Faith and Politics

[Peter Debelak]

I'm sorry to dredge this thread up and I've held my tongue on it for a long time. But really, this goes to some things that frustrate me most - even after the hard won battle of loosing onesself from the psychology of the LC and all the humilty that took, we seem fine with a "know-it-all-ness" derived from the modern Chritian faith...

Do we actually think that our Christian perspective is clear and "direct from God" enough to think its appropriate to engage neck deep in politics to affect the direction of the whole country?

I have engaged numerous groups since leaving, some for considerable periods. Private Christians - those that engage from interaction to interaction - are really quite beautiful. Public Christianity, is obnoxious. Since when is Christianity a political interest group, and we, as individuals, apologists for "political Chrisitanity"? (P.S. Lest you think I'm talking about repulicans, I include the apoligist for leftists interpreters of the Bible on contemporary issues).

What happend to "render unto Ceasar"?

"Vote your conscience," I get that. I do that based on my faith.

But "preach a policy"??? I don't see Biblical support for that. To be sure, I personally advocate for policies I think are good - but I don't presume it's the "Christian perspective" or the "Biblical view" - and I it would be silly of me to add as one of my arguments for that policy that "God says so."

For example, American exceptionalism does not comport with the Bible. Period. An Iraqi life is just as valuable as an American one, even if the Iraqi hates America and aims to fight against it. This does not mean that, as a human American I don't root for success in American endeavors. I actually do. I just don't pretend my "rooting" is the "Christian thing to do." I'm flawed in that way.

I don't know what to say when two armed soldiers are facing each other. But when a robot kills civilians, regardless of who's interests are who's, my conscience says "WRONG!!!". And if you're trying to glean my politics, that's a pox on BOTH houses.

When did Christians become lacky conduits for politics? Or rather, when did the Bible become fodder?

What the HELL is our faith doing enmeshed in human politics?

In Angst,

Peter

P.S. If you can't tell, I'm angsty... Think Kierkegaard, not mohawks. Thanks for indulging.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Private Christians - those that engage from interaction to interaction - are really quite beautiful. Public Christianity, is obnoxious. Since when is Christianity a political interest group, and we, as individuals, apologists for "political Chrisitanity"? (P.S. Lest you think I'm talking about republicans, I include the apoligist for leftists interpreters of the Bible on contemporary issues).

I agree. John the Baptist told King Herod, "You can't have her", in regards to his brother's wife (Matt 14). But Jesus refused to speak to Herod, in spite of Herod's desire to hear something from Him.

Pilate posessed the power of the sword. "Do you not know that I can kill You, and I can set you free?" (John 19). But ultimately he had to concede to the mob's wishes.

My point is that these men, like Caesar whom they served, had external, physical, coercive power. Jesus had the power to lay down His life, and to raise it up again. Two completely different levels.

The gospels repeatedly show that the disciples were expecting an earthly kingdom. Jesus said, My kingdom is not of this earth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

But "preach a policy"??? I don't see Biblical support for that. To be sure, I personally advocate for policies I think are good - but I don't presume it's the "Christian perspective" or the "Biblical view" - and I it would be silly of me to add as one of my arguments for that policy that "God says so."

I understand your "angst" here, but God's Great Household has folks moving in a myriad of directions. I doubt if all are inspired by the Spirit of God, but are allowed by God because they benefit mankind and seem to springboard off of the scripture, especially the Old Testament.

I remember as a young man getting involved with the anti-abortion movement in Cleveland. The ruling on Roe v. Wade just incensed many of us Catholics regarding the morality of our laws and country. I was not a real believer at the time, nor did I even know that, but I knew that the murder of the unborn was wrong, and somebody should say something about it. Our protests were designed to inform these "clinics" that they were not welcome in our town.

Yes, aron, our Lord was silent about the leader's immoral life. The Father led Him in this way. The Lord, however, was not silent about the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders. The Baptist was not silent, but neither should we take that as license for us all to speak out against our leaders. The point is somebody needs to speak out or our next generation will be convinced by our silence that nothing was wrong in the first place.

Anyways, just a few undeveloped opinions about unrelated topics ...

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I understand your "angst" here, but God's Great Household has folks moving in a myriad of directions. I doubt if all are inspired by the Spirit of God, but are allowed by God because they benefit mankind and seem to springboard off of the scripture, especially the Old Testament.

...

I'm not sure in what way Christian involvement in politics AS CHRISTIANS inherently benefits mankind.

It's one thing to have thinks violate our moral code an speak out against them publically. It's another thing entirely to do so ON BEHALF of ones Christian faith, with the implication that ones public involvement is compelled by God. When that's the case, my next question is "REALLY? God wants you speaking about THIS issue? What did He have to say about the myriad other things in the world that are contrary to the BIble? Did he tell you to be silent on those? The CHOICES in advocacy make men wonder who the SOURCE of the advocacy is, even if the language of the advocacy is based on scripture. And if he's NOT the source, then perhaps we should leave him out of it.

That's not to say individuals don't get involved based on their personal morals. But perhaps the invocation of our faith, as if God asked me to speak publically, is a bit of a usurpation...

[Cal]

In a democracy like ours the true leader we are to follow is the Constitution. Elected leaders are to be subordinate to that document. Only it is absolute. Their powers are relative to it, and derived from it. "Power is given by the consent of the governed." Or as Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."

So actually to do our Christian duty and be faithful to the Constitution requires us to sometimes speak out against leaders' actions and attitudes, and campaign or at least vote against them. However, we should always do so with respect of the office, not in the demeaning way of modern talk show hosts.

But I agree with Peter that going around saying "God told me to run for office" with the thought of bolstering oneself as "God's candidate" is inappropriate. How do you know God didn't tell your opponent to run also?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I'm not sure in what way Christian involvement in politics AS CHRISTIANS inherently benefits mankind.

For example, Christians today are fighting (some in politics) for pro-life issues. Were it not for some in the Republican party, there would perhaps be no public voice for the unborn in this world today. China and the UN are leading the world to have one child per woman, and then forced sterilizations.

Secondly, the conscience of young people, especially those in public schools, is directly connected to the laws of the land. Since abortion is now safe, legal, and possibly free for the asking, what does this do to a generation of kids? How many have been irreparably damaged by promiscuity and guilt? Many Christians believe it all begins with good laws, and that's why they have entered the political arena.

[Truth]

I'm with Peter here. I think it is fine for us Christians to enter into politics and advocate certain view points, especially view points that we think will help us to live properly as Christians and to help our children live the same way. I encourage you all to vote. This is our duty as citizens. However, to bring God's name into all this, we need to be careful. Because once you bring politics into the church and start forming Christian groups to advocate certain policies, you may get into the usurpation of God's name (ie. I am called by God to do this). I'm not saying you can't form groups to demonstrate and fight for your rights, just don't do it in the name of God. Otherwise, it can get ugly. Look at so many groups who have caused harm (including the history of the crusaders). And it was all done in the name of God. According to the bible, the church (our gathering together) is for fellowship and worship, not for politics.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I'm not sure in what way Christian involvement in politics AS CHRISTIANS inherently benefits mankind.

Originally Posted by Truth

I'm with Peter here. I think it is fine for us Christians to enter into politics and advocate certain view points, especially view points that we think will help us to live properly as Christians and to help our children live the same way. I encourage you all to vote.

I'm confused. Sounds like you two are on different pages.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

Rick Perry and Sarah Palin allegedly have close ties to a radical Christian movement known as the New Apostolic Reformation that practices exorcism of demons and practices "spiritual warfare" against other religions. The beliefs of this group are far more extreme than the evangelicalism epoused by George W. Bush. It is scary to think that either Palin or Perry could be elected President of the US given their extreme views. The movement's agenda is to achieve "dominion" over the arts, business, education, family, government, media, and religion.

The Utah Mormons got caught illegally funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to IOC voters to get the Olympics into Salt Lake City. Why would they spend such sums? Because tens of millions of U.S. dollars were waiting in the form of fat, non-competitive contracts to "develop" the area for the Winter Games. I would argue that the Mormon agenda is to achieve "dominion" as well (p.s. no one went to jail, even though it amounted to funnelling of millions of taxpayer dollars as a result of bribes. Mitt went up there to clean up the mess, and it was 'hear no evil, see no evil' from him).

I read that the Republicans are going to spend 2.5 billion dollars on the presidential campaign (Time magazine cover - no idea how accurate that figure is). My thought was, so what? 2.5 billion is chump change compared to the U.S. Budget. What do you think the Mormon church is going to get as a cut of that if Mitt takes over? Dominion, anyone?

I think the idea of dominion, anyway, is over-rated. The power Jesus promised was power over yourself. "What profit is it if a person gains the whole world but loses his soul?" You have the power, in Christ's victory, to be free from fear, shame, pain, sadness, anger, restlessness, dissatisfaction, etc. We once were fully cut off from God's kingdom, but now the doorway is open.

That is dominion. That is "mastery". Look at the word "kurios"... master, or lord. You are given to be master over your soul. "He who loses his soul-life in this age will gain it unto eternal life." The cross can erase the sting of death, and restore our soul to one-ness with the Father of all. God has dominion. All things are His servants (Psa 119:91). Once we are fully under His control (dominion), then we can serve Him; His divine power can fully flow through us. The Roman centurion, being a subject of Caesar, realized this, and Jesus said that He'd seen such faith nowhere in Israel.

I actually know nothing about Palin, Perry, nor their Dominon bunch. Nor am I interested. I feel that I know too much about Mitt and his Mormon pals. All of them are hoodlums to me; no better than the Illinois Democrats (synonymous for 'crooks') who bank-rolled Obama.

All of this is apropos of nothing, as usual.