Faith and 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.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

It is ok to be involved in politics but not AS CHRISTIANS but as good US CITIZENS (that was I was thinking when reading Peter's posts).

[Peter Debelak]

To be clear, I am not saying Christians shouldn't get involved in politics at all. They should as good engaged citizens. But just not under a public banner of God's name, as if His mouthpiece on whatever issue you're discussing.

For example:

A Christian believer may believe, based on Scripture, that homosexuality is wrong. They may decide to engage in a political debate over a law regarding same sex marriage.

I don't take issue with a Christian being involved in that public debate, arguing based on the Constitution, social traditions or concerns of what might happen to American society.

I do take issue using God's name as part of the argument - as if presuming it is, in fact, God's will that a human government define marriage in a particular way.

Even if the Scripture is air-tight concerning God's feelings about homosexuality (and some Christians would argue it is not crystal clear - but I'm not getting into it and don't desire to), that isn't proof that God actually desires America to pass certain laws. Indeed, sometimes it's been God's will that human government's do BAD things (e.g. hardening Pharoah's heart).

Again, I see no issue for arguing for/against issues in public debate based on personal Christian convictions. Just don't bring God's name into it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Again, I see no issue for arguing for/against issues in public debate based on personal Christian convictions. Just don't bring God's name into it.

Right, but if the bottom of one's logic that something is wrong is because God prohibits it (e.g. homosexual marriage), then if invoking God is wrong one has no basis for politically objecting to it, and so should keep quiet.

This is the downside of your argument. With some things (e.g. murder, stealing) it's easy to see how those violate other's rights and so should be illegal, without having to bring God into it.

With other issues (e.g. abortion, homosexual marriage), it's harder to see how they violate anyone's rights, and so arguers against them are compelled to invoke God.

Are you saying that with the second type of issue Christians should simply keep quiet politically?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right, but if the bottom of one's logic that something is wrong is because God prohibits it (e.g. homosexual marriage), then if invoking God is wrong one has no basis for politically objecting to it, and so should keep quiet.

This is the downside of your argument. With some things (e.g. murder, stealing) it's easy to see how those violate other's rights and so should be illegal, without having to bring God into it.

With other issues (e.g. abortion, homosexual marriage), it's harder to see how they violate anyone's rights, and so arguers against them are compelled to invoke God.

Are you saying that with the second type of issue Christians should simply keep quiet politically?

Yes, that is what I am suggesting. Actually, I thought of this after I saw how I wrote the sentence you quoted. The way I phrased that implies I think it's okay to engage in politics based (solely) on a spiritual conviction. That is not what I meant.

If there is an argument against, for example, same-sex marriage that is a secular argument - and such arguments can be made - then argue those points.

If the ONLY rationale for wanting laws to be passed is one's personal faith, then I would suggest staying quiet.

Based on what Biblical principle are we to make our human governments more "Chrisitian"?

As engaged citizens, I don't see any reason not to get involved in politics - but to do so by making arguments that our fellow citizens, who may not share our faith, can respond to in reasoned debate.

Notice how hard is was to argue with LSMers? When the basis of their argument was "Witness Lee said so," you couldn't argue with them. Because I don't share the premise of their argument. There could be no mutuality. It is the same when someone uses their personal faith as the sole basis for their argument in public debate with those who don't share that faith.

Again, if there are secular arguments to make - make them and have good civic debate.

I agree with those who see the dangers of theocratic governments in Muslim nations. But I wouldn't want a "Chrisitian America" in the same way that Turkey is a "Muslim Turkey." Importantly, that is not the same as wanting all American't to be saved - which is a different issue. Even though Christianity is the faith we share, I don't want to see a US government that passes laws simply because our faith has an opinion on it.

[Peter Debelak]

Let me add, this does mean one stays quiet entirely, just as far as political ENDS are concerned.

One could protest the neo-nazi's marching in Skokie Illinois, but still not be suggesting a law that prohibits them from doing so be passed.

But even then, if the sole reason to interact with someone is a faith-based reason, it may BW more effective just to have them for dinner and share the gospel.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Yes, that is what I am suggesting. Actually, I thought of this after I saw how I wrote the sentence you quoted. The way I phrased that implies I think it's okay to engage in politics based (solely) on a spiritual conviction. That is not what I meant.

If there is an argument against, for example, same-sex marriage that is a secular argument - and such arguments can be made - then argue those points.

If the ONLY rationale for wanting laws to be passed is one's personal faith, then I would suggest staying quiet.

Based on what Biblical principle are we to make our human governments more "Christian"?

To mandate church attendance or the beliefs in scripture is surely not my intention or those of other Christians in politics, but to fight for the unborn, or the institution of marriage, is something that many Christians feel that cannot be silent about. That is why the majority of Christians have aligned themselves with one particular political party.

I was raised in Cleveland, in a lower middle class working family, leaning towards the political views of the Kennedy Democrats. I was surrounded by those who hated the hypocrisy of Nixonian politics. It was not until I "matured slightly," looking at the liberal agendas of the Democratic Party, did I reconsider my outlooks.

I cannot believe that those who enter the political arena, fighting on behalf of the morals of God's commandments, are doing any disservice to God.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To mandate church attendance or the beliefs in scripture is surely not my intention or those of other Christians in politics, but to fight for the unborn, or the institution of marriage, is something that many Christians feel that cannot be silent about. That is why the majority of Christians have aligned themselves with one particular political party.

I was raised in Cleveland, in a lower middle class working family, leaning towards the political views of the Kennedy Democrats. I was surrounded by those who hated the hypocrisy of Nixonian politics. It was not until I "matured slightly," looking at the liberal agendas of the Democratic Party, did I reconsider my outlooks.

I cannot believe that those who enter the political arena, fighting on behalf of the morals of God's commandments, are doing any disservice to God.

Ohio, I see what you are trying to say. However, I still agree with Peter's point-of-view. I believe we really should leave politics out of the church life where possible. I would hate to impose my political view on other members of the Body of Christ. If you say that there is no secular arguments for traditional marriage views, then bring God into the argument if you must. But remember that you are fighting against people who don't even believe in God, so I'm not sure how effective or useful it is to bring God's name into the argument in the first place. Like Peter pointed out, you cannot debate with someone on different premises. It is like trying to argue with a LC member who thinks WL's ministry is God's only representation on the earth.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

To be clear, I am not saying Christians shouldn't get involved in politics at all. They should as good engaged citizens. But just not under a public banner of God's name, as if His mouthpiece on whatever issue you're discussing.

For example:

A Christian believer may believe, based on Scripture, that homosexuality is wrong. They may decide to engage in a political debate over a law regarding same sex marriage.

I don't take issue with a Christian being involved in that public debate, arguing based on the Constitution, social traditions or concerns of what might happen to American society.

I do take issue using God's name as part of the argument - as if presuming it is, in fact, God's will that a human government define marriage in a particular way.

Even if the Scripture is air-tight concerning God's feelings about homosexuality (and some Christians would argue it is not crystal clear - but I'm not getting into it and don't desire to), that isn't proof that God actually desires America to pass certain laws. Indeed, sometimes it's been God's will that human government's do BAD things (e.g. hardening Pharoah's heart).

Again, I see no issue for arguing for/against issues in public debate based on personal Christian convictions. Just don't bring God's name into it.

The name of God is slandered already. Often it isn't the Christians that are using the Bible it is those that want to slander the name of God that quote and twist the Bible. Others, who are not genuine believers but in order to increase their political capital will try fear mongering among Christians.

The bottom line is the fight is already taking place and saying that a Christian cannot enter the fight, or cannot work together with other Christians, or cannot refute arguments using the Bible or any other restriction that no one else has is foolish. The guiding principle should be the Lord's word in Luke 18:1-6

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

To be clear, I am not saying Christians shouldn't get involved in politics at all. They should as good engaged citizens. But just not under a public banner of God's name, as if His mouthpiece on whatever issue you're discussing.

For example:

A Christian believer may believe, based on Scripture, that homosexuality is wrong. They may decide to engage in a political debate over a law regarding same sex marriage.

I don't take issue with a Christian being involved in that public debate, arguing based on the Constitution, social traditions or concerns of what might happen to American society.

I do take issue using God's name as part of the argument - as if presuming it is, in fact, God's will that a human government define marriage in a particular way.

Even if the Scripture is air-tight concerning God's feelings about homosexuality (and some Christians would argue it is not crystal clear - but I'm not getting into it and don't desire to), that isn't proof that God actually desires America to pass certain laws. Indeed, sometimes it's been God's will that human government's do BAD things (e.g. hardening Pharoah's heart).

Again, I see no issue for arguing for/against issues in public debate based on personal Christian convictions. Just don't bring God's name into it.

I see this as an impossibility.

One cannot promote traditional marriage without invoking God and His word.

It is God who has defined marriage. That is why some Christians have brought their fight into the public arena. And I don't buy this argument that "what they do in the secrecy of their own bedroom is none of the government's business." I am definitely not a "bedroom Nazi," but I know that their agenda is not for liberty, but for capturing our next generation. (The full extent of their political and social agenda cannot be completely known until one reads the account in Genesis 19.)

In this regard, it is positive that her proponents do so in God's name, rather than in their own "preference." This highlights God's commands in His word, rather than their own personal conservative / liberal preferences, which ultimately directs the hearer to the afterlife and its judgment rather than contemporary social agendas.

.

[Ohio]

This point has been aptly made by many others in the know -- concerning the so-called separation of church and state in the USA, that the founding fathers sole concern was to keep the state out of religion, rather than keeping religion out of the state.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This point has been aptly made by many others in the know -- concerning the so-called separation of church and state in the USA, that the founding fathers sole concern was to keep the state out of religion, rather than keeping religion out of the state.

Even if the Constituion allowed religion in the state, that doesn't answer the question about what Christians should do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Even if the Constitution allowed religion in the state, that doesn't answer the question about what Christians should do.

For years, as a Christian, I basically took on John Darby's views, that Christians should be in the world, but not be a part of the world. Today, I am no longer so exclusive in my views, neither do I like to dictate what other believers should do or should not do in their "service" to God.

There was a time when I felt that all Christians should keep themselves to relatively insular professions like engineering or computer science. Careers in the media, or in the arts, or (God-forbid!) in politics were definitely off-limits. Today, I no longer espouse such strict views. Perhaps I have gone too far! Yikes! Anyways I am willing to listen to diverse viewpoints.

I do not, however, agree with all the tenets of the dominion movement concerning the seven mountains of culture bringing in the kingdom of God.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I see this as an impossibility.

One cannot promote traditional marriage without invoking God and His word.

It is God who has defined marriage. That is why some Christians have brought their fight into the public arena....

In this regard, it is positive that her proponents do so in God's name, rather than in their own "preference." This highlights God's commands in His word, rather than their own personal conservative / liberal preferences, which ultimately directs the hearer to the afterlife and its judgment rather than contemporary social agendas.

.

A few points:

1) I know a number of good Christians who take Jesus's (and yhe apostles) concern for the poor as a reason to vote for democrats. There are still others who take His hatred of greed to argue against unrestrained capitalism.

Who speaks for God, you or them?

2) Jesus hated fornication. But he didn't petition the Roman government to pass a law criminalizing prostitution. Instead, He invited the prostitutes over for dinner. Christ didn't seem interested all all in politics and Certainly didn't get involved. So how is it okay that we do so 2000 years later and do so in His name?

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

A few points:

1) I know a number of good Christians who take Jesus's (and yhe apostles) concern for the poor as a reason to vote for democrats. There are still others who take His hatred of greed to argue against unrestrained capitalism.

Who speaks for God, you or them?

2) Jesus hated fornication. But he didn't petition the Roman government to pass a law criminalizing prostitution. Instead, He invited the prostitutes over for dinner. Christ didn't seem interested all all in politics and Certainly didn't get involved. So how is it okay that we do so 2000 years later and do so in His name?

I'm not against being involved in politics. I think we should ALL vote. This country needs educated voters. We should voice our concern against certain government policies that we don't agree with. We have the right to do so as citizens of the United States. However, I just don't think we should bring it into the church. It is dangerous ground for division among members of the Body. Nothing divides more than politics (I'm exaggerating here a little for emphasis).

If you are against abortion, then voice it! I'm am all for it. But don't bring your political agenda into the church. The brothers and sisters may not want to hear your opinion on this issue. They may be offended. Again, this could cause division.

I have seen brothers and sisters speak some of their political sentiments in the prophecying meetings. I have to say that it stirred up a lot of saints negatively. During the Bush era, many saints were pro-Bush. There were many innuendos in the prophecying to advocate his presidency. There were also prayer meetings to vote him in. Many who were not pro-Bush were very offended.

When we pray publicly, we can pray for the Lord to bring in the president according to His will. But that is as far as I would go in praying for the president publicly. Our prayer should be general here to keep the oneness of the Spirit. To pray for a specific president can be very offensive. If you need to pray for a specific president, then you need to do this privately.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

A few points:

1) I know a number of good Christians who take Jesus's (and yhe apostles) concern for the poor as a reason to vote for democrats. There are still others who take His hatred of greed to argue against unrestrained capitalism.

Who speaks for God, you or them?

2) Jesus hated fornication. But he didn't petition the Roman government to pass a law criminalizing prostitution. Instead, He invited the prostitutes over for dinner. Christ didn't seem interested all all in politics and Certainly didn't get involved. So how is it okay that we do so 2000 years later and do so in His name?

I guess the best way to answer this is for me to say that the church as a rule should stay out of politics, since there is no justification in the New Testament to support it, along with the comments you bring up about how divisive these issues are to the church of God. Hence, I disagree with politicians using the pulpit as their platform. Individual believers, however, should have the liberty to follow their conscience. They should have the freedom to enter into politics, assist in legislation conducive to Christian morality, or support platforms of their choice.

Btw, I really don't think the Democratic leaders care much for the poor. And for that matter, neither do the Republicans. They are all basically thieves and liars robbing us of our hard-earned paychecks.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I guess the best way to answer this is for me to say that the church as a rule should stay out of politics, since there is no justification in the New Testament to support it, along with the comments you bring up about how divisive these issues are to the church of God. Hence, I disagree with politicians using the pulpit as their platform. Individual believers, however, should have the liberty to follow their conscience. They should have the freedom to enter into politics, assist in legislation conducive to Christian morality, or support platforms of their choice.

Now you're talking!

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Btw, I really don't think the Democratic leaders care much for the poor. And for that matter, neither do the Republicans. They are all basically thieves and liars robbing us of our hard-earned paychecks.

I feel stuck this election...don't really know who to vote for. Politicians these days no longer care for their country. They only care for being liked and voted. Sad :mad2:.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Individual believers, however, should have the liberty to follow their conscience. They should have the freedom to enter into politics, assist in legislation conducive to Christian morality, or support platforms of their choice.

Indeed, there's no threat of "quarantine" if you continue to disagree with me. Nor will I suggest someone is not saved if they disagree with me. So, yes, I would agree that there is a "liberty" here.

That said, I also have the liberty to attempt to argue why I think it is a bad idea - perhaps even an unbiblical one - to invoke God's will as the sole rationale to pass laws in a human government.

And then, after our good robust discussion - even if we come to impasse - you're more than welcome to come visit Avon, Ohio for good food and fellowship.

In Love,

Peter

Originally Posted by Truth

It is ok to be involved in politics but not AS CHRISTIANS but as good US CITIZENS (that was I was thinking when reading Peter's posts).

I think the Lord's story of the unrighteous judge and the widow is a good example for us as the church. If you consider the "unrighteous judge" to represent the political leaders and the church is a "widow" since Christ was crucified.

This is the example of how the church could participate, it is all about righteousness and justice.

Luke
18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
18:2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
18:3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.
18:4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;
18:5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.
18:6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.

To say that the church, as an organization cannot enter the political arena and would therefore be the only organization in the US that cannot is foolish. It is like willingly binding your hands and feet and allowing the adversary to attack the church.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Truth

To say that the church, as an organization cannot enter the political arena and would therefore be the only organization in the US that cannot is foolish. It is like willingly binding your hands and feet and allowing the adversary to attack the church.

I think any Christian or group of Christians can as US citizens be as political as they want to be, so long as they don't try to send the message that their opinion represents the opinion of the whole Church or of all Christians.