
But in general I'd like to see more Christians be more intellectually involved at least: learn the history of the ideas behind the issues, understand the philosophies that drive the policies involved, vote accordingly. To me, that's a minimal responsibility for the citizen-government of a nation like ours.
...also take the time to understand the basic schools of thought on economics.
The "polarization" that is so lamented these days (tiresomely so) has real ideas at its heart and though many politicians are just finger-to-the-wind types, much of the polarization we're seeing is due to substantially different philosophies following their trajectories. And the more these ideas run their courses, the more they diverge.

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 797
Aaron BlumerI think there can

Aaron Blumer wrote:
I think there can be no hard and fast rule for how involved Christians should be.

I understand what you mean by hard and fast, but if Christians get focused on national politics at the expense of the pilgrim mindset

the author of Hebrews wrote:
. . . having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

it's too involved.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
Any vocation

I don't really disagree with that principle. It applies to every vocation, though. What about vocations that include jobs like farmer, police officer, lawyer, doctor, cook.... you name it. These are all aimed at this present world. But it's possible to engage in these labors with "the homeland" (in particular, the glory of the One who dwells there - Rev. 21.23) as the ultimate purpose.
I can't see any reason to put political activities/careers in a different category.

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 797
Sure. It's also possible,

Sure. It's also possible, and frequently modeled and commended, to ignore what the ultimate purpose ought to be in the pure interest of "saving our way of life", etc.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
Where?

I hear/read that observation in one for another pretty often. But I never see or hear much to help me understand what they're referring to. What does this call to ignore the ultimate purpose look like?

I suspect that in many cases, it's a problem of neglect or perceived neglect. A problem of what is not being said. But if we apply that standard fairly.... how often do we hear that selling cars or designing curtains has an eternal purpose? For believers it does, but the eternal purpose is not divorced from the temporal one. They're intertwined.
How do I labor "as to the Lord and not to men" if my job is to run a dry cleaners service? A huge part of it is to provide excellent service for a fair price and do my business honestly--in short, I pursue the eternal glory of the Creator (and Savior) who has lead me to this work by, in large part, striving for the highest quality temporal result. I pursue the eternal by means of the temporal.

So when it comes to lines of work, seeing the eternal value of "saving our way of life" seems easy to me compared to "making better hard drive components" or "selling really good makeup" or "creating a more beautiful landscape." (OK, admittedly, that last one would be a stiff competitor, but if I were not a pastor, to me, work aimed at influencing public policy would be the next best thing....OK, except for maybe teaching, which is very like pastoring anyway in a lot of ways.)

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 797
general caricature, yet true (or, if you please, a fact)

I can't tell you the number of times I have heard a Christian activist imply to a congregation that the key to Jesus being able to keep his promise to his church (that the gates of hell will not prevail against it) was dependant on a letter writing campaign by all God-fearing people across the land to prevent House Bill something or other from passing.

Obviously I exaggerate somewhat. But in seriousness, I've heard a lot of pulpit time dedicated to this over the years. Thankfully not at my current church.

EDIT: I should make clear I am not talking about actual politicians, but lobbyists, watchdogs, and other activists. "Keeping our Christian nation" was a big part of the fundamentalism I grew up in.

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Balance Please

David,

I think you and Aaron should really drill down into what the differences are in "involved" in politics and how one puts too much hope in politics. I live in the Washington DC area. I see a lot of Christian activists acting as if the kingdom of God depended on the GOP. In one sense, you could say they're too involved in politics, yet I don't think their level of involvement is the problem. The problem is where they place their hope. In my experience of knowing lots of Christians at high levels of government (my roommate is the personal assistant of a US Congressman, several of my friends work in Sr. levels Congressional offices) the best Christians know the place of government as really important, yet less important than the Kingdom of God.

David, I'm with you when you decry people who are all uptight about keeping America a Christian nation. I used to live two floors below Wallbuilders founder David Barton. I went to his seminars and found he put too much hope in good government for eternal purposes.

All that said, plenty of Christians work in politics and see the dire circumstances our country is in. They are working feverishly to halt a liberal agenda that would push the country away from freedom. I think it's really important work. I don't think they generally mistake their work in their churches with this kind of secular work in terms of importance. There is a way to work feverishly for a more biblical government that doesn't make biblical government an idol that displaces God Himself. Sure there are excesses you could point to, and I don't like them, but there is a lot of balance as well.

Shayne

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
Framing

Thanks for the specifics, guys.
There are some problems with framing here... I think we're not ever going to see that completely go away because some of it is theologically driven by various forms of kingdom confusion (which tends to correlate with post millennialism and its cousins among other things).
At the same time, these guys are not completely wrong. America began as a culturally Christian nation and though it's hard to prove a strong correlation with "studies," societies that are "culturally Christian" have tended to have many more people in them who were genuinely Christian. So the relationship between personal faith in Christ (the only place real transformation happens) and the continuation of institutions strongly influenced by Christian thought is not to be dismissed--though it is complex.

I've made a case elsewhere that striving for a culturally-Christian society (by means of persuasion, not coercion) is a worthy goal for many reasons including love of neighbor (life is better where wisdom is honored in a people's customs), love of our own children (who will have to live in the world we leave them if Christ doesn't return first), and an environment of "pre evangelism." In this piece I touched on the idea that God cares how nations behave as well as caring about what individuals believe.

The "environment of pre-evangelism" is an area I'd like to do some more work on some time. I increasingly hear the notion that we should want a more decadent society so that people can more clearly see the vanity of moralism. I think this idea is very hard to support from Scripture because it rests on the premise that people see the truth of their sin more clearly by sinning more.
(I'm trying not to just laugh that idea off... because apparently many are dead serious about it... but it's a strain. The truth is that it strikes me as absurd.)

The real problem with many of the "fighting for a Christian America" folks isn't usually that they're wrong about the (culturally) "Christian America" idea; it's more a problem of not being well informed (rosy and naive versions of the faith of the founding fathers, for example) as well as problems of idealism and really, really ineffective persuasive strategies (e.g., mostly preaching to the choir, using really confusing language on separation of church and state, etc.).

Long post, but one more thought...
On the GOP... It's a mess but it's the best we've got right now. Since I'm not an idealist, I don't really expect to encounter a perfect party or perfect candidate, so the state of the GOP is not deeply disturbing to me. Ultimately it's about the right ideas winning the day and there are many voices making thoughtful cases for the right ideas. Sometimes they gain ground, sometimes lose it, but slow progress is sometimes evident and that's good enough for me.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Should Implies Moral Imperative - I could not disagree more

First, the idea that Christians SHOULD be involved in politics is silly. Such a viewpoint implies a biblical mandate that is wholly absent from the text. Can a Christian be involved in politics without sinning? Well, political involvement in and of itself is not a sin. Voting is fine. I vote in every election. Should Christians vote? If one means that it is wrong for a Christian NOT to vote, I would argue that such a view is guilty of Americanizing Christianity. I would go so far to say that laying such a mandate on people is playing God. If a person objects to voting, who am I or you or anyone else to correct them? From what Scripture would we speak? Dare we twist the text in order to propogate the Americanizing of Christianity? Someone says that a Christian should be a good citizen and a good citizen votes. Really? Who exactly gets to define what a good citizen is? Who says a good citizen votes? The world or Scripture? A good citizen, a really good Christian citizen contradicts the wordly culture with his/her life and message. A good citizen evanglizes the community. A Christian citizen realizes that all the outward conformity in the world is not really going to make a difference in the end. So what you have a high moral culture. If men are God-haters, they are still vile and wicked in God's eyes. A morally high culture is just as wicked as the most decadent culture if it is without Christ. And surely American culture is without Christ.

The Church can't even manage itself, let alone influence political direction in this country. If you think she can, forgive me, but you are living a delusion. The Church needs to go back to the simple preaching of a simple gospel and trust an absolutely free and sovereign God to transform lives the way Scripture says He does. She needs to get back to the basics of discipleship, indoctrination, and evangelism if she is to have any hope of inlfuencing the culture toward God.

We are not called to elevate the morals in our culture. We are called to proclaim the gospel and if this does not move morality, all the politics and movements on the planet surely won't. The problem with the American Church is that she has become so involved in moral issues and political issues that the world thinks she is merely one more politically oriented agent pushing her own ideologies onto the government and the rest of the culture that does not want them. In other words, she is not viewed as the Church any longer. She looks like all the other political entities vying for influence, power, and control. In that environment, the real danger is the loss of the gospel.

Politics are a far bigger distraction and a hinderance to the gospel than they are a help. They have served as a major distraction for the Church over the past 50 years or so and the results within the body are nothing short of dire. Let us return to a sharpened focus on our very narrow mission given to us by our Founder, Lord, and Master, Jesus Christ. Let us preach the gospel, baptize converts, and make disciples throughout the whole world. The business of kings, times, and epochs is really the business of God. Pray for them so that we can live a tranquil life. But let us not allow the delusion that somehow this is our mission and it is our duty and mission to influence legislation and goverment. The best way to influence is to preach!

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Joel Shaffer's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/16/09
Posts: 401
Ed, I generally agree with

Ed,

I generally agree with and many of your statements and your distrust of politics as savior. I think most of us here have witnessed the demise of Christianity when the politics and the church are mixed. Tony Campolo once said, "mixing Christianity and politics is like mixing ice cream with horse manure. You will not ruin the horse manure, but you will ruin the ice cream."

However, the problem that we face is that disciple-making does not happen in vacuum. In fact, the context for the Great Commission is "loving your neighbor as yourself." Without it you can't even make disciples. Each of us is surrounded by real situations including those that are political. For instance, in my city of Grand Rapids, the public schools have been rightly labeled "drop-out factories." It is in my interest to love my neighbor by voting for education board members who by their actions will influence policy on a systematic level that help stem the tide or even gain headway with this problem. Of course the break down of the family, crime and violence, teen pregnancies, and many other social pathologies have created these problems and because sin is the problem of course the gospel of Jesus is the solution. But in many of these problems mentioned, there are bad laws or lack of laws that have also contributed to the problem as well and in a small way we can love our neighbor as our self through certain means of political action. But I do believe we do have to be careful how we go about getting involved in politics because unfortunately many Christians over the years lacked discernment with their political activism and it destroyed their gospel witness for Christ.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Loving your neighbor

I have nothing negative to say about how you are addressing the problem in Grand Rapids. Personally, I would not say this is loving your neighbor. The problem with that approach is that other believers who do not follow your course cannot be accused of NOT loving their neighbor because they are NOT involve in the way you are. They may have done as Paul instructed Timothy and committed it to prayer. Personally, I think one of the biggest distractions to disciple-making is American or Western politics. When the scope of a thing becomes too broad, effectiveness suffers greatly. When we make a disciple, we are making a radical follower of Jesus who is not afraid nor concerned about what a God-hating culture thinks about him/her. Politics, by its very nature is acutely concerned about what others think.

I am more convinced than not that you cannot be reasonably successful in Western politics, on the larger platforms that is, without a substantial lack of integrity and genuiness in your background. And I am convinced that what Christ requires from a disciple, Western politics detests and demands it not be practiced. Hence, it follows that for a genuine Christian to actually make it to the high-profile, highly visible, more powerful offices in Washington, state capitals, and large cities is almost inconceivable.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
Not much support

edingess wrote:
First, the idea that Christians SHOULD be involved in politics is silly. Such a viewpoint implies a biblical mandate that is wholly absent from the text.

My question was actually not "should Christians be involved" but "should Christians avoid..." "Christian should avoid" is also "wholly absent from the text."

endingess wrote:
Can a Christian be involved in politics without sinning? Well, political involvement in and of itself is not a sin. Voting is fine. I vote in every election. Should Christians vote? If one means that it is wrong for a Christian NOT to vote, I would argue that such a view is guilty of Americanizing Christianity.

You used the word "argue" here but you haven't actually offered an argument (evidence/supporting reasoning)--just assertions.

Quote:
I would go so far to say that laying such a mandate on people is playing God. If a person objects to voting, who am I or you or anyone else to correct them?

Again, you've not supported your claim here that saying voting is required is "playing God." Why should we believe that?
As for the "who am I?" question, the OP offers several arguments--essentially four.
(a) God cares about what nations do
(b) In America the citizens are not distinct from the government.
(c) Prayer is not a substitute for action.
(d) Morality shapes everything (a results argument)
An "argument" would involve identifying which of these is/are incorrect, and why.

Quote:
Someone says that a Christian should be a good citizen and a good citizen votes. Really? Who exactly gets to define what a good citizen is? Who says a good citizen votes? The world or Scripture?

This is simpler than you're making it. Romans 13 says obey the powers that be. In the US, the law is king, so the law is what defines what a good citizen is. Our law--beginning with the piece of legislation that defined us as a nation (Declaration) and then the foundation of our Constitution--designs the government to operate with the active participation of the citizenry.
I would not say that missing a vote is necessarily a sin. There could be higher priorities that stand in the way on any given occasion... much like showing up for work late is not a sin if you stopped to drag an accident victim from a burning vehicle. But in general, voting is a minimal duty in a nation designed to depend on its citizens' participation in governance.

Quote:
A good citizen, a really good Christian citizen contradicts the wordly culture with his/her life and message. A good citizen evanglizes the community. A Christian citizen realizes that all the outward conformity in the world is not really going to make a difference in the end. So what you have a high moral culture. If men are God-haters, they are still vile and wicked in God's eyes. A morally high culture is just as wicked as the most decadent culture if it is without Christ. And surely American culture is without Christ.

There's a mix of assertions here, some of which are not in dispute and are not related to others that are in dispute. The Bible does not speak of 'worldly culture,' but it does speak of the kosmos--which is both outside us and within us (lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life). It is not synonymous with "society."
Nobody here is questioning that a good Christian evangelizes. Nobody is denying that outward conformity is not the same as true transformation--and that, as long as it remains merely outward is not going to save anybody in the end.
It doesn't follow that we should let things get as bad as possible between now and the end!

Quote:
The Church can't even manage itself, let alone influence political direction in this country. If you think she can, forgive me, but you are living a delusion.

Again, assertions without support. But listen to yourself here. If the church can't influence the "political direction" because it's so incompetent why should we believe it can handle "the simple preaching of a simple gospel"? But in any case, I'm not arguing that involvement in government is the role of "the church." It is the role of citizens.

Quote:
We are not called to elevate the morals in our culture. We are called to proclaim the gospel and if this does not move morality

This is a pretty tired false dichotomy I've answered more than once in the past. Two things in response: (a) No reason we can't elevate morals and proclaim the gospel (b) Matthew 5:13, 5:16.

Joel Shaffer's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/16/09
Posts: 401
Quote:I am more convinced

Quote:
I am more convinced than not that you cannot be reasonably successful in Western politics, on the larger platforms that is, without a substantial lack of integrity and genuiness in your background. And I am convinced that what Christ requires from a disciple, Western politics detests and demands it not be practiced. Hence, it follows that for a genuine Christian to actually make it to the high-profile, highly visible, more powerful offices in Washington, state capitals, and large cities is almost inconceivable.

Ed,

Again I am very sympathetic to your view. At the same time, do you think you go too far? I find it interesting that we have the New Testament example of Erastus of Corinth. Paul gives greetings to him in Romans 16:23. "Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings." Many New Testament Scholars believe this Erastus to be the Erastus inscription from Corinth in the middle of the 1st century. ""Erastus in return for his aedileship laid [the pavement ] at his own expense." In fact, he payed a large sum of money to be a politician in Corinth. If you think America's politics was tainted and corrupted, to be a politician in Corinth as Erastus was would have been extremely difficult because of all the depravity, corruption, and idol worship in that city. Yet Paul goes out of his way to mention the political status of Erastus in his greeting. Was Erastus' job somehow a distraction to him being a disciple of Christ or disciple-making? Paul doesn't seem to be as hostile towards Erastus' chosen vocation as you seem to be. Now of course, we have to be careful not to read into the text something that isn't there and argue from silence. Was Erastus trying to develop a 1st century "take back the Roman Empire for Christ" such as the "Take Back America for Christ" slogans that I see and hear from 21st Christian political activists? Not at all. However, maybe he realized as the Reformers such as Luther and Calvin that a call to serve others (including public service and politics) is a matter of great and personal importance because you are loving your neighbor.

Again, Loving the neighbor is not evangelism or the gospel, nor does it have the power of transforming the hearts of people that the gospel has. However Loving your neighbor as yourself is the context for evangelism and for the preaching of the gospel to flourish.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Should Christians avoid?

The argument is the same. Since there is no biblical mandate supporting "should" in the affirmative sense, I do not see one for "should" in the negative sense. What Christians "should" avoid are distractions from evangelism and disciple-making. In addition, Christians "should" avoid inserting commandments for or against things that Scripture is silent on. Christians "should" avoid thinking like an American christian and rather think like a Christian.

If you wish to state that Christians SHOULD vote, then the burden for making that case is on you. And I will carefully examine whatever texts you bring to the discussion to demonstrate that any view that posits this idea is legalistic at worse and anachronistic at best. The reason I do not say "should" or "should not" is because I have no mandate from Scripture. This exposes me to the risk of imposing my views on others and smacks of eisegesis.

Of course God cares about what nations do because nations are people. Yet, the government is distinct from the people. I will not be judged because my governement was wicked. Or I should say IS wicked. It is God who places Kings on thrones, not the church. Nor is it the business of the church to determine who the next leader will be. Once again, you come at this subject as an American first.

God defines what a good citizen is! The law says that one can be a God-hater and a good citizen. I disagree. The law allows for gay marriage. This will destroy the culture. Good citizens do not destory cultures. Laws are to be obeyed and respected so long as they do not contradict God. I know you know this.

I would say that if you did say that missing a vote is a sin, that you are sinning by even thinking along those lines. That is you placing Americanism onto the text, onto Christianity, and imposing your personal views on others. With all due respect, that is a dangerous game. How far do you want to push it?

I have not argued any dichotomy. There is no either/or in my statements. The church is NOT called to elevate the morals of a culture. That is to say, nowhere does Scripture teach that one of the duties the church has is to shape the unbeliever's practices. The church is NOT called to political or legislative reform. She is called to proclaim Christ, baptize converts, and make disciples. If these actions are not enough to influence a culture, then perhaps we need to ask more questions about what God is doing. Paul said things would grow worse and worse in the last days. His asnwer was not to engage in politcal activism. It was to preach the word, and to pray. That is what the text teaches on these matters. A Christians should obey the laws of the land where they do not contradict God, recognize that God rules the kings of the nations, evangelize his community, participate in the body of Christ, baptize converts, and make disciples. We cannot get this right and we want to engage in political activism.

The church is going bonkers over gay marriage. She says that it threatens the institution of marriage. And it does. But not one thread more than no-fault divorce laws. Not one. Yet, the church is far more worked up over the former than the latter. Why? Her theology and thinking are not only folly, they are hypocritical. 98% of Churches don't even have the guts to engage in church discipline. We have pastors parading around, spending 60 hours a week trying to stop gay marriage and they haven't engaged in discipline in 20 years. Moreover, they don't even have real discipleship going on in their churches. My question is, "Does the church have time to be engaged in politics given her current condition and the number of extremely significant problems she faces today?"

So lets pretend NC passes the marriage amendment. What has the church accomplished? Has she elevated marriage? If the church wants to get serious about marriage or any other cultural ailment, she must begin with herself. She can start by excommuncating spouses who engage in illicit divorce, despising God and his covenant of marriage instead of doing nothing or allowing members to resign and more to another church.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Joel Shaffer wrote:Quote:I

Joel Shaffer wrote:
Quote:
I am more convinced than not that you cannot be reasonably successful in Western politics, on the larger platforms that is, without a substantial lack of integrity and genuiness in your background. And I am convinced that what Christ requires from a disciple, Western politics detests and demands it not be practiced. Hence, it follows that for a genuine Christian to actually make it to the high-profile, highly visible, more powerful offices in Washington, state capitals, and large cities is almost inconceivable.

Ed,

Again I am very sympathetic to your view. At the same time, do you think you go too far? I find it interesting that we have the New Testament example of Erastus of Corinth. Paul gives greetings to him in Romans 16:23. "Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings." Many New Testament Scholars believe this Erastus to be the Erastus inscription from Corinth in the middle of the 1st century. ""Erastus in return for his aedileship laid [the pavement ] at his own expense." In fact, he payed a large sum of money to be a politician in Corinth. If you think America's politics was tainted and corrupted, to be a politician in Corinth as Erastus was would have been extremely difficult because of all the depravity, corruption, and idol worship in that city. Yet Paul goes out of his way to mention the political status of Erastus in his greeting. Was Erastus' job somehow a distraction to him being a disciple of Christ or disciple-making? Paul doesn't seem to be as hostile towards Erastus' chosen vocation as you seem to be. Now of course, we have to be careful not to read into the text something that isn't there and argue from silence. Was Erastus trying to develop a 1st century "take back the Roman Empire for Christ" such as the "Take Back America for Christ" slogans that I see and hear from 21st Christian political activists? Not at all. However, maybe he realized as the Reformers such as Luther and Calvin that a call to serve others (including public service and politics) is a matter of great and personal importance because you are loving your neighbor.

Again, Loving the neighbor is not evangelism or the gospel, nor does it have the power of transforming the hearts of people that the gospel has. However Loving your neighbor as yourself is the context for evangelism and for the preaching of the gospel to flourish.

There is considerable disagreement over who Erastus was and if there were only one, two, or even three men by that name. The title given to him, "director of public works" intreoduces unnecessary confusion about his role. He could have held a high office in the city, or he could have been a city slave. We cannot be sure what his role was, how or when he got it, and if there was 1, 2, or 3 men with the same name. The temptation is to begin with American, Western, and modern thinking and read back into the text more than is there. WE know that the Greek term "HO OIKONOMOS" is used and this is a steward. Either way, this does not show that Paul would have been okay with modern American politics and the behavior that seems necessary in order to climb that ladder. I am not arguing that it is impossible for Christians to climb the ladder or even that they should not. That is not my position. I simply wonder if they can. I am not making an ipso facto judgment. My entire concern is that the church has lost view of her true mission and she needs to narrow her focus and stop being the American church and start being the Chruch of Christ (in America). I admit that such a goal is not easy. But I do think it is essential to the spiritual health and welfare of the body.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Ed, I think you're missing

Ed,

I think you're missing the difference between what "the church" should do, and what Christians should do as individuals. You keep talking about churches and pastors doing things that distract from the church's real mission. I agree. But that doesn't mean Christians should avoid politics, or get involved in them. I think we could make a case that Christians should be good businessmen. We can do this from implications of various texts on buying and selling, Proverbs, ect. Does that distract from the mission of the church? It could for individual businessmen who have out of balance priorities in their lives, but it doesn't change the fact that they should be good businessmen to the glory of God.

You said:

Quote:
I have not argued any dichotomy. There is no either/or in my statements. The church is NOT called to elevate the morals of a culture. That is to say, nowhere does Scripture teach that one of the duties the church has is to shape the unbeliever's practices. The church is NOT called to political or legislative reform. She is called to proclaim Christ, baptize converts, and make disciples. If these actions are not enough to influence a culture, then perhaps we need to ask more questions about what God is doing. Paul said things would grow worse and worse in the last days. His asnwer was not to engage in politcal activism. It was to preach the word, and to pray. That is what the text teaches on these matters. A Christians should obey the laws of the land where they do not contradict God, recognize that God rules the kings of the nations, evangelize his community, participate in the body of Christ, baptize converts, and make disciples. We cannot get this right and we want to engage in political activism.

I agree that "the church" as the church institutionally isn't called this way, but learn from the patterns and examples set forth in Scripture that we are to care about the health and well-being of communities and cities in which we live. Joseph was called to high power, and sought the prosperity of Egypt. Daniel did the same. Jeremiah said this to the Jewish exiles.

Quote:
[4 ] “Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: [5 ] Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. [6 ] Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. [7 ] But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. [8 ] For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream, [9 ] for it is a lie that they are prophesying to you in my name; I did not send them, declares the LORD.

(Jeremiah 29:4-9 ESV)

An inevitable part of seeking the peace and prosperity of the city is politics. With Aaron, I think you're giving assertions without support. Clearly you're passionate about the church's health and you feel it's being distracted from it's true mission. I just think you have too grim a view of the value of political involvement.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
I confess my view of politics and politicians is grim

I think your phrase "Christians as individuals" is revealing. While we are individuals, we are not individuals in a vacuum. In Mediterranean cultures, the hyper individualism that exists in America is non-existent compartively speaking. This does not mean of course that individual conscience is lost. What it means is that individuals are indelibly attached to "something" as individuals and even that attachment is not viewed separately from the individual. We must change how we see ourselves in the Christian group. This is part of the problem as I see it.

It is irrelevant to point to Joseph as an examplar for political involvement. God's purpose and plan for Israel was entirely specific to that group. The proper way to answer this question is to review the Greek text of the NT that actually deals with this specific issue. We travel back to that culture, removed from our own, and examine what Paul and other NT writers, to include our Lord had to say regarding government relations and politics. We have Acts as narrative, as well as the gospels to provide some examples. That is safest way to treat this subject.

I have said several times now that I am not making any prohibitions against Christians being politically engaged. Scripture would not support that approach. I am arguing two very basic things here: 1. People who argue that Christians "should" be politically engaged are wrong. There is no commmandment to that end in Scripture. In addition, I do not see any principles from which one might deduce such a point from Scripture. 2. The method by which the church impacts the culture, politically and otherwise, is through the preaching of the gospel, baptizing converts, and making disciples. In short, the best way to for any church to influence its immediate culture and the culture at large is by staying true to its very narrow missions. To sum it up: only a spiritually healthy church can truly impact the culture. That being said, the only real impact a church has on a culture is eternal impact and that only comes through preaching.

How long would a presidential candidate last who opened stated that he subscribed to any one of the great confessions of faith? How far would a compaign go that openly confessed that it took Scripture literally, believing it to be the word of God. How long would a politician be viable after saying that all those who reject the Christian worldview are under the judgment of God and eternally damned? Not a nano second, that is how long.

I am not opposed to Christians engaging in politics. I am not even opposed to Christians running for office. They would get my vote. I am opposed to imposing an "ought" in the matter. I am opposed to the delusion that outward influence somehow accomplishes something. Barak Obama and Mitt Romney: a liberal God-hating socialist(?) versus a neo-conservative God-hating Mormon. Which one "ought" we to vote for? You see, when you say Christians "ought" to be involved in the political games, you must also create ethics around "how" they "ought" to be engaged. Should they be for or against abortion? Should they be for or against gay marriage? Should they for or against Israel? Should they be for or against big government? The slippery slope is far more complex and time-consuming than one might initially imagine. Do we have time for this? Given all the other pressing issues we face and our supposedly eternal focus, do we really have time to devote tons of hours to something as temporal as vain as Western politics? Want to do social good? Feed the poor. Get involved in the local mission. Go hand out tracks on the street and talk to people about Jesus Christ. You see a couple in the church getting too close outside of marriage, have coffee with the one of your sex and talk about accountability. See someone divorcing, don't look the other way and despise Christ's words. Get directly involved and do all you can to recover the wayward.

I hope this clears the matter up. I really hope I don't have to say again that I am opposed to Christians being engaged in politics. I am not. At a minimum, what I would like to do is to get people to pause, and go back to Scripture and really think about this and ask all those critical questions again. That would be a win. Frank Turek recently said, here in Charlotte at FBC that unless Christians get politically involved we are no longer going to be able to preach the gospel! Wow! How little is that god? Perhaps persecution is better for the church than the broad freedoms we have become accustomed to? Perhaps!

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
What good do we accomplish unless God' love exists?

I suggest that all those who think they can really do something in the culture through political engagement read 1 Cor. 13 again. Paul says that all the social good in the world is absolutely NOTHING outside the context of the genuine love of God! One could give everything they have to the poor and it is NOTHING! What matters is God. Good is only good when it is done for the right reason. Even sexual restraint is wicked unless you do it out of devotion and love for Christ! We feed our love for self-righteous with such thinking if we are not careful.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
Morality matters even among the godless

edingess wrote:
I suggest that all those who think they can really do something in the culture through political engagement read 1 Cor. 13 again. Paul says that all the social good in the world is absolutely NOTHING outside the context of the genuine love of God! One could give everything they have to the poor and it is NOTHING! What matters is God. Good is only good when it is done for the right reason. Even sexual restraint is wicked unless you do it out of devotion and love for Christ! We feed our love for self-righteous with such thinking if we are not careful.

Nobody is advocating that we try to do good in society "outside the context of genuine love of God." Some of us are certainly arguing that whether people love God or not, they ought to behave justly and decently.

I think it's already clear that you're not going to pay attention to strong arguments on this subject. But for the benefit of those who are thinking it over...
A question:
An atheist is walking down the street and encounters an elderly woman with cash visibly bursting from her purse. Is it better to rob her or not to rob her?
If he doesn't love God, does that mean he might as well rob her? (If he doesn't love God, does that mean neither God nor we should care if he robs her?)

Another one:
A pagan--let's say a Wiccan--happens by a burning building and hears an infant crying inside. A woman staggers out the front door crying "Please! Save my baby!" and passes out. Is it better for the pagan to rescue the child or to let it die? If he has no love for God, is his choice irrelevant?

What if we replace the atheist and the pagan with millions of people and make it a nation? If it is not a nation that loves God, should it go ahead and kill babies in the womb, oppress the poor (perhaps by paying them to stay poor), discourage productive labor (through confiscatory taxation). Should it invade neighboring countries just because it can? Should it execute everyone who speaks ill of its leaders?
(Should we not care what this nation does?)

In short, does 1 Cor. 13 really teach that if you don't love God you might as well be as evil as you can possibly be?
(I think the answer is obvious to most)

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Wow - That was harsh

I am moderately offended by this remark:

Quote:
I think it's already clear that you're not going to pay attention to strong arguments on this subject.

Moral influence is a by-product of gospel proclamation. This is as it should be, otherwise, we run the risk of displacing biblical preaching with the objective of moral influence and in so doing, we think we have really done something. The risk is that focusing on moral inlfuence may accompish something or may not, but the real danger is loss of focus on the real problem of morality to begin with: sin! And only the gospel can solve that problem. Dealing with moral influence as the problem is itself a problem. Moral decadence is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is sin. The problem is independence. The problem is autonomy. When we become preachers concerned with moral influence through politcal platforms, we chance losing the gospel. And indeed, who can say with a straight face that this has not happened in modern America? Surely the evidence strongly favors this. We know more about contributors to homosexual behavior than we do about the letters of Paul. I am speaking about the church.

The church should concern herself with preaching the gospel. If she does that at every opportunity, with the passion it deserves, moral influence, should God be so gracious, will naturally follow suit. This way we do not run the risk of downgrading the gospel, or worse, ignoring it.

From my assessment, I don't see any "really strong" arguments for why a Christian "should" engage in politics. And so far, I haven't received any very good rebuttals that would cause me to think I am off the mark on this one. My point in 1 Cor. 13 is very simple: you can spend your time trying to force unbelievers to live the life of believers and even if you are successful, what have you accomplished? The Jewish culture in Palestine was as moral as they come, relatively speaking. They had all kinds of rules. But Jesus called them vipers. And these really good moral men murdered God.

I would love to have a morally high culture. I just think two things are required to get there: 1. Biblical preaching and 2. Divine intervention. I deny that political activism is going to accomplish much of anything in and of itself. From my observations, the Church has been obsessed with politics for decades now with little progress influencing the government and with devestating consequences within her own community because of the lack of focus that has resulted.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Jim's picture
Online
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6794
My simple case for political involvement

Jeremiah 29:7 (ESV):

Quote:
But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare

Other versions:

  • NIV: "Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper"
  • NKJV: "for in its peace you will have peace"

This is by application and not intepretation (I'm not a Jewish exile in Babylon!)

  • I'm here! I was born here (A US citizen by birth). God placed me here.
  • I have a dual citizenship (Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ")
  • Paul was not reticent to leverage his own Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28, "Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.”)
  • God calls it "good and acceptable" to lead a "quiet and peaceable life" (Broader context here: 1 Timothy 2:1-3)
  • Prospering is a good thing: 3 John 2, "Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers. " (Note three levels of properity: "all things" ..."health" ... spiritually "as your soul prospers.")

Conclusion: I have a vested interest to be involved in society. In the political realm there are at least three layers of political entities that impact me and I can influence: My city: (City of Plymouth MN); My state: (Minnesota) and of course the Federal level. I have a symbiotic relationship with these. They depend upon my tax dollars. I depend upon them for my own peace and prosperity.

How I find myself involved (and it is probably not as deep as it should be):

  • Prayer: (I don't always pray for our President but I did so today). I doubt that there is much to dispute about re praying for authorities
  • Respect and obedience. I pay the taxes ... I try obey the laws (although I made a mistake last year re failure to pay license tabs on my 2nd vehical. http://coldfusion-guy.blogspot.com/search/label/Arrested ] I was arrested for this and face a soon court appearance)
  • Voicing my conservative opinion
  • Occasionally communicating with elected leaders (recently I had coffee with my state senator)
  • Supporting electoral involvement financially (as I am currently doing for the election of Romney)
edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Only one question

Quote:
How I find myself involved (and it is probably not as deep as it should be):

I am unclear what this means. The is the whole sticking point. "Should" we be involved is an imperative. Such an imperative must be the product of exegesis. Moreover, if we are going to place political invovlement into an ethcial framework, we must also spell out the specifics of that imperative. In other words, those who assert that Christians "should" be involved in politics have the burden of providing guidelines for "how" we "should" be involved in politics. Before you know it, we have spent hours, days, weeks fleshing out something that isn't even the role of the church.

I am not suggesting that it is wrong to operate under the laws we have to further the gospel so long as those laws are not contradictory to Christ. I think we should. However, that is a far cry from the radical engagement proposed by most evangelicals today and it is a far cry from placing a mandate on others that Scripture itself does not place.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 4357
Doing good

I think of political action, such as attending school board and city council meetings, and voting for candidates that I believe will "establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, etc" as part of the doing good for my neighbor equation, as per verses like Proverbs 3:27-28. Let's face it, it isn't as if it's difficult to educate oneself about the issues at hand in our communities, show people we care about their lives, and vote our conscience. Ain't no skin off my nose, and it helps the folks.

I agree that radical or intensive engagement, unless one intends politics to be their vocation, is more than the average Joe or Suzy Homemaker can do and still keep their spiritual, domestic, and employment ducks in a row. But IMO everyone should try to do the basics, especially if you have plans to complain about it over the watercooler. ;)

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Frustrated Discourse

Like Aaron, I don't think you're open to reason here. An example would be dismissive attitude towards the OT passage I brought up, where God tells Jews to seek the prosperity of the city. Instead of dealing with the thrust of the argument, you say we just have to look at Acts. Well sir, that's not a fully biblically based argument. If you cut out parts of scripture from the discussion, it ceases to be scripturally based. You make the argument, err assertion:

Quote:
You see, when you say Christians "ought" to be involved in the political games, you must also create ethics around "how" they "ought" to be engaged. Should they be for or against abortion? Should they be for or against gay marriage? Should they for or against Israel? Should they be for or against big government? The slippery slope is far more complex and time-consuming than one might initially imagine. Do we have time for this? Given all the other pressing issues we face and our supposedly eternal focus, do we really have time to devote tons of hours to something as temporal as vain as Western politics? Want to do social good? Feed the poor. Get involved in the local mission. Go hand out tracks on the street and talk to people about Jesus Christ.

Apparently God thinks that seeking physical and cultural good is actually a worthy investment of time. We glorify God in all our work. (And by the way, how much time have you taken writing these posts, when you could have been witnessing!) To be sure, we'll all answer for how we use our time, but I don't think God is sitting there with his stop watch worried that an extra few minutes a day of listening to the news on the radio, and contemplating how they should vote would distract us. I live near Washington DC. I'm a political science major from Bob Jones University. I know something about politics and use that in witnessing. I have a great many friends who are politically active and we talk politics. It's actually super easy to the gospel from a political discussion. I'm frustrated by your insistance that thinking about politics is a waste of time, and will detract from evangelism when it doesn't have to. I've proved it in my own experience.

Quote:
[5 ] Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. [6 ] Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. [7 ] But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.(Jeremiah 29:5-7 ESV)

"Seek the welfare." That's pretty broad, and it sounds very "ought"-like. It could include art, business, commerce and yes, politics. If unjust laws are perverting justice, then seeking the welfare of the city might involve getting elected and changing those laws. It might also include working with the poor and witnessing. But the point is that God cares about the health and prosperity of even a pagan city. If God cares, then we "ought" to.

edingess wrote

Quote:
Moral influence is a by-product of gospel proclamation. This is as it should be, otherwise, we run the risk of displacing biblical preaching with the objective of moral influence and in so doing, we think we have really done something. The risk is that focusing on moral inlfuence may accomplish something or may not, but the real danger is loss of focus on the real problem of morality to begin with: sin! And only the gospel can solve that problem. Dealing with moral influence as the problem is itself a problem. Moral decadence is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is sin. The problem is independence. The problem is autonomy. When we become preachers concerned with moral influence through politcal platforms, we chance losing the gospel. And indeed, who can say with a straight face that this has not happened in modern America? Surely the evidence strongly favors this. We know more about contributors to homosexual behavior than we do about the letters of Paul. I am speaking about the church.

I don't think it's necessarily wrong to treat symptoms without getting to the root issue. Government treats symptomatic evil by being a terror to bad works. If you have a problem with government not dealing with the root issue, then your problem is a self-made one. Government wasn't designed to treat the roots, yet it's still necessary and God ordained. Paul in Romans 13 is warning Christians from despising their government, even one that tried to kill them, because even in its imperfection it still restrained evil. Government is a good force and as such shouldn't Christians get involved with good forces?

Quote:
[13:1 ] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2 ] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3 ] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4 ] for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. [5 ] Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [6 ] For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. [7 ] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
(Romans 13:1-7 ESV)

Jim's picture
Online
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6794
Answering your "only one question"

edingess wrote:
.... something that isn't even the role of the church.

I follow (generally) the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle_of_worship ]Regulative principle of worship . What God has ordained the church to do it should. And what God has not ordained the church to do, it shouldn't.

The church (as an assembled group of believers) is not ordained to be political. It is to be gospel-driven. One such positive example of this would be 1 Thessalonians 1:8, "For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place. Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything"

The citizen interacts with government directly (the "symbiotic relationship" I spoke of in my previous post) (my chart below). On the top illustrates the horizontal flows (or mutual dependencies) that the citizen / individual has with the government and the church.

The lower vertical chart, I disavow. The citizen does not interact with the government through the church!

Jim's picture
Online
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6794
And so the church is not involved with government

And so the church is not involved with government. Chart below. With a couple of caveats (next post)

Jim's picture
Online
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6794
Caveats ... the church as a citizen

Caveats ... the church as a citizen

  • The church has a teaching role to instruct its citizens / members about how to be submissive to government (one of many examples would of course be Romans 13)
  • The church has a role to instruct its citizens / members to lead quiet, godly lives. The best citizen is one who pays taxes and does not aggravate society. The outworking of this could be as simple as being a good neighbor or to not steal (Ephesians 4:28, " Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need"). (In a very simple way ... this defines good citizenship: he works ... he provides for himself (not a "suck" on society) ... he follows the law .... AND he contributes!). A relevant http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74987.html contemporary quote would be: "
    New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Tuesday that the U.S. is turning into a “paternalistic entitlement society” that will bankrupt the country financially and morally because “we’ll have a bunch of people sittin’ on a couch waiting for their next government check.”

And so the church influences society through her own citizens.

Now there is a sense that the church is a citizen (I sense that this was to a much lessor degree in the 1st century that it is today):

  • The church-corporate owns property and
  • Consumes resources
  • It literally has a large "footprint" in the world

AND So

  • The church-corporate has to obey the laws (it could be something as simple as a camp rule in Wisconsin. You cannot put a milk pitcher on the table at camp!)
  • The church-corporate is a beneficiary of multiple government benefits. To list a few:
    • The housing allowance for Pastors
    • Does not pay property tax. A small Montessori school near my home pays (last time I looked) over $22,000 a year in property taxes. I think they have about an acre and half of that is swamp. My church has over 20 acres and pays no property taxes
    • Tax deducatability of donations. That's a huge benefit to me ... and to the church!

Relevant Church-corporate obedience examples:

Greg Long's picture
Online
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1012
I wrestle with this issue

I wrestle with this issue quite a bit and go back and forth. I agree with the points Aaron made. And yet I see where Ed is coming from as well. When a Christian has no problem talking politics with unsaved people but is hesitant to share the Gospel, something is wrong. When a Christian will put a sign in his yard supporting a politician but hasn't shared Christ with his neighbor, something is wrong. Somehow many Christians do seem to be more interested in changing our nation through the political process than through the power of the Gospel. Of course it doesn't have to be either/or, though.

Phil Johnson wrote a series of articles on this on the Pyromaniacs blog a while back that come out pretty strongly against churches getting involved in politics or even emphasizing that their members make it a priority.

Part 1: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/06/foolishness-of-preaching.html The Foolishness of Preaching
Part 2: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/06/if-righteousness-could-be-gained.html If Righteousness Could Be Gained by the Law...
Part 3: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/06/lets-stay-on-message.html Let's Stay on Message
Also: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/06/addendum-on-church-and-politics.html An Addendum on the Church and Politics
And: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/familiar-can-of-worms.html A Familiar Can of Worms: Why Not Both/And?

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
RESPONSE TO JEREMIAH 29:7 Why

RESPONSE TO JEREMIAH 29:7 Why does seeking the peace of the city have to involve political engagement? Christians are to be at peace with all men where it depends on them and is possible. By fostering an atmosphere of peace yourself, you will benefit from it. However, foster an environment of hostility and trouble is sure to find you. I find your reading of Jer. 29:7 anachronistic, not to mention far, far out of context. This letter was written specifically to the exiles for a very specific purpose. Is it a promise? Obviously not! Millions of peace-seeking obedient Christians have been brutally murdered for the faith.

RESPONSE TO

Quote:
I'm frustrated by your insistance that thinking about politics is a waste of time, and will detract from evangelism when it doesn't have to. I've proved it in my own experience.
Where did I say that thinking about politics is a waste of time? I don't order my life by the experience of others, nor should the church, and believe it or not, nor should you. I have NOT said that Christians should not engage in politics. I have said it is unbiblical for us to say they should. When you tell me that I SHOULD engage in politics, I am going to demand that you show me where Scripture commands me to do so. If you can provide simple exegtical proof that I am commanded, as a Christian, to engage in politics then I will.

Back to your "seeking the welfare" point: please understand that I can seek the welfare of Charlotte NC by obeying its laws and by giving it the gospel. In so doing, I benefit from the peace that I create. However, this is by no means a universal promise. I would recommend you not use specific letters from the OT that are very specifically addressed to a very specific group of exiles in Babylon. It is not that these are useless. May it never be! They are very useful, but only insofar as we take them in context. Just like Jer. 29:11 is not a specific promise for you, neither is this verse specific direction for modern American Christians to engage in political activism. You can't even argue that that was the meaning then, let alone now.

The anabaptists are an excellent example of what Paul was doing in Romans 13. Christians get the idea that since we are not of this world, we don't have to obey civil law. We do! With all due respect, if I had your argument I would be frustrated too. No offense, but so far, the arguments for an "ought" around Christians being politically engaged are without merit at this point. If a Christian wishes to be engaged, I have nothig to say. If they wish NOT to be engaged, I have nothing to say. I contend that anyone saying Christians "ought" to be engaged are wrong. I also contend that anyone saying that Christians "ought not" to be engaged are equally wrong. There is no "ought" in the text either way! Well, sort of. The biblical relationship that IS revealed to the believer is that we must obey civil law, respect government leaders as God's ministers, and pray for them in the hopes that we may live a tranquil life. This is the advice of Scripture and as far as I know, it is the only advice I can find. Therefore, it is the only advice I feel safe and comfortable giving.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Jim's picture
Online
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6794
"Seek the welfare" and involvement

Back to my "symbiotic relationship". Simply

  • I need the government
  • The government needs me

On the government needs me (besides the taxes and good citizenship already mentioned):

  • The government needs workers for national defense ("rulers are a terror to evil [works ]" (Romans 13). Probably WWII is the closest example I know of of good vs evil (the Nazis / or the Empire of Japan (consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre ] the rape of Nanking ). You had some pure evil there! Or al-Qaeda and Islamofascism!
  • Consider the contributions of many fine Christian goverment workers in places of authority (too many to name but I name 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft ]John Ashcroft and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Grassley ]Chuck Grassley ). I appreciate that these men served the government as Christians!
Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Let me explain why you're so

Let me explain why you're so confusing.

Quote:
If a Christian wishes to be engaged, I have nothig to say. If they wish NOT to be engaged, I have nothing to say. I contend that anyone saying Christians "ought" to be engaged are wrong. I also contend that anyone saying that Christians "ought not" to be engaged are equally wrong.

MP1: You claimed that church involvement in politics distracts from evangelism and wastes time.
(My implied premise from scripture) MP2: Clearly we shouldn't waste time according to scripture.
MP3: We should obey scripture
Therefore: Church involvement in politics wastes time, and we shouldn't be involved.

Even though you SAY you're not saying this, you're not using good logic to make yourself clear. I don't think "ought" is as strong a word as you claim, and maybe that's the problem. Really this is an issue of conscience that is up to the individual believers that you clearly want to leave up to the individual. But even in issues of conscience, we can debate the wisdom, goodness, and "oughtness" of the issue of conscience.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
How to say this

1. It is egregious to command people to do things Scripture does not command them to do.
2. Scripture does not command people to engage in politics.
Therefore, it is egregious to say that Christians "ought" to be engaged in politics.

Ought means to obligate. When one says that Christians ought to engage in the political process they are saying that Christians have an obligation to be involved. Obligation from whom? If such an obligation exists, then how exactly should we engage in that process? If we are all Christians, following the very same commands, does this mean we all vote indentically? Do I sin if I support ObamaCare? Perhaps I sin if I don't support it? Neutrality is a fleeting myth. Once we obligate Christians to vote, as leaders we become responsible for teaching them all the ethics on voting. In reality, we have in fact used up a great deal of time doing this very thing in the church all the while forgetting basic doctrine to the point that most Christians can't even articulate the gospel. In addition, much of the culture hates Christianity, not because of Christ, or even the gospel, but because the church has created the perception that she is really a cleverly disguised political agent seeking to control their lives through political power. Is that really the perception we want? Now, I know the world hates the true gospel. I only want to make sure that the world hate us for the right reason. The same reason Jesus said it would.

Do I think the church is too involved in politics in this culture? I do. It seems to me that the church thinks she is the one who is to change governments and the world through political involvement. She thinks she will bring about God's kingdom by her political influence. Or so it seems. She spends lots of time jumping from one political issue to another. Pastors don't have time for discipleship programs and community evangelism, but they sure can get involved in the spotlight that politics afford. I wonder why that is. Is it that we want to take some credit for making a difference? Is it possible that we want our name attached to political victory because in some vain way it feeds our ego? I don't know. I cannot answer that question, but those who are steeped in political engagements need to answer it. If my comments have provoked additional thoughts on this subject then I consider that a win. Critical thinking is always a good thing. I would never divide over such an issue. I also hope no one has thought me to be insulting or demeaining in any way. If so, I apologize immensely. That is not my goal. My goal is push the nose back to the text for deeper reflection. I am not so dogmatic about this view that I am beyond changing my mind. As you can tell, changing it would take some doing. Smile

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Dever listed five truths that

Dever listed five truths that are frequently distorted and attacked: God's judgment is coming, we should be judged by God, our only hope is in Christ, we don't see the fullness of our salvation in this life, and we can deceive ourselves and others about our relationship with God.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/false-conversions-are-the-suicide-of-t... False Converts

Very alarming, very disturbing, and very true.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
You mean my former pastor

You mean my former pastor Mark Dever that urged support for the Federal Marriage Amendment to his congregation? ;-) Sorry, I think you must have meant to post that somewhere else.

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
edingess wrote: 1. It is

edingess wrote:
1. It is egregious to command people to do things Scripture does not command them to do.
2. Scripture does not command people to engage in politics.
Therefore, it is egregious to say that Christians "ought" to be engaged in politics.

Ought means to obligate. When one says that Christians ought to engage in the political process they are saying that Christians have an obligation to be involved. Obligation from whom? If such an obligation exists, then how exactly should we engage in that process? If we are all Christians, following the very same commands, does this mean we all vote indentically? Do I sin if I support ObamaCare? Perhaps I sin if I don't support it? Neutrality is a fleeting myth. Once we obligate Christians to vote, as leaders we become responsible for teaching them all the ethics on voting. In reality, we have in fact used up a great deal of time doing this very thing in the church all the while forgetting basic doctrine to the point that most Christians can't even articulate the gospel. In addition, much of the culture hates Christianity, not because of Christ, or even the gospel, but because the church has created the perception that she is really a cleverly disguised political agent seeking to control their lives through political power. Is that really the perception we want? Now, I know the world hates the true gospel. I only want to make sure that the world hate us for the right reason. The same reason Jesus said it would.

A couple of things, since you mentioned Mark Dever. As a former member of his church, he might be a great example to look at. Do you think he or his parishioners have lost his focus on the gospel? No. His church as members have been intensely politically involved. When I attended you could find a sitting Republican congressmen on the same pew as a Democrat committee staffer. I won't forget Mark Dever baptizing a staffer for Sen. Hilary Clinton! You see his church members as Christians were very politically active. But the church itself is about as a political as you could get. That's what I was saying earlier about Christians acting rightly in politics as individuals, but differently as a gathered church. The members of Capitol Hill Baptist have no problem articulating the gospel, and also are well versed on the ethics of voting. You seem to think it's either/or. It doesn't have to be that we have to choose. You're setting up false conflicts where there are none.

You might enjoy this sermon that deals with politics. http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/audio/2010/09/jesus-paid-taxes-mark-12...

edingess wrote:

Do I think the church is too involved in politics in this culture? I do. It seems to me that the church thinks she is the one who is to change governments and the world through political involvement. She thinks she will bring about God's kingdom by her political influence. Or so it seems. She spends lots of time jumping from one political issue to another. Pastors don't have time for discipleship programs and community evangelism, but they sure can get involved in the spotlight that politics afford. I wonder why that is. Is it that we want to take some credit for making a difference? Is it possible that we want our name attached to political victory because in some vain way it feeds our ego? I don't know. I cannot answer that question, but those who are steeped in political engagements need to answer it. If my comments have provoked additional thoughts on this subject then I consider that a win. Critical thinking is always a good thing. I would never divide over such an issue. I also hope no one has thought me to be insulting or demeaining in any way. If so, I apologize immensely. That is not my goal. My goal is push the nose back to the text for deeper reflection. I am not so dogmatic about this view that I am beyond changing my mind. As you can tell, changing it would take some doing. Smile

I agree the church as an institution is prone to be too beholden to power politics. Again, allowing the Christians as individuals to work out on their own how they'll be involved allows for both intense political involvement, while not compromising the true role of the church.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Meant to post it here

First, I will say it one more time. I am not prescribing a prohibition against political involvement. If Dever says Christians "ought" to be politically involved, I simply disagree. Second, perhaps location, location, location has something to do with the background of Dever's church. Finally, I posted the article because I thought it was so good others might find it stimulating and I was too lazy to find a more appropriate place for it. Smile

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1585
A Christian ought to be a

A Christian ought to be a good citizen. That is clear in the Bible. How that is determined with each conscience with the Word of God is a matter of liberty. From there Mark Dever can make the case for his conscience and those of others who share his view using Scripture why he believes he ought and make clear that while he must fall short of "thus sayeth the Lord" he does not have to relax his own view which he believes is based on the maximum amount of Scrptural analysis and application and invite others who may disagree to debate. And Dever may rightly believe the others err in falling short of the maximum consideration of Scripture but as Ed points out and is a basic truth specific acts of being a good citizen, if not specifically prescribed in the Bible, may not have added to them the signature of a Divine command.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
Application and "should"

edingess wrote:
1. It is egregious to command people to do things Scripture does not command them to do.
2. Scripture does not command people to engage in politics.
Therefore, it is egregious to say that Christians "ought" to be engaged in politics.

This argument doesn't hold up.

First, where do the Scriptures command us to stop at stop signs, eschew internet porn, refrain from throwing trash on the ground, or smile at strangers? Yet nobody would think it strange if I attempted to make a case that believers "should" do these things. Application is all about taking what Scripture says and arriving at "shoulds" that it does not say.

Second, "should" is not a command. "Command" is a term of authority. What I aim to do in my writing is persuade people of ideas--people over whom I have no authority to command.

Third, you've mostly ignored my biblical arguments, though in this particular article, I'm not really aiming to make a thorough biblical case. I've focused more on that elsewhere.
But the case rests on a combination of biblical principles, observations of the sort of nation we live in and reasoning from the two. In short, it's application.

edingess wrote:
I would love to have a morally high culture. I just think two things are required to get there: 1. Biblical preaching and 2. Divine intervention. I deny that political activism is going to accomplish much of anything in and of itself.

Some points of agreement here! I also believe it will require biblical preaching and divine intervention and do not believe political faithfulness ("activism" is not what I'm talking about) by itself is enough.
But a couple of factors that are important to seeing the situation clearly:
(1) Our culture is already "morally high" compared to much of the world and compared to how low it could yet sink. So we're not just talking about aiming to improve the society we live in; we're talking about keeping it from getting worse or at least slowing the decline.
(2) Continued decline is certainly inevitable without lots of genuine conversions, new births. However, even lots of the latter will have minimal results if converted, well-discipled people leave the running of things to those who are unregenerate and/or poorly taught. But it's also true that a society of virtuous people needs far less governing in the first place.
(3) Even if continued decline is certain, it doesn't follow that we should refrain from slowing that process if we can.
(4) And this is the biggest: part of teaching a society to behave decently (as in, teaching it to believe in moral principles) is requiring it--to some extent--to behave decently. I don't have time at the moment to develop this one alot, but it isn't really all that complex. Sin breeds sin. Depraved behavior increases moral confusion and, as a result, produces more and more depraved behavior. On the other hand, common grace is such that using legitimate authority to prevent bad behavior helps people avoid the negative results--the snowball effect of the alternative.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
I feel your passion

To answer your question, Scripture quite clearly commands us to obey the laws of the land. The law states that one must come to a full stop at all stop signs. That is easy enough. It is clearly against the law to litter. Internet Porn is looking upon a woman with lust, and hence, is adultery. Since you want specific interaction with your post, here you go:

You stated that in a nation such as ours (whatever that means), CHRISTIANS CAN AND MUST BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS. So, lets be crystal clear on this. Your statement is unambigious and there can be little doubt that grammatically speaking, you are in fact placing an obligation on the believer. There is no other way to take this sentence. And I could not disagree more. Have you made your case biblically as you continue to claim you have by stating that I have not sufficiently interacted with your argument?

You begin you argument by stating that God cares about what nations do. This statement is so obvious that no one could ever argue with it. God also cares about what demons do. So what. This is a non-sequitur. How does one link the fact that God cares about what nations do with the moral imperative that Christians in America can and MUST be involved in politics? God commands all nations to repent of their sin and to follow Him. Politics are absolutely unnecessary for God to care about what nations do. The proclamation of the gospel is a much more viable answer to how God addresses the sin of the nations than political involvement. Why default to politics when the church is called to address the sin of the nations and cultures through preaching?

You seem to have a misplaced understanding about who "we" are. You entire premise depends on the undying loyalty of Americanism. We are Americans! I have a different view that has not been easy to adopt because I am one of those good old country boys who bleeds the red, white, and blue. I am a staunch conservative, and more recently a very troubled and disturbed republican. But we are Christians! Our loyalties our elsewhere. America is a godless nation. In fact, you would have to search long and hard to find a more hypocritical nation than ours in terms of Christianity. My concern with you starting point is that you begin with America, not Christ. Your idea of a good citizen is the old American idea of a good American. They are involved, they vote, etc, etc. Yes, God cares about what nations do. The church should care about what its culture does and stand firm on the proclamation of the gospel as a means to counter the rebellion. Your first point adds no weight to your proposition that Christians MUST be involved in politics.

Yes, the USA is a representative democracy. The people get to have some say in who represents them. Again, yes, God has somethingt to say to these men about obeying His law. How does the church communicate God's message to these civil authorities? By manipulation, threat, and a variety of other political tactics? I think not. She communicates by preaching the gospel, and by showing the civil authorities how to deal with affairs from her own example. She repects the authorities, obeys them, lives peacefully with them and instructs her group to submit. She prays for them. She preaches the gospel to them from love but with passion, conviction, and fear.

We are not all the government. That is a major leap on your part. We have a voice. We have a say. You throw the word responsibility around as if Christians, by nature of being Americans are being irresponsible, and therefore sinning if they are not engaged in political process. This, I contend, is the result of Americanism being placed upon Christianity. I call it the Americanization of Christianity. We are not of this world. Our citizenship is in heaven. You state that Christians are ethically and morally responsible for governmental decision by nature of the type of government we have. Hence, it seems to me that you have gone beyond what Scripture teaches and are preaching an American, democratic, Christian message rather than a simple Christian message. Suppose a Christian living in American finds the "type" of government objectionable from an ethical perspective. Suppose a person concludes that the American system is designed to support the ideas of radical autonomy, greed, and hedonism at its foundation. Are they free to reject any participation in politics outside the biblical instructions of obedience, submission and prayer? The American way of thinking is part of the problem with Christianity in America. The church has adopted a hyper-inidivual philosophy. This is contrary to Scripture. The most important idol is our independence and freedom. This thinking carries over into the church and we have millions of imposters parading around as Christians. They do their own thing. If they don't like what is taught, they hop to the next church. This is America, we are free to do so! They run their churches by proxy. Whatever the biblically inept tithers want, they get. We are NOT the government even if we do have some say in its leadership. To say we have liberty to voice does not mean that Christians must use their liberty to engage in politics. That isn't liberty after all. It is bondage. I find your view would quite easily lend itself to a legalistic approach to voting.

I find it interesting that you explanation of 1 Tim. 2:1-2 warns about extending the passage while it seems painfully clear that you do that very thing with Romans 13. You are right that the passage does not contain any prohibitions to political engagement. However, it seems that Paul had several opportunities to make clear what you seem to have no problem making clear and rather than CLEARLY command the church to get off their duff and do something other than pray, he did not. Everytime a NT author mentions civil authorities they have two primary concerns: 1. Submit and obey; 2. Pray for them. They leave it there every time. That is where I choose to leave it as well. I feel pretty safe doing so.

You say that

Quote:
praying when we ought to be taking action is foolish and irresponsible.

Again, you seem to think there is only one sort of action the church should take: political activism. Praying IS TAKING ACTION, Aaron. Obeying and submitting IS TAKING ACTION. Preaching, evangelizing, making disciples, caring for widows and orphans IS TAKING ACTION. Just because it isn't the kind of action you want does not mean it is NOT taking action.

You say that you

Quote:
cannot fulfill your responsibilities as a Father as effecively in Sodom as you can in better surroundings
.

Am I left to conclude that persecuted Christians or Christians living in more decadent cultures are less than I? If they cannot be as biblical a father as I can, then I have no choice but to conclude this. That is way out of bounds and completely unsupportable. And clearly, you offer little to prop it up other than a fireman's analogy.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
I feel your passion, continued

You say that

Quote:
we are foolish if we think that bad policy and moral confusion can spread indefinitely without eventually hindering our own ability to live and serve God.

Yes, persecution is on the rise. The more the church distinguishes herself from this godless and hypocrical culture, the more presecution will increase. Did not Paul instruct us that all those who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus WILL suffer persecution. We want to use political agency to avoid what God has promised us: trials and presecutions. I am not sure what you mean by hinder or by the words "live" and "serve." If you mean it will make serving God more difficult in the sense that we will suffer for that service, then I agree and I think leaders should be preparing the church for this state. I think it is only a matter of time because we see it in full bloom. And I don't think any amount of political involvement will stop it.

1 Tim 3 reads:

1 But realize this, that ain the last days difficult times will come.
2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.
6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,
7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith.
9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.
10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,
11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!
12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Notice that Paul never provides Timothy with advice around political strategy or advice. Given all the problems, one would think he would have. He did not. In fact, a cursory review of church history would actually lend itself to the conclusion that political involvement contributed to mass apostasy in the church. I am not making a necessary connection here, just making an observation and I do think such a conclusion is quite defensible.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Quote: You begin you argument

Quote:
You begin you argument by stating that God cares about what nations do. This statement is so obvious that no one could ever argue with it. God also cares about what demons do. So what. This is a non-sequitur. How does one link the fact that God cares about what nations do with the moral imperative that Christians in America can and MUST be involved in politics? God commands all nations to repent of their sin and to follow Him. Politics are absolutely unnecessary for God to care about what nations do. The proclamation of the gospel is a much more viable answer to how God addresses the sin of the nations than political involvement. Why default to politics when the church is called to address the sin of the nations and cultures through preaching?

In America, citizens influence policy by voting and advocacy. In a sense, we are the government. If God holds nations and governments accountable, then he would also hold those who influence government (or choose not to). There are sins of omission and sins of commission. This is the crux of the difference between you and the most of the rest of us in this thread. You think we aren't responsible in any way for what the government does. You're wrong. In 2002, only about half of Christians in the US bothered to vote. If they had voted, there would be about 20 million extra votes in congressional races, local elections ect. Let's say 70% of these Christians would have voted for pro-life candidates. That's a net of 14 million extra pro-life votes. Who knows the kind of impact that could have had in government policies such as abortion funding, appointing judges. We could have more children alive right now, if more Christians simply decided to get off their rear ends, take a little time to get to know candidates, and cast a vote for life. Why would you decry abortion from the pulpit, and not urge people to actually do something about it with a moral imperative. God holds us accountable for our actions, and the foreseeable effects of our actions.

Quote:
We are not all the government. That is a major leap on your part. We have a voice. We have a say. You throw the word responsibility around as if Christians, by nature of being Americans are being irresponsible, and therefore sinning if they are not engaged in political process. This, I contend, is the result of Americanism being placed upon Christianity. I call it the Americanization of Christianity. We are not of this world. Our citizenship is in heaven. You state that Christians are ethically and morally responsible for governmental decision by nature of the type of government we have.

I think the burden of proof is on you to show how Americans, specifically Christians, should not be held accountable for our actions in the political sphere. Our citizenship is in heaven. We are not of this world. Great verses quoted out of context. We are not of this world, but we are in the world.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3633
No, I don't think we should join the BRR.

JT Hoekstra wrote:
Should we join the Black Robe regiment as our forefathers did?

http://blackroberegiment.ning.com/ BRR


I would be very, very careful when considering joining such an organization, and don't think I would join the BRR.

We are to seek the good of the city, as others have cited, but I do not think that we should fight to preserve "our nation" simply because it's "our nation". Our true allegiance is to God, not to the US (as much as it pains me to say that!). We are commanded to uphold divine law when state law contradicts it (eg abortion).

Insomuch as we can and should work for the good of our society, we should do so. We are commanded to be obedient to divinely appointed rulers (Romans 13), to be salt and light to others (Matthew 5), and to love our (political!) enemies (Luke 6). We are told to be good citizens, but there are times when being a good citizen will conflict with US (or state) policy. In those cases, obedience to God trumps political allegiance to Democrat or Republican or Independent. It certainly trumps attempts to purge 'the ungodly' from government, and indeed provides them with a perfect excuse to crack down on Christianity and Christian beliefs.

We (generally) think that by voting Republican, we can 'save' America...we can't. Only God can save America, and I am convinced that any kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote ]Quixote-like quest to 'save America from the Liberals' (or whomever) or to 'preserve the second amendment' or to police 'the national boundaries' - as noble as those goals may be - is counterproductive at best and wasteful of the limited resources that God has entrusted us with at worst. If God gives you license in your conscience to work in some way as a politician or something - go for it! Support the politicians you think will be best! But fighting to save 'the nation'? No, leave me out of that. I've got God's work to do.

Peter wrote this, and I think that it's a passage that merits discussion:

Quote:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

Submission to Authority
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

"Our task today is to tell people — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Free eBooks

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Quote:I think the burden of

Quote:
I think the burden of proof is on you to show how Americans, specifically Christians, should not be held accountable for our actions in the political sphere. Our citizenship is in heaven. We are not of this world. Great verses quoted out of context. We are not of this world, but we are in the world.

Nowhere have I hinted that Christians should not be held accountable for their political behavior, whatever it might be. We should and we will. My point is that what holds us accountable is Scripture, rightly interpreted. That is the WHOLE point. Moreover, those who attempt to manipulate Christians to behave in a specific manner politically, will also be held accountable. Those who judge Christians as irresponsible and sinful for not voting will be held accountable. Those who say that Christians should NOT vote or be involved politically will be held accountable. I say neither if you have been paying attention. Basically I say it is up the believer to determine the nature and scope of the political behavior, not me. I say this because Scripture neither commands engagement nor passivity. And yes, I will be held accountable for my advice. What is my advice? At the risk of turning blue in the face, my advice is as follows:

1. Obey civil authorities as servants appointed by God.
2. Submit to civil authorities.
3. Keep the peace where possible.
4. Pray for civil leaders to the end that we may lead a tranquil life.

Since this all that Paul and Peter said about the issue, it is all I am going to say about it. If you wish to indict me for not going as far as you like, please include the apostles in that indictment for consistency sake. And I really like that kind of company.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
edingess wrote: Since this

edingess wrote:

Since this all that Paul and Peter said about the issue, it is all I am going to say about it. If you wish to indict me for not going as far as you like, please include the apostles in that indictment for consistency sake. And I really like that kind of company.

This is logically fallacious. What if the rest of the Bible says other things? You appealed to context earlier. Paul and Peter weren't talking to a culture in which the average person had any impact on the government at all. It's no wonder they didn't tell them to vote, since they couldn't. We can deduce from scripture that all kinds of things are wrong or right, without Peter or Paul saying them.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Let's be clear one more time

I am not the one telling people that they should be involved in politics nor am I the one saying that people should not be involved in politics. I am saying that the only guidance Scripture gives on the matter is what I have already stated. If you want to assert that Scripture says that believers must be involved or that they must not be involved, it is up to you to provide Scripture, rightly interpreted, to that end. My burden was to establish that "ought" ought not be part of the discussion. And I think Sripture's lack of "ought" supports my position that "ought" ought to be dropped from the discussion. Smile

If you think there is a positive case for "ought" and that a moral imperative exists in the text, I would love to see you make it.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1585
Ed, You are clear I suspect

Ed,

You are clear I suspect some people simply are not listening. You are not saying one cannot make the argument for their conscience or even why participating in politics is a biblically principled thing, rather that the force of the language may not be carried by an implied divine command which is the language that has been used.

Take some of this same group and talk about "Christian music" and watch them suddenly lose their interest in principles so great they license the force of "ought" or implied divine command.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Precisely Correct Alex

You are absolutely correct. I was beginning to wonder if I was as poor a communicator as the replies seemed to indicate.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Line of reasoning

Here's a simple line of reasoning

(non controversial) Governing authorities ought to lead countries well.
(apparently controversial to you) American citizens are part of the American governing authority structure in their positions as voters and members of society.
God would like American Christians to exercise good governing authority. (If a majority of citizens votes out a US Congressman, he has to leave. He is to obey his voters in a sense.)
By not voting (at least the basics) American Christians are failing to exercise good governing authority in ways they can impact their country for the better. (None of this is to the exclusion of other means.)

If you won't accept that Americans are part of our government, then you won't accept this line of reasoning. But get off your high horse about standing with Peter and Paul.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Untennable

Quote:
(apparently controversial to you) American citizens are part of the American governing authority structure in their positions as voters and members of society.

The fallacy in your argument is that it begs the question of how Christian Americans can best influence governing authorities. I am pretty sure Paul had this in mind as did Peter when they penned Scripture. According to them, the best way to influence governing authorities was to obey, submit, seek peace, and to pray. Of course this goes hand in hand with preaching the gospel, evangelizing those governing authorities, baptizing converts, and making disciples.

I would argue that Americans are not really "part" of the governing authority structure in America. I would argue that we have a voice in who is part of the governing authority in America. However, I firmly believe that true Christians have no real voice in what takes place. We are far too small to matter. There simply isn't enough of us. But if you throw in the hypocrites and imposters, I suppose you might have a little bit more of a voice, but still too small to effect much. The best approach is lifting our voice and preaching the gospel, obeying the laws of the land, setting moral examples in how we hold one another accountable and in how we love one another and praying for those who are in authority. Look at who we elected. And he seems poised to win again.

I wonder what would happen if churches spent the same amount of time on basic doctrine, evangelism, good works, and discipleship as they do on politics. We have politicians who are supposed to be Christians and who engage in wicked leadership every day. And those churches know it and do nothing. The Catholic church is a perfect example. Why does she not excommunicate politicians who she knows for a fact are for abortion?

Should I vote for Obama? Should I vote for Romney? Can a true Christian ever give their approval for leadership to man they know hates God? By voting, I am approving that man's principles, am I not? The church is worried about gay marriage and yet over 50% of marriages in the church end in divorce, just as high as the world and some say slightly higher. Let me give a real life example from a PCA church that I am intimately familiar with.

A woman and man got married. They courted for about a year, neither of them spring chickens, middle-aged. For some reason, the woman got cold feet, AFTER the marriage. She thought maybe she sinned because her previous divorce may not have been proper. Her pervious husband was an unbeliever who refused to reconcile after a separation. Anyhow, the next thing I know is this woman and man are living separately. She thought she made a mistake marrying him and that God understands that people make mistakes and He is very merciful. The elders did very little. No charges, no nothing. People knda just wondered what was being done about it because no one knew. Then the man left the church. And then, without warning, the woman left also. Come to find out the man filed charges against the woman for illicit divorce and the elders refused to discipline her. They told the man she could repent without having to reconcile. The man filed a greviance with the Presbytery only to be told that his former spouse resigned the church and it was a moot point. No one did anything. If this kind of nonsense goes on in conservative churches like the PCA, can you imagine what happens in less conservative groups? The church needs to get busy doing the things Christ has called her to do. When the church recovers the gospel, starts discipling people again, and begins to exhibit the true marks of a church, maybe we can talk about politics. Until then, I intend to spend my time talking about the things that I think really matter: the gospel, conversion, evangelism, good works, discipleship, discipline, doctrine, holy living. In case you haven't noticed, we are missing most of these elements in most of our churches while everyone is busy playing with Washington Politicians.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Smoke screen

Quote:
According to them, the best way to influence governing authorities was to obey, submit, seek peace, and to pray. Of course this goes hand in hand with preaching the gospel, evangelizing those governing authorities, baptizing converts, and making disciples.

Where is it that Peter or Paul said they were trying to influence their government by making these commands. No, it was for a "quiet and peaceable life." Merely obeying is not complete influence in our context. It's the first step towards influence, but it's just that.

Quote:
I would argue that Americans are not really "part" of the governing authority structure in America. I would argue that we have a voice in who is part of the governing authority in America. However, I firmly believe that true Christians have no real voice in what takes place.

This is an assertion, not an argument. You're saying you would argue it, so argue it. You don't appear to in the rest of your post. We have a voice, but it's not a real one? Huh? In voting, you never really know if your vote will make a difference until after they're counted.

It seems that by your many words, you're avoiding supporting your assertions with arguments, and when I google you on the rest of the interent, this seems to repeatedly be the case, and the frustration of many.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
The Sin of Judging & Political Engagement

Let's suppose that those who assert that (1) Christians "ought" to be politically involved, that (2) Christians "must" be politically involved and that (3) Christians who are not politically involved are irresponsible, bad citizens, and sinning against God and country, are actually right for arguments sake. That is where we land after all. Either it is a sin not to be politically involved or it is not. Either Christians are going to stand before Christ and given an account for voting or they are not. There is no middle ground. After all, if Christ will not have anything to say to non-voters for not voting, then this whole discussion is useless. So, that being said, there are a few more issues that emerge; hundreds is more like it.

1. Can I vote for a president who is for abortion because I like his tax policy? Would that be a sin?
2. Can I vote for a president who is for higher taxes because I like his abortion policy?
3. Can I vote for a president who is eliminating certain benefits from seniors and unwed mothers and their children because I like his abortion and tax policies?
4. I have some extra time on Thursdays and Saturdays and the local democrats or republicans need help signing people up to vote, am I sinning by not doing my part?
5. I have never made a political contribution, is that a sin?
6. Can I refuse to vote for a conservative president because I don't like his illegal immigration policies.
7. Which party is "more" Christian, democrats or republicans?
8. How do I vote for a president who is liberal on abortion but conservative on the other issues?
9. Is it a sin to vote for a politician who is for gay marriage?
10. Is it a sin to vote for a conservative politician if he is an atheist?

If this argument is true:

It is a sin not to be a good citizen
All good citizen are politically involved
Therefore, it is a sin to be politically passive

Then so is this one:

It is a sin not to be a good citizen
Good citizens know the best path for the country's policies & laws
Good citizens engage in the polical behavior that will move the country down that specific path
Therefore, it is a sin for Christians not to be politically engaged in those specific activities that move the country down the path that is best for its well-being and future health

This would mean that it is a sin to vote for any politician who holds a view that may move the country down a path that is bad for the country.

Okay, now we have to figure out what is bad for the country.

So now we have this thorny little issue facing us. If it is true that being a "good citizen" means "x," and the Bible commands us to be good citizens, then it naturally follows that if we neglect "x" we actually sin against God. When we allow "others" to define what a good citizen is, as opposed to exegeting that information from Scripture, we are now in a position to create rules and standards that are firmly extra-biblical. Of course we have not even approach the question regarding who gets to define what a good citizen really is. That must be answered since the avoidance of sin depends on it.

This is why we should search the Scriptures to see if they give us any help understanding what a good citizen is, what God expects in terms of our relationship to governing authorities.

1. A Christian citizen is to be in subjection to civil authorities.
2. A Christian citizen is to recognize civil authories are ministers of God.
3. A Christian citizen recognizes that resisting civil authority is resisting God.
4. A Christian citizen pays their taxes.
5. A Christian citizen prays for the civil authorities.
6. A Christian citizen submits to civil authorities, kings, and governors for the Lord's sake.

Paul says we do this, recognizing the authority as a minister of God as well as for conscience sake. Peter clearly tells us we should be good citizens for the sake of the gospel. The Christian interest in society is the gospel. We seek to do all we can to be the most capable witnesses to that gospel that we can be. When civil authorities look at the Christian community, it should be as a very narrow religious entitity with a religious interest. They should not see us as one more group to pander to.

Christianity became the official state religion under Theodosius (378-395). I strongly recommend that anyone who is truly interested in the question concerning church-government relationship begin with Scripture that actually addresses that issue specifically and then jump over to this period in church history and take a look at what resulted once Christianity began to become politically aware and involved. I will submit to you that since the late fourth and early fifth century, it has been utterly devestating. There may be an occassional bright spot, but only occassional. On the grand timeline, it looks quite dismal.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Shaynus wrote:Quote:

Shaynus wrote:
Quote:
According to them, the best way to influence governing authorities was to obey, submit, seek peace, and to pray. Of course this goes hand in hand with preaching the gospel, evangelizing those governing authorities, baptizing converts, and making disciples.

Where is it that Peter or Paul said they were trying to influence their government by making these commands. No, it was for a "quiet and peaceable life." Merely obeying is not complete influence in our context. It's the first step towards influence, but it's just that.

Quote:
I would argue that Americans are not really "part" of the governing authority structure in America. I would argue that we have a voice in who is part of the governing authority in America. However, I firmly believe that true Christians have no real voice in what takes place.

This is an assertion, not an argument. You're saying you would argue it, so argue it. You don't appear to in the rest of your post. We have a voice, but it's not a real one? Huh? In voting, you never really know if your vote will make a difference until after they're counted.

It seems that by your many words, you're avoiding supporting your assertions with arguments, and when I google you on the rest of the interent, this seems to repeatedly be the case, and the frustration of many.

One, the whole idea of tanquility is related to the activity of civil authorities in this context. We pray, God moves in civil authorities (should He will), and this results in conditions leading to peace.

Two, your statement that Americans are part of the governing authority structure was no less an assertion than mine.

Three, if you believe there are enough genuine Christians in this country to vote our way out of the conditions we are in, then I have nothing else for you. I know of no one who actually believes that. You may have a little more strength when you throw in the hypocrits and the imposters (as long as your ok rubbing shoulders with them), but even still, the numbers don't and won't add up. This comes down to trust and faith in God, not trust and faith in the church's ability to transform culture through political involvement. Nonsense! The minute politics entered the church they began corrupting her and so far as I can tell, they have not ceased.

You refer to JP Holding on your google inquire. Mr. Holding is an interesting individual. I actually think he may have been kicked off SI because his tactics are quite outside the bounds of Christian charity. He has posted false information about me because I opposed Licona's recent treatment of the resurrection and insisted that he (Holding) not refer to people who disagree with him as stupid, morons, idiots, etc. If you wish to line up with JP, that is your decision. Obviously my views trouble you quite a bit. It is not my goal to frustrate you or to offend you. I only wish to talk about the truthfulness of the things that are being suggested here in the spirit of Christian charity. I think my position on the matter is pretty clear. It also seems clear to me that your objection is not quite hitting the target you intend. I have been there before. I remember my path out of a quasi-charismatic background as a young Christian and then my move from Arminianism to Calvinism. My objections we being answered with ease repeatedly and I was constantly facing objections I could not asnwer. Today, I am a five-pointer. When we are threatened by Scripture, that is when change is ripe and truth is discovered. Only let us walk in the truth once we see it.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
I have no idea what you're

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm actually not standing with anyone or against anyone. I'm just observing that I'm not the only one frustrated with your lack of argument. Maybe it's time to reflect on how you come across on the internet. That's all.

Quote:
Two, your statement that Americans are part of the governing authority structure was no less an assertion than mine.

True, but you're the one in the relative minority here on this subject. Your entire argument hinges on this one point, and you can't even set forth an argument about it. Still waiting. I want to see what you can positively put forth positively to prove your statement, because I don't think you've really thought it through.

Above, I talked numbers. I've attended meetings in the US Capitol of pollsters and researchers who look at how many Christians vote and how. We basically track the rest of the population in voter turnout, which is about 40-50% of eligible voters. Just given the sheer numbers, if Christians actually used their voice, there could be huge ground-shifts in who is elected. Assuming all Christians voted in the 2008 Presidential election, and 70% of them voted for the pro-life candidate John McCain, who would have appointed conservative justices to the US Supreme Court. There would be about an extra 16 million votes for a pro-life candidate. John McCain lost by about 10 million votes in the popular vote. The electoral vote is even more telling. Your own state of North Carolina barely went to Obama by a mere 14,177 votes, or .3%. I think you Christians in NC could have worked a little bit found a few more Christians to get out and vote. President Obama went on to appoint two justices to the US Supreme Court who will ensure more years of the evil of abortion. Christian voices and votes really really matter, but we just don't use them. God judges us not only for our actions, but for our inactions, and the foreseeable effects of our actions.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Wow

Thank you for giving me a glimpse into your world. Suffice it to say that you are no doubt speaking from extreme bias due to where you live every day.

Jesus was in the minority as well. That didn't seem to stop him from possessing the truth about, well, everything. This thinking is very consistent with how politically oriented people think. I have more than you, that must mean my view is valid, credible, or even truthful. This is not so in the Society of Christ.

The last time I checked, I never participated in legalizing abortion. But the civil authorities sure did. Federal judges are appointed for LIFE my friend. I have no say over their judicial activism whatever. And even if I vote for a conservative, I still have no say over who he will appoint to the courts. Recent history proves that. We have a voice and even that voice is extremely limited. Moreover, lets suppose I vote for a conservative who then changes his view on an issue or even changes parties. Then what? Vote him out? Okay, but in the meantime he works to legalize gay marriage and I am partly responsible because I helped put him in. Give me a break!

Why is it a sin to vote for one man who is for abortion and not a sin to vote for a Mormon? Why is it a sin to vote for one man who is for gay marriage and not a sin to vote for another man who will install programs that will remove benefits from poor widows, unwed mothers and their children when he gets the chance?

Taking Scripture alone, you know, sola scriptura, tell me why it is sinful for me to vote for Obama, but not sinful to vote for Romney? I know Christians who have always voted, but will likely sit this one out because they cannot, in good conscience vote for a Mormon. Am I to judge them? Am I to say to my brother that he is sinning? ME GENOITO! Who are you to set up this "ought" and place it upon the backs of Christians and then leave them dangling as to how they should carry out the "ought." IF you are going to declare that everyone not voting is sinning and being irresponsible, then I demand explicit representation from Scripture, rightly interpreted, and clearly presented. And on this matter, Scripture MUST be clear. Scripture is never obscure when it comes to sinful behavior! I think that is called the doctrine of perspecuity.

Are you telling me that Christians "ought" to have voted for John McClain rather than Obama? We just keep getting deeper and deeper into foolish legalism here. Of course I did not vote for Obama. When I was younger and less reflective about my views, I also judged people on these issues. I have since learned better and have repented. What I have learned is that if you disciple people properly, in the word, you won't have to tell them who to vote for. They will review their principles and vote from their worldview. What are we really after? What is our goal? If we could snape our fingers, as Christians and fix "it" tomorrow, what would "it" look like tomorrow? No abortion? But still divorce rates at rediculous levels? No gay marriage? But still homosexual behavior all over the place? Small government and low taxes? But still the church not engaging in the good works she is called to? Conservative politicians? Yet no or very little evangelism and true gospel preaching taking place in the community and the churches?

It is just as sinful and ungodly to be pro abortion as it is to be a Mormon my friend. Its like boycotts. You simply can't win for losing. How does one determine the right path? You whole argument hinges on the assumption that the old American way of living and thinking is the right way. Can you make a case for that from Scripture? Are we as Christians called to create governments and then ensure that they remain on track? Is that our calling? There are so many issues in this topic that we could spend a year examining it and be no closer to a solution.

I abhor your idea that God is going to judge Christians for not getting more Christians out to vote. You have no Scripture whatever to make such a legalistic claim and you seem to do so with great comfort or any hesitation. Personally, I think this is a big part of the problem in the church and certain large denominations are little help in that regard. Moreover, the idea that there are that many real Christians in NC is far, far off the mark. Most of these people could give a rip about the gospel, sanctification, heaven, hell, the bible, etc. They are nothing short of moralists running around with the Jesus label stamped on their head because it makes them feel good. And we don't hesitate to use them when we want to push through our own agenda, which may or may not even be biblical. The world sees the church as a political front. They think that most Christians just use religion as a power play to get their way in Washington. And the more political we become, the more we give credence to that view. It is almost to the point that when the culture hears the word Christian, politics comes to mind before Jesus does. I wonder why that is.

Finally, I have no idea who these men are. None! I don't know them. I do not know their character or anything else about them. All I know is what I hear. Yet, God is going to hold me responsible for voting for a man that I know absolutely nothing about, really and truly. So what I know his position here or there. When we place elders in position, we know them very well. One could make the argument that since you really don't know these men you should not endorse them at all because they will reflect on you as a believer. You will be blamed for thier misgivings and poor leadership! I don't make this argument, but it sure seems to me that it could be a valid one.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Greater Risk

When the church is seen to endorse a specific candidate, she must live with everything that candidate does after taking office. If that unbelieving candidate entangles himself in wickedness, guess who else is culpable by the worlds account? Thats right, the church. We put our own reputation on the line when we so visibly endorse certain candidates. And if the media is good a protraying those candidates in a certain light, they drag the church with them, good, bad, or indifferent.

There is more at stake here than most people realize. I care about the gospel. I love the church. If we are to be hated, and we are, then let us be hated for Jesus sake, not for the sake of some politician the world perceives represents the beliefs and views of the church.

I pray for God's grace and mercy.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Jesus and Paul Vote for Mormon

I suppose I am left to believe that not only would Jesus and Paul haved voted, they would have voted for a Universalist (W), a Catholic (McCain), and now a Mormon. I wonder about that. I am not saying Jesus would NOT have voted. But I am very clearly wondering IF He would have and who He would vote for this November. I just have a hard time seeing Jesus vote for a baby killer or a Mormon. Maybe its just me.

Would Jesus have sent out His twelve apostles with voter registration cards in hand to sign us up? Would they have insisted on a specific party? Good questions and worthy of an answer I think. Well, maybe not. Smile

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1786
I am going to spare myself

I am going to spare myself the agony of carefully reading and responding to everything and jump straight to an easy part.

edginess wrote:
By voting, I am approving that man's principles, am I not?
Not necessarily and not in it's entirety. If this were true, we could never vote for anyone. I don't even like my own principles sometimes. Like your later questions, this fails to recognize that, because of sin, we live in a complex world. And we have to live here. So let us live wisely, and at times, that means a vote for the person who will do the least harm in hopes of saving something for the future. As I have commented before, your approach seems like the guy who turns down $100 because he can't have $1000. There is someone who will gladly take that $100, and they will use it against you. And that is what left us with Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotamayor, two reliable pro-abortion votes for the next two to three decades. Would McCain have appointed anybody differently? Perhaps. One thing is for sure: They wouldn't have been worse. And wisdom means sometimes you take the path of least evil or best chance, even when that chance is slim.

Very few will turn down radiation and chemotherapy for cancer because there is only a 25% chance of it working. We recognize 25% is better than nothing, so we take that chance. Perhaps we should exercise the same kind of desperate wisdom in other areas as well.

How visible we should be in politics is one thing. I think the church should be completely invisible in politics. No church, and no pastor, should be known for their political opinions. Christians can do what they want, I suppose.

Should Christians avoid politics? (The article title.) No, not necessarily though in some contexts it is probably wise. I routinely avoid politics, though I was sorely tempted to jump in this week when I heard a guy making $3000 a month (according to him) claiming he pays more in taxes than millionaires. That is simply wrong on all counts. But I stayed out of it.

Asking whether Jesus or Paul would have voted isn't really the issue. It is an unanswerable question. What we can give some answers to is which is the best direction, given available options, for our country. It would be nice to have a perfect man to run for office. However, politicians and religious leaders killed the last one though he will certainly get his revenge soon enough. Until then we are instructed to live wisely in this present world, and that includes the way that we vote.

There is a kind of voting called "plunking." It is when you are facing a vote for some office (such as school board) which will take the top two vote getters. Plunking means you only vote for one, thereby helping your candidate by denying a vote for someone else. It is the same principle used when voting for someone that we might not fully support, but we vote for them to cancel out a vote for a worse candidate. And that is a wise way to vote at times.

Quote:
The church is worried about gay marriage and yet over 50% of marriages in the church end in divorce, just as high as the world and some say slightly higher.
Bad statistics don't make good points. Here, Google is your friend, and if you have internet access it is free. So use it and recognize that this is a bad statistic. So let's abandon it. Furthermore, let us also recognize that gay marriage is a legitimate issue even if divorce happens at any rate (be 1% or 100%).

Quote:
Let me give a real life example from a PCA church that I am intimately familiar with.
Let us also recognize that anecdotes don't make good policy informers. There is enough missing in your story that we are unable to make an informed judgment about it. Even you say, "The next thing I know ..." which should leave us all wondering what happened in the meantime and what you don't know. And since there is probably some stuff you don't know, that should serve, IMO, as a caution to using the story for any sort of point, aside from the difficulty of knowing things.

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Ed, Quote: Thank you for

Ed,

Quote:
Thank you for giving me a glimpse into your world. Suffice it to say that you are no doubt speaking from extreme bias due to where you live every day.

Why do you say I'm biased? Because I know about politics and voting? By the way, that's called "name calling." It's yet another logical fallacy you can't help but unconsciously give to try to support yourself. You know nothing about where I live every day. Do you know what I do for a living? Where I work?

Would you say it's a good thing to be knowledgable of candidates and vote?

Quote:
Are you telling me that Christians "ought" to have voted for John McClain rather than Obama? We just keep getting deeper and deeper into foolish legalism here.

Nope. But I would say God will judge us all for reasonable outcomes of our votes. He calls us to make judgement calls, and because we part of the government system in the US, he holds us accountable for our judgement calls just like he would a king over Israel, even if in a diffused, general way.

Quote:
Finally, I have no idea who these men are. None! I don't know them. I do not know their character or anything else about them. All I know is what I hear. Yet, God is going to hold me responsible for voting for a man that I know absolutely nothing about, really and truly.

Did Soloman have to really and truly know the two mothers fighting over the baby? No, he made a judgement call based on the evidence before him. If we are to be wise judges of our candidates, we have to educate ourselves about them. God will hold each of us accountable differently according to the information we have and other influences. I couldn't say it would be a sin to vote for Barack Obama, or a sin to not vote based on conviction. But God will judge us for that. But willfully turning a blind eye towards your responsibilities as a citizen (and advocating that others do so) is a sin of not exercising judgement.

'You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly." Lev 19:15

This brings the question "what is judging my neighbor fairly?" God calls us to judge each other in a sense. To size up a candidate and weigh positives and negatives is a good thing. It's imaging God. He does the same thing.

Quote:

When the church is seen to endorse a specific candidate, she must live with everything that candidate does after taking office. If that unbelieving candidate entangles himself in wickedness, guess who else is culpable by the worlds account? Thats right, the church. We put our own reputation on the line when we so visibly endorse certain candidates. And if the media is good a protraying those candidates in a certain light, they drag the church with them, good, bad, or indifferent.

Again, you make the mistake of mixing up categories of what the church is. No one here, including me, is saying the church (or individual churches) as an institution should endorse a candidate. Far from it. But I have faith in God that, given good teaching from the pulpit about things like life, marriage, fairness ect. that most Christians will make a good judgement on a candidate.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3633
@Ed

Ed wrote:
Finally, I have no idea who these men are. None! I don't know them. I do not know their character or anything else about them. All I know is what I hear. Yet, God is going to hold me responsible for voting for a man that I know absolutely nothing about, really and truly. So what I know his position here or there. When we place elders in position, we know them very well. One could make the argument that since you really don't know these men you should not endorse them at all because they will reflect on you as a believer. You will be blamed for thier misgivings and poor leadership! I don't make this argument, but it sure seems to me that it could be a valid one.

Ed, are you saying that because you don't know anything about Obama, Romney, Paul or others that you aren't going to vote? And then following it up with a statement that God will not hold you responsible since you didn't vote because you can't know what's going on in their heads? You don't know what they value even though they're giving speeches and outlining political positions every day until Nov. 2? Obama's been in office for four years - that doesn't give us enough knowledge to vote for or against him?

Yikes.

"Our task today is to tell people — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Free eBooks

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Selective Judging

I mean, if you can judge my biases without ever seen me say anything at all, and yet you can't figure out the President, well that seems like selective judging ability.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Selective Readiing

I never said I was not going to vote. I will vote. I always vote. I refuse to judge people on whether or not they engage in politics, voting or otherwise. I don't judge them for voting, not voting, or even who they vote for. I do not think it is safe.

Let me make this a little easier:

Read this book with an open mind and ask yourself some critical questions about Christianity and America:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0801013186/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=5785412697&h... ]Christless Christianity

What we see in American evangelicalism is really therapeutic utilitarian deism. The gospel of Christ has been displaced with the gospel of capitalism in the name of Christ.

Horton nails it when he says, "As this new gospel becomes more obviously American than Christian, we all have to take a step back and ask ourselves whether evangelicalism is increasingly a cultural and political movement with a sentimental attachment to the image of Jesus more than a witness to "Jesus Christ and him crucified."

I never said I could not vote for someone because I don't know them. I only said that fact is problematic when you think about it. I said that such an argument would not be easily answered. It could be far more correct than we think. It deserves attention. In my mind it is time for the true church to distance herself from her previous American identity. We need to see ourselves as Christians, disciples of Christ, not American Christians or even Christian Americans.

I oppose any view that says Christians must be involved or must not be involved in the political process on any level. Scripture does not support such view outside of what I have already mentioned. At the same time, I do think those who give more time to politics than they do Christ have misplaced priorities. It is a sin to be distracted by temporal causes when those causes lead to the neglect of more important eternal matters.

I am not juding your biases. Rather, I am noting that they come through in your posts, and it is no surprise to see that you are as heavily involved in politics as you are. I think it is fair to consider that your built in bias is more responsible for your position than biblical exegesis. I, on the other hand, use to think as you do. But a more critical exegesis of the text, coupled with a willingness to admit that perhaps I was too American has caused me to rethink my identity in Christ.

Another example of rank hypocrisy that is no doubt more common than not:
One church member boasts about getting several people to register to vote for the marriage amendment in NC. This same man knows of an illicit divorce that took place in his church against Scripture where disicipline should have taken place. Because he was able to get all these people to register to vote, he thinks he really did Christ a service. At the very same time, he displayed his dispising of Christ by refusing to heed Matt. 18:15-18 all in the name of individual privacy, a very American idea that is antithetical to Christianity on several levels. The sad thing is that this poor brother thinks God is particularly pleased with his actions. The truth is that God has something against him.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Quote: I am not juding your

Quote:
I am not juding your biases. Rather, I am noting that they come through in your posts, and it is no surprise to see that you are as heavily involved in politics as you are. I think it is fair to consider that your built in bias is more responsible for your position than biblical exegesis.

But you wrote.

Quote:
Thank you for giving me a glimpse into your world. Suffice it to say that you are no doubt speaking from extreme bias due to where you live every day.

What double-talk (which by the way, is a sin). That's just it, I'm not heavily involved in politics. I work in IT at a very non-political job and don't get heavily involved beyond voting and random political discussion. You seem to have "no doubt" about me, but unable to make basic character appreciations about Barak Obama or Mitt Romney.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Wow

You do realize there is a differnce between someone being able to recognize bias and the actual judging of that bias, right? I have judged your comments to be biased. I have not judged the bias of your comments outside of the "ought" that exists in your view around politics. I don't think it is ipso facto wrong to be involved or not to be involved. I do think it is wrong to judge people who do not take your particular view on the matter of poitical involvement. Is that too difficult to discern? I don't think I can say it much clearer than that.

Read "Christless Christianity" and think about the issue some more. That's all. No reason to beat each other over this.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
You'ved judged my comments to

You'ved judged my comments to be biased based on what information? Please speak plainly. Because I think if you did tell me, you'd reveal your own biases. I await your answer to my question. Thanks.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Bias

Quote:
Above, I talked numbers. I've attended meetings in the US Capitol of pollsters and researchers who look at how many Christians vote and how. We basically track the rest of the population in voter turnout, which is about 40-50% of eligible voters. Just given the sheer numbers, if Christians actually used their voice, there could be huge ground-shifts in who is elected. Assuming all Christians voted in the 2008 Presidential election, and 70% of them voted for the pro-life candidate John McCain, who would have appointed conservative justices to the US Supreme Court. There would be about an extra 16 million votes for a pro-life candidate. John McCain lost by about 10 million votes in the popular vote. The electoral vote is even more telling. Your own state of North Carolina barely went to Obama by a mere 14,177 votes, or .3%. I think you Christians in NC could have worked a little bit found a few more Christians to get out and vote. President Obama went on to appoint two justices to the US Supreme Court who will ensure more years of the evil of abortion. Christian voices and votes really really matter, but we just don't use them. God judges us not only for our actions, but for our inactions, and the foreseeable effects of our actions.

Um....this. The average person would not know this nor would they attend such meetings. Obviously your interests here are not typical.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
So bias equals above average

So bias equals above average knowledge or interests? You've redefined the term.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Rabbitt Holes

Quote:
So bias equals above average knowledge or interests? You've redefined the term

One of the phenomena I see happen in forums constantly is the proverbial rabbit hole. I am not a rabbit, so I will not nibble on this one. My case as it stands is clear and should you want to demonstrate, with Scripture that I am wrong, I am willing to continue the discussion. Here is the general conviction I bring once more:

It is not a sin for Christrians to be politically engaged -or- unengaged so long as they are obeying civil authorities where possible, viewing civil authorities properly, and praying for these civil authorities. Since these are the explicit instructions of Scripture, this is what I believe to be unambiguously true.

A principle of interpretation is perspecuity. On matters of profound importance, and sin would be one of these, the Scripture is clear. For anyone who wishes to place an "ought" on the backs of American Christians in the area of political involvement, the burden to show that Scripture clearly teaches this is on YOU! Once more, if Christ demands I answer for what I am saying, I shall point to Peter and Paul's words and pray for mercy.

This being said, do I think Christians in modern times are too political? Yes I do. I think we spend too much time on political issues and nowhere near enough time on spiritual issues. Most people who ramble on and on about politics in the church and how the church MUST be involved have never even seen on instance of Church discipline and some of them have been around 40+ years in the church. Is that a problem? It is a monumental problem. We spin our wheels about politics all the while, EC nonsense, comtempative prayer, meditation, experiencing God, purpose-driven garbage is hitting like tidal waves. We abandon the basics of Christian teachings, to include the gospel, and spend out time on politics, thinking we are saving our country. Donald Grey Barnhouse preached a sermon about what would happen if Satan were in charge today. He did this over half a century ago. "Barnhouse speculated that if Satan took over Philadelphia, all of the bars would be closed, pornography banished, and pristine streets would be filled with tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The children would say, "Yes, sir" and No, ma'am," and churches would be full every Sunday...where Christ is not preached."

The church is called to preach the gospel. In case you have forgotten, that is a very big job and we haven't a lot of time left. Let us be about the business of the kingdom of Christ and of God, not of America.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Good citizens

Christians are not commanded to be "good citizens" as defined by secular governments. Christians are commanded to be "good citizens" as defined by Christ! For most secular governments, one must cease being a genuine Christian in order to be a "good citizen." And that is true in America as well. Secular government says good citizens are tolerant of abortion and the gay lifestyle. Otherwise, you are a bigot and a threat to freedom. To make the case you wish to make, you must establish what a good citizen is outside of how American culture defines it. I would be interested to see how such a case in put together if indeed anyone has the time to construct one.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
One more thing

Since men are arguing that Christians MUST be involved in politics and that God expects it, then it is our duty and responsibility, then it must be a sin not to be involved. Since that is the case, I wonder how many cases of rebuke and discipline these same men have engaged in when they witness people refusing to do what they say Christians MUST do. If you see your brother sinning, you must go to him and show him his sin. If he does not listen, you now have to proceed along the course of Matt. 18:!5-18.

Some will say, well, it isn't that serious. Sin is always serious. If it is a sin not to engage politically, then confrontation is necessary. If it is not a sin, then what in the world are we doing wasting all this time on the matter. If it is not a sin, my point is made because that IS MY POINT.

I know, we want out cake and eat it too. I think not. You are either all in on this one or your not.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Shaynus wrote:So bias equals

Shaynus wrote:
So bias equals above average knowledge or interests? You've redefined the term.

The old quote the person and utterly ignore the question. . . I'll try again. This isn't about a rabbit hole, it's about your integrity and ability to argue correctly. To call someone "extremely" biased without being able to back it up is slander (which is also a sin). You're so concerned about the judgmentalism of other people, but can't see your own.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
INTERGRITY?

Shaynus wrote:
Shaynus wrote:
So bias equals above average knowledge or interests? You've redefined the term.

The old quote the person and utterly ignore the question. . . I'll try again. This isn't about a rabbit hole, it's about your integrity and ability to argue correctly. To call someone "extremely" biased without being able to back it up is slander (which is also a sin). You're so concerned about the judgmentalism of other people, but can't see your own.

I will not engage in a discussion with anyone who begins engage in this kind of language. I provided you my justification for concluding that your interest in politics are far more than the average person. I suggested that your own "higher-then-normal" interests may be fueling your position more than a simple exegesis of Scripture.

If I am wrong, then just say so. If my judgment has missed the target in that very minor point, then it misses the mark. If that is the case, then it must be something other than your above average interest in politics causing you to take the postion you do. If you want to claim it is based on a straightforward exegesis of Scripture, then present your exegetical evidence for examination. Either way, the reason for your position is no where near as relevant as its truthfulness. How one gets to error is not as important as the fact that they are in error. I am not saying it is never important or even that it is completely unimportant. There are times it can help to know the "how" because this may help us fix it. Anyways, I ramble.

Lets either get back to the topic or just drop it altogether. I have made some pretty strong statements and you have not interacted with them. I would like to see how you view some of these positions.

Here is a question for you: A brother asked me this morning if a Christian could EVER vote for a condidate who is pro-abortion. What do you think? Have you ever voted for a universalist? What about someone who believes there is nothing wrong with homosexuality? What about someone who thinks it is alright to divorce for reasons other than adultery? How many principles of Scripture does one have to disagree with before you decide you can't vore for them? And why does it take that many? Why does it take 5 versus 3 violations? Or whatever the number might be.

I think people who argue that Christians "ought" to vote, "must" vote, etc. are completely unprepared for a discussion of this type. No one seems to want to dive into the deep end of the pool. I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to have to answer these questions either.

What was my answer? I said we must first ask the questions "how" or "if" Christians should be involved in the first place. But I will be thinking more about his question because it deserves attention.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
What is worse

A man who endorses the murder of innocent babies or the man who dismisses the one God by claiming that we all serve and pray to the same God? Why is it better to vote for a pro-abortion candidate than it is to vote for a universalist?

Are Christians really called to shape the morality of the culture?

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
If higher than average

If higher than average interests in a subject is bias, then your higher than average interest in this subject is also the product of bias. Thus, you can't hope to be objective if your definition of bias is high interest in a subject. It seems your bias is really against anyone who has real interest in politics.

JohnBrian's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 689
adding to the mix

From http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/30/not-your-religion-in-politi... ]Not Your Religion in Politics, but Mine by Michael Horton

Quote:
The rhetoric of a reinvigorated Christian right has turned off a lot of Americans who see evangelicalism more as a voting bloc engaged in identity politics than as a witness to the liberating King who has founded his own empire in his own death and resurrection.

from http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/31/in-gods-name ]In God’s Name again by Horton

This question is asked and Horton responds in the article:

Quote:
How much involvement should a Christian have in political discussion and engagement?

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
JohnBrian wrote: From Not

JohnBrian wrote:
From http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/30/not-your-religion-in-politi... ]Not Your Religion in Politics, but Mine by Michael Horton

Quote:
The rhetoric of a reinvigorated Christian right has turned off a lot of Americans who see evangelicalism more as a voting bloc engaged in identity politics than as a witness to the liberating King who has founded his own empire in his own death and resurrection.

from http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/31/in-gods-name ]In God’s Name again by Horton

This question is asked and Horton responds in the article:

Quote:
How much involvement should a Christian have in political discussion and engagement?

Thanks John. I will certainly give this one a read. I closer to the beginning of these questions than I am to the end. At a minimum we should be askng them.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
From

From Horton:

Quote:

Distinguish between the church as institution from the church as its members. Abraham Kuyper expressed this distinction in terms of church-as-organization and church-as-organism. In the former sense, the church is Christ’s embassy of saving grace through the ministry of Word and sacrament. In the latter sense, it is believers-saved by grace-who are scattered into their worldly callings as salt and light. The institutional church is entrusted with the Great Commission, with no calling or authority to reform the world. Being shaped decisively by this Word, believers are called to serve their myriad neighbors in the world. Sometimes this provides opportunities for newsworthy impact, but that is not our concern. Our calling is to be faithful at our posts. Where the state has accrued a dangerous monopoly on cultural activity, politics is seen as the most significant sphere of activity. However, Christians can testify by their quiet faithfulness at their posts how essential are the daily and often mundane gifts. Ambition to make a noticeable difference in the world may be a God-given purpose and calling, but it can also be an expression of our pride and self-righteousness. It is easier to abandon the callings where God has placed us to love and serve our neighbors in order to “be somebody” and to be remembered for our “legacy.”

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Response

Shaynus wrote:
From Horton:

Quote:

Distinguish between the church as institution from the church as its members. Abraham Kuyper expressed this distinction in terms of church-as-organization and church-as-organism. In the former sense, the church is Christ’s embassy of saving grace through the ministry of Word and sacrament. In the latter sense, it is believers-saved by grace-who are scattered into their worldly callings as salt and light. The institutional church is entrusted with the Great Commission, with no calling or authority to reform the world. Being shaped decisively by this Word, believers are called to serve their myriad neighbors in the world. Sometimes this provides opportunities for newsworthy impact, but that is not our concern. Our calling is to be faithful at our posts. Where the state has accrued a dangerous monopoly on cultural activity, politics is seen as the most significant sphere of activity. However, Christians can testify by their quiet faithfulness at their posts how essential are the daily and often mundane gifts. Ambition to make a noticeable difference in the world may be a God-given purpose and calling, but it can also be an expression of our pride and self-righteousness. It is easier to abandon the callings where God has placed us to love and serve our neighbors in order to “be somebody” and to be remembered for our “legacy.”

Perhaps you might want to read http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=Ar... ]Horton in context and pay a little closer attention to what you read.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/1/10
Posts: 781
Who do you think you are?

So having merely quoted a section of Horton's article, your omniscience led you to understand that I should pay closer attention? Who do you think you are, Ed?

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
A little something...

Just realized I'm 40 posts behind in this thread. Somehow didn't notice it was racing on without me. Biggrin

So this observation might not be worth a whole lot at this point but I'll chip it in anyway...

edingess wrote:
To answer your question, Scripture quite clearly commands us to obey the laws of the land. The law states that one must come to a full stop at all stop signs. That is easy enough. It is clearly against the law to litter. Internet Porn is looking upon a woman with lust, and hence, is adultery. Since you want specific interaction with your post, here you go:

You stated that in a nation such as ours (whatever that means), CHRISTIANS CAN AND MUST BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS.


On the first couple of sentences... my point exactly. You had argued that it's "egregious" to say Christians should be involved in politics because the Bible doesn't say that anywhere. My response was that it is an application of principles. Stopping at stop signs is also application of principle (obey the law). Conclusion: the Bible does not have to say it.

As for "a nation such as ours (whatever that means)..."
Your not knowing what means explains much of your response. It's a huge part of my argument--and I'm pretty sure I explained it in the essay to some extent. In any case, what it means is this: we live in a nation where all of the citizens are participants in governance by design, that is by law. The law doesn't say "you must vote" but it does say that we are all participants in governance (legislature and executive are selected by us). It also strongly implies that our public discourse is part of the government as well (it's protected by law in the Bill of Rights).
So my argument here is that we are all "involved in politics" whether we want to be or not. We are citizen governors, so to speak. If we ignore it all, we are being politically unfaithful.
(But the degree of involvement varies according to vocation).

Just a couple of randomly selected points.

Also, for what it's worth, a short laundry list of what I am not saying here (though others may be)...
(1) that we should try to transform society from the outside in by legislation (it's really not about transformation, which is always fundamentally an inside->out process);
(2) that the work of the church is to transform "social institutions," lobby for legislation, endorse candidates, hold demonstrations or any of that;
(3) that every Christian has a duty to be a delegate at a primary or pass out lawn signs or make phone calls for a political party or make campaign contributions;
(4) that people should advocate political philosophy instead of the gospel

I'll probably add a few more after I skim the last thirty some posts.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
Hmm...

Scanned several posts. Things got pretty off track... and a bit ugly.

The whole debate about how to vote in a particular race is another question entirely.
I guess I'll join the fray with a few general points on that question...

(1) A vote for a candidate is not an endorsement of everything he says or does. If that were the case, no Christian could ever vote for anyone (because all candidates are sinners).

(2) Neither belief in sound Christian political philosophy nor skill in governing correlate to whether a person is a Christian or not. (That is, whether the candidate is a Christian--whether he is justified--does not mean he knows anything beyond the gospel. The degree to which he is sanctified is far more relevant. But even the degree sanctification doesn't correlate all that strongly to having a Christian understanding of the ideas that make up a political philosophy. It correlates even less to the unique gifts of competent governing. It correlates strongly to good character, but though governing well requires good character, good character is not enough to enable a person to govern well.)

(3) Every vote has a positive consequence and a negative consequence. The positive consequence is an increase in a particular candidate's tally. The negative consequence is the lack of increase in any other candidate's tally. If one of these others is already ahead, a third consequence is that we have strengthened his lead.

(4) Consequences of votes matter. They are not all that matters (that would be pragmatism), but they matter.

(5) Since consequences matter, "voting your conscience" requires factoring them in (it is not more conscionable to ignore actual results but rather less conscionable).

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
Horton

Horton wrote:
We propose a two-fold strategy. First, we will have to clear up this confusion about the gospel and cultural values. Being pro-choice I believe is morally wrong, but it is not heretical. God will never be anyone's mascot and will never allow himself to be worshipped in either the carved image of the donkey or the elephant. We cannot impose our will on the American electorate anymore and we will have to stop it. We'll have to stop shaking our fists at our neighbors. We must call the church to a cease-fire with the world over gays in the military and engage in spiritual warfare for their hearts and minds for the first time perhaps in forty years. Second, we'll not only have to recover gospel proclamation, but we'll have to learn how to interact positively again with our culture.

Above = from Ed's link.

I love to read Horton and like him a lot but he's talking nonsense here... in places. "We cannot impose our will on the American electorate..." Actually he means "we may not" as in "we should not." But he wrote the literal truth: "we cannot." In America, you don't get anything done unless you persuade (not coerce) significant majorities to agree with your ideas. The only way to "impose" a will is to find some way to subvert the system/behave illegally. I doubt it's possible even by illegal means because the division of government into a system of checks and balances makes that sort of stunt very complicated.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3633
Well, maybe...

Aaron Blumer wrote:
(1) A vote for a candidate is not an endorsement of everything he says or does. If that were the case, no Christian could ever vote for anyone (because all candidates are sinners).

I'm thinking about writing in Jesus for this year's election. Although moving from "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" to President of the United States seems like kind of a backwards step... Blum 3

"Our task today is to tell people — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Free eBooks

Aaron Blumer's picture
Online
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7371
Won't need it

Thankfully, the King of Kings will not need a vote.
It is an interesting thing to note that peace on earth does not come until it is imposed by a war... so society apparently can be bettered from the outside in even though individuals are only truly changed from the inside out.

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Just got back into town

As an FYI I noticed one post that was out of bound in my opinion and do not feel it merits a response. I will look at some of the additional thoughts Aaron has contributed and provide a response over the weekend. In the interest of transparency, you should know I am wrestling with this issue only recently, say six months or so. Please endulge me as I wrestle out loud on SI. Smile

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

edingess's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 8/13/11
Posts: 155
Aaron Blumer wrote: Just

Aaron Blumer wrote:
Just realized I'm 40 posts behind in this thread. Somehow didn't notice it was racing on without me. Biggrin

So this observation might not be worth a whole lot at this point but I'll chip it in anyway...

edingess wrote:
To answer your question, Scripture quite clearly commands us to obey the laws of the land. The law states that one must come to a full stop at all stop signs. That is easy enough. It is clearly against the law to litter. Internet Porn is looking upon a woman with lust, and hence, is adultery. Since you want specific interaction with your post, here you go:

You stated that in a nation such as ours (whatever that means), CHRISTIANS CAN AND MUST BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS.


On the first couple of sentences... my point exactly. You had argued that it's "egregious" to say Christians should be involved in politics because the Bible doesn't say that anywhere. My response was that it is an application of principles. Stopping at stop signs is also application of principle (obey the law). Conclusion: the Bible does not have to say it.

As for "a nation such as ours (whatever that means)..."
Your not knowing what means explains much of your response. It's a huge part of my argument--and I'm pretty sure I explained it in the essay to some extent. In any case, what it means is this: we live in a nation where all of the citizens are participants in governance by design, that is by law. The law doesn't say "you must vote" but it does say that we are all participants in governance (legislature and executive are selected by us). It also strongly implies that our public discourse is part of the government as well (it's protected by law in the Bill of Rights).
So my argument here is that we are all "involved in politics" whether we want to be or not. We are citizen governors, so to speak. If we ignore it all, we are being politically unfaithful.
(But the degree of involvement varies according to vocation).

Just a couple of randomly selected points.

Also, for what it's worth, a short laundry list of what I am not saying here (though others may be)...
(1) that we should try to transform society from the outside in by legislation (it's really not about transformation, which is always fundamentally an inside->out process);
(2) that the work of the church is to transform "social institutions," lobby for legislation, endorse candidates, hold demonstrations or any of that;
(3) that every Christian has a duty to be a delegate at a primary or pass out lawn signs or make phone calls for a political party or make campaign contributions;
(4) that people should advocate political philosophy instead of the gospel

I'll probably add a few more after I skim the last thirty some posts.

On this point I could not disagree more. Obey the law and stopping at stop signs is not really an application of principles any more than obeying those who are over you in the Lord or wives submitting to their husbands in all things. The command could not be more direct. I will read over the rest and respond later.

I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4

Pages

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.