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.

[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.

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 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?

[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.

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

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

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.

Truth, I totally agree. I guess I must have mis-spoke.

I never recommended bringing politics into the church, rather I think we ought to give Christians the liberty to bring their faith into the political arena. I have witnessed churches being divided over politics, even when the Pastor tried to keep the focus on morality, rather than venture into parties and particular candidates.

[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

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.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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 don't think you have gone too far. I think it is silly when we restrict our young people from pursuing certain careers other than science and engineering. Some people are not cut for these careers. They may have gifts in other arenas. The should have the freedom in the Lord to purse those careers, whether it be in the arts, media, law, or politics. Now *how* they get involved in any career is between them and the Lord.

I have been in too may YP meetings, growing up in the GLA, where the some of the speaking brothers restrict the YP in this way. Me, being a *good* church kid, I used to agree with everything they said. But now I see otherwise.

[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:.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

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:.

Vote for the Tea Party.

Oh that's right, they don't have a candidate running.

An old friend of mine, an elder in the LC, has influenced me over the years. He basically feels all the politicians are corrupt thieves. That's why he supports neither side. Hard to argue with him! So, we usually discuss other topics of interest.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

I abosolutely agree with your view that we should engage with the world we're placed in. I got a "humanities degree", work in a non-engineering field, love to engage in community events and even get involved in politics...

I view all of this as a way of having a full and rich human life. I don't know that God specifically wills me to do each and every thing. In all these things, I ask, knock and seek, and get to know Him as a result.

I used to believe that God had specific will for each part of my life: a specific college (like, if I prayed hard enough the mascot of the "right" school would materialize before me), the God-ordained job etc...

Nowadays, and take me in the right way here, I don't think He cares about these things. What He is after is that I turn to Him in all my endeavors - not because He'll give me a "to-do" list, but that is how I get to know Him.

I love being an engaged citizen. I love getting together with my fellows - even (especially!) those who disagree with me - and discussiong the best way to structure society. Even in these endeavors, I will often pray - but NOT because I think God will reveal His specific will for what the laws of the state of Ohio should be.

[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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

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.

I'd like to hear your rationale on this point. The founding fathers of the Republic felt it was absolutely appropriate to invoke the name of our God and to rewrite Biblical commandments into our constitution and body of legislation, and today you are saying it is a "bad idea" and even an "unbiblical one."

Perhaps we are speaking of different things here.

To be strictly honest, I also think it is a bad idea "to invoke God's will as the sole rationale to pass laws in a human government." God's will for some is Sharia law. God's will for some is oppressive mandates for women and mandatory prayers for all, 5 times per day. God's will for some must be enforced by Taliban-like guards. So I would never recommend God's will to be the determining factor of any piece of legislation.

Ideas?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'd like to hear your rationale on this point. The founding fathers of the Republic felt it was absolutely appropriate to invoke the name of our God and to rewrite Biblical commandments into our constitution and body of legislation, and today you are saying it is a "bad idea" and even an "unbiblical one."

Perhaps we are speaking of different things here.

To be strictly honest, I also think it is a bad idea "to invoke God's will as the sole rationale to pass laws in a human government." God's will for some is Sharia law. God's will for some is oppressive mandates for women and mandatory prayers for all, 5 times per day. God's will for some must be enforced by Taliban-like guards. So I would never recommend God's will to be the determining factor of any piece of legislation.

Ideas?

Regarding the "unbiblical" comment, I can offer a few things - but I don't offer them as a definitive interpretation or clear prohibition on invoking God as a basis for passing a particular law.

First is the point I mention: Jesus' pattern (yes, ironically, I am making a "WWJD" argument ). Yes, He had clear moral guides (God's law). So, yes, He absolutely would abhor the sin He saw in society. But his response to that was not to get the Romans to pass a law prohibiting such things. Instead, he sought to minister to those enmeshed in sin - not by condemnation, but by love (and no, not "tough love").

That said, just because Jesus didn't get into politics doesn't mean its prohibited. But it might suggest that perhaps we don't use his name when we do. When He lived on earth, He made the choice not to get involved. Perhaps we should respect that choice.

Second is the nature of God's sovereignty. His wisdom over human history and human societies is so unfathomable. Indeed, it is at times befuddling. Some utter tragedies we see we can't understand that He allows. Yet, people of faith must trust that it is all part of His arrangement. Sometimes, God desires human authorities to do the WRONG THING. Didn't He harden pharoah's heart?

His plan is so beyond our comprehension at times. To Peter, he saw that Jesus was the Messiah. In Peter's small (but very logical) thinking, that meant Christ should live to establish the kingdom. And yet, he didn't realize that Christ had to suffer at the hand of human authorities, indeed, He had to be killed, for God's plan.

So, who are we to say that God doesn't want/need to allow American to turn into Sodom? As a citizen, I certainly don't want Sodom for my country. But as a Christian I have no idea what God wants and/or must allow to happen.


Again, these points are certainly not "proof" that it's wrong to invoke Christian faith as a basis for an argument. But I personally think they're compelling.

Now, regarding the Founding Fathers:

I don't want to get into a debate about the extent to which the founding documents are based in the Christian faith. Frankly, because I think its irrelevant to the point I am making:

Even if you are right about the Founders rewriting the commandments into the Constitution, I agree with the Constitution and consent to be governed under it because of non-faith-based reasons. For each part of the Constitution, one can make a reasoned secular argument for why it is a good or bad law. Regardless of whether the people governed by it are of the same faith, they can nonetheless debate its terms from a common set of premises. The rationale for each and every provision can be explained in terms of how society is for the better because of it. They can be defended or argued with on entirely civic terms, regardless of one's faith.

Separation of powers; checks and balances; individual liberties; enumerated powers; bicameral legislature; independant judiciary; equal protection of the laws; due process of laws. Each and every one can be justified without having to resort to faith-based arguments. Thus, in a diverse democracy, we can have deliberation over these things from common appeal to reason and shared premises.

Consider, in contrast, if there was an Amendment to the Constitution to define marriage according to the Biblical definition. Let's assume for the moment (since you already indicated this to be the case) that there is no secular argument for this. The only basis for inserting this Amendment, then, is that God considers homosexuality a sin and He defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

For those who do not believe in God or do not believe in the Judeo-Chrisitian God, they cannot engage with us in reasoned debate. If a homosexual asks why she can't get married to her long-term partner, the only response is "God didn't include your relationship in the definition of marriage." To which she might reply, "But I don't believe that God exists. That's a belief that the 1st Amendment protects.. So I can't have the State-benefits you get out of your relationship because a God I don't believe in says so?"

That's a very problematic conversation in a democracy, even if its Founders hailed from faith-based backgrounds.

Now, let's get rid of our assumption and say there IS a facial secular argument for a Marriage Amendment. I could argue, for example:

I fear America becoming too loose regarding sexuality. This creates an atmosphere over time and, even if unintended, can change our culture. Many years ago, it was illegal to get divorced. Little by little, these laws went away. What happened? Divorce rates skyrocketed. Without realizing it, we allowed a culture to creep in that devalues mutual commitment. The "default" is not to work through difficult relationships and only separate as the exception. Now, the "default" is to cut and run at the first sign of trouble. And now we have generations of kids being raised in single family homes. There is research that shows the success rates of kids raised in two-parent homes far exceed those who aren't. In America, we should have laws that maximize the success rates of our children.

This gradual break-down of core values could happen in the same manner if non-mainstream sexual preferences are not only permitted, but state sanctioned. We aim to maintain stability in families and relationships.

This is a (truncated) secular argument for defining marriage in a particular way. That homosexual couple can now engage with my argument. They can ask for data to back up my "slippery slope" argument and I can offer rebuttle to their argument.

Leaving God out of political arguments clears the way for a shared premise:

will this law benefit or harm society in concrete ways?

People of all backgrounds can debate that question.

[Ohio]

You hit me with an overwhelming amount of information in one post, which seemed to focus on a few points ...

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

That said, just because Jesus didn't get into politics doesn't mean its prohibited. But it might suggest that perhaps we don't use his name when we do. When He lived on earth, He made the choice not to get involved. Perhaps we should respect that choice.

The example of Jesus Himself is quite persuasive for me. I have to admit that nearly all the arguments used to support political activity are derived from O.T. examples. When I first heard of the Dominion Movement, (nominal attempt to stay on topic ) it was from my dear wife who had just heard how the kingdom of God was coming to this earth via the believers invading the seven mountains of human culture. Now, I haven't bought into any of that program yet, but I have allowed my views on Christian service in the world to be altered since I left the narrowness of the recovery. At least now I would not criticize individuals for entering certain arenas.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Second is the nature of God's sovereignty. His wisdom over human history and human societies is so unfathomable. ... His plan is so beyond our comprehension at times. ... So, who are we to say that God doesn't want/need to allow American to turn into Sodom?

This argument triggers two responses in me, both of which support you.

The first is when ministers start out telling us how the "church has failed." They use the moral decline, especially in America, to condemn the church for inactivity. Who are they to condemn the body of Christ? As you say, what if it is no one's fault, but part of God's sovereign plan. These false teachers treat America as if we are the present day Israel, and they are the prophets sent to rebuke God's people. This line of teaching disturbs me.

Secondly is a teaching I heard from W. Nee. The gist of the message was that the Lord's first coming solved all of our problems on a personal level, but none of society's problems will ever be solved until His second coming. There's much truth in what he taught. Dominion Movement proponents would not read that, however.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Even if you are right about the Founders rewriting the commandments into the Constitution, I agree with the Constitution and consent to be governed under it because of non-faith-based reasons. For each part of the Constitution, one can make a reasoned secular argument for why it is a good or bad law. Regardless of whether the people governed by it are of the same faith, they can nonetheless debate its terms from a common set of premises. The rationale for each and every provision can be explained in terms of how society is for the better because of it. They can be defended or argued with on entirely civic terms, regardless of one's faith.

Perhaps the Founders' wisdom was not their own, but rather from above, because of their faith. Yes, its merits can be argued on civic terms, but it provides for liberties which can be easily abused. The constitution was written in the context of religious freedom, enabling God-fearing men to live their faith without government intrusions. Even our courts were bolstered with the conviction that witnesses would be constrained by the final judgment of God. It seems to me that the American way, neutered of God Himself, cannot survive on its own merits, no matter how noble they may be.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Consider, in contrast, if there was an Amendment to the Constitution to define marriage according to the Biblical definition. ... Leaving God out of political arguments clears the way for a shared premise:

will this law benefit or harm society in concrete ways?

Here's where, without God, this argument collapses. Society's harm will always take the backseat to personal liberties. If a woman's "choice" supersedes the rights of the unborn, how can the needs of children for a God-ordained family life supersede the "rights" of gays for same sex unions. Every single medical, social, educational, etc. study has proven that God's ways are the best for society, and prove that the GLBT agenda is damaging, but frankly the politicians and the media don't care. Unless we as a country defer to a "higher power," we will be left to our own devices and continue the downward slide.

Anyways just some thoughts ...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Secondly is a teaching I heard from W. Nee. The gist of the message was that the Lord's first coming solved all of our problems on a personal level, but none of society's problems will ever be solved until His second coming. There's much truth in what he taught. Dominion Movement proponents would not read that, however.

Jesus changed society. "He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil" (Acts 10:38). But He did so one person at a time; as you said, "on a personal level". Jesus exemplified the credo "love your neighbor". I believe that when you follow Jesus and likewise let the Spirit touch your neighbor, then society will be changed. In what way, and how much, no one can control, or tell. Only God knows. But the human social web will change.

But I think if you try to change the human social network, the human society, this may go beyond your allotted bounds, your "portion". Jesus taught us to love our neighbor, not our church, society, economy, marketplace, organization, or country. If you shepherd your neighbor all those other things will change. They will have to.

As Ohio said, just some thoughts...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Awidow

It is perfectly Biblical and something that Jesus taught for the Church to go to "the unrighteous judge" and seek to be "avenged of my adversary". If the adversary uses the government to write laws, then certainly to be "avenged of my adversary" might include getting those laws changed.

I disagree with this. Jesus was talking about individual disciples persevering in prayer. That prayer was something to be persistently and consistently done in secret, before the Father in heaven. That parable had nothing to do with government, its laws, or the Church.

[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.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Secondly is a teaching I heard from W. Nee. The gist of the message was that the Lord's first coming solved all of our problems on a personal level, but none of society's problems will ever be solved until His second coming. There's much truth in what he taught.

Actually, this particular teaching in the LCs has always bothered me. We often say that the only way to bring peace to this earth is to bring Christ back. That part is true. However, many of the LC leaders continue on to say that what the UN and all other organizations are doing is useless because it will never bring peace. Also many in the Recovery interpret this statement as "All we need to do is to grow in life to bring Christ back; anything else we do is useless." ie... it is useless to help the poor, help stop wars, help with non-profit organizations that make the world a better place to live. Because the only way to resolve all problems in society is Christ's second coming. I have to disagree with this. This is a dangerous statement. We are living in a country that is *relatively* safe and wealthy because someone before us did something to make this country a better place to live. They didn't just live Christ and pray. They fought in wars for our freedom. Many lives were sacrificed. Not just from wars, but those who were part of various movements (ie. the civil rights movement). I am grateful to those we *did* something to make our society a better place to live. They did not just *wait* for Christ's second return.

We need to be careful when we say *none* of society's problems can be solved until Christ's second coming. Many problems can be solved without Christ's second coming, but not all. I hope as good citizens, we will contribute to the solving of some of the problems in society.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Actually, this particular teaching in the LCs has always bothered me.

This is an area where Christians agree to disagree. It is not too dissimilar to the supposed reaction to persecution. In church history some Christians have taken the Lord's pattern as a lamb to suffer martyrdom willingly. Other believers, like the Waldensians, took King David as their pattern to arm themselves for battle in defense of their women and children.

Talking to one brother years ago, he commented that we all have a "line in the sand." We may all say, like Peter did, that we will die willingly as the Lord did, as a lamb prepared for slaughter, until they begin to rape your wife and young daughter, as so often happened during the dark ages by the Papal emissaries, and once they cross that line, all passivity ceases.

I personally don't think some defining "way" is mandated in the scripture. The Lord told His disciples, when facing persecutions, to take no thought what to say, because our Heavenly Father will give us words to say, and actions to take.

Anyways I digress. My point is that the Lord is not "one size fits all." He directs different brothers in diverse ways.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Truth

Actually, this particular teaching in the LCs has always bothered me. We often say that the only way to bring peace to this earth is to bring Christ back. That part is true. However, many of the LC leaders continue on to say that what the UN and all other organizations are doing is useless because it will never bring peace. Also many in the Recovery interpret this statement as "All we need to do is to grow in life to bring Christ back; anything else we do is useless." ie... it is useless to help the poor, help stop wars, help with non-profit organizations that make the world a better place to live. Because the only way to resolve all problems in society is Christ's second coming. I have to disagree with this. This is a dangerous statement. We are living in a country that is *relatively* safe and wealthy because someone before us did something to make this country a better place to live. They didn't just live Christ and pray. They fought in wars for our freedom. Many lives were sacrificed. Not just from wars, but those who were part of various movements (ie. the civil rights movement). I am grateful to those we *did* something to make our society a better place to live. They did not just *wait* for Christ's second return.

We need to be careful when we say *none* of society's problems can be solved until Christ's second coming. Many problems can be solved without Christ's second coming, but not all. I hope as good citizens, we will contribute to the solving of some of the problems in society.

I'm with you here, Truth. The Bible clearly commands us to "do good works" and included in those works are helping the poor and seeking justice. That covers a lot of territory.

Of course, the natural thought is to use the force of law to accomplish these goals (that's what political means ultimately do, leverage the force of law).

However, we know that the work of the Holy Spirit in men's hearts is more important than the force of man's law. However, often the effect of changed hearts is changed law, which is definitely a benefit. So there is some gray area. Our work is spiritual. But it has practical effects in this age. That's what salt of the earth means.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm with you here, Truth. The Bible clearly commands us to "do good works" and included in those works are helping the poor and seeking justice. That covers a lot of territory.

Of course, the natural thought is to use the force of law to accomplish these goals (that's what political means ultimately do, leverage the force of law).

However, we know that the work of the Holy Spirit in men's hearts is more important than the force of man's law. However, often the effect of changed hearts is changed law, which is definitely a benefit. So there is some gray area. Our work is spiritual. But it has practical effects in this age. That's what salt of the earth means.

I agree. I'll accept this definition that Politics refers to the means by which we accomplish the goals of seeking justice and helping the poor. We certainly have been admonished in the NT to do both of these. The question becomes have we been admonished to use political means to accomplish them or not? I think this is a bizarre question that stems from super spirituality (to become so spiritual that you are of no earthly good).

As Christians we are trained in the way of righteousness. We are given a model of God's Holy laws in the Bible. We are destined to rule and reign with Christ. The constitution of this country was specifically written to give us both the right and responsibility to take part in the governance. You could of course do this while making sure you didn't reference Bible verses, but that is an unfair requirement. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that we should hide our faith or beliefs while walking in this world.

I would agree that much of what is done in the political arena is designed to smear the Bible or discredit it. But that just means it is even more incumbent on believers to stand up for what they believe and stop being "silent". To teach Christians to be a silent voice in this country is, imho, the worship of dumb idols.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Disciple

to become so spiritual that you are of no earthly good

Love it.

Welcome Disciple. Great post. Please consider signing up for full membership in the forum. But please continue to post, regardless.

Igzy

[Cal]

It's important to consider that perhaps the reason the Bible doesn't give us examples of using politics to accomplish spiritual results is that democratic advocacy was not exactly the norm in ancient days. The aristocracy had political influence because they had money. But the idea of a lowly nobody having a "vote" was a foreign concept to the ancients.

If the Lord had told a bunch of fisherman to start a political advocacy organization they would have really been scratching their heads.

Things have changed. Now we have democracy. The common people can participate in politics and attempt to influence government. Surely for Christians to completely ignore this opportunity is irresponsible and backward.

[OBW]

A different way of putting some of the arguments against trying to force laws to reflect Christian morality:

I have a command to love others. To care for the widow and orphan. And so forth.

And I can do it by doing it myself, or with a group of like-minded Christians.

Or I can do it by legislating that you give up some of your funds to do it. (Seems that there is a political party that already does a lot of that. And a lot of Christians doubt and claim of being "Christian" for some of them.)

Same goes for morality laws. I don't disagree with legislating what society agrees with as necessary rules. But to legislate Christian morality is to exact human justice now for issues that God will judge them for later. Things like adultery. And if you say that you wouldn't legislate that, then how do you decide where to draw the line between secular and "spiritual" laws?

Be as involved in politics as you are lead. Be honest and righteous in it. "Vote your conscience." But don't legislate the BEMA for the benefit of the heathen.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's important to consider that perhaps the reason the Bible doesn't give us examples of using politics to accomplish spiritual results is that democratic advocacy was not exactly the norm in ancient days. The aristocracy had political influence because they had money. But the idea of a lowly nobody having a "vote" was a foreign concept to the ancients.

If the Lord had told a bunch of fisherman to start a political advocacy organization they would have really been scratching their heads.

Things have changed. Now we have democracy. The common people can participate in politics and attempt to influence government. Surely for Christians to completely ignore this opportunity is irresponsible and backward.

There's a difference between being an engaged democratic citizen as a Christian and invoking God as the basis for one's argument.

Your historical point doesn't hold up.

I'm not advocating that people don't get involved in politics. I'm saying they shouldn't use the Lord's name when they do so.

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Disciple

I agree. I'll accept this definition that Politics refers to the means by which we accomplish the goals of seeking justice and helping the poor. We certainly have been admonished in the NT to do both of these. The question becomes have we been admonished to use political means to accomplish them or not? I think this is a bizarre question that stems from super spirituality (to become so spiritual that you are of no earthly good).

As Christians we are trained in the way of righteousness. We are given a model of God's Holy laws in the Bible. We are destined to rule and reign with Christ. The constitution of this country was specifically written to give us both the right and responsibility to take part in the governance. You could of course do this while making sure you didn't reference Bible verses, but that is an unfair requirement. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that we should hide our faith or beliefs while walking in this world....

Wow. This argument is so amazingly smug and lacking in Christian humilty. I'm sorry. I don't say this intellectually - I have just personally experienced - myself and GOOD christians I care for - be bulldozed by such arguments (not just in the LC). So I am going to respond with some rigor.

Here's you're argument:

1) As a Christian, I know "justice" and "righteousness" (if you don't believe me, trust me, "I was trained in the way of it").

2) I have the blueprint for justice (God's laws, memorized word-for-word. Forget that Jesus told many people who had God's laws memorized that they were "workers of lawlessness").

3) The Constitution says its okay for me to participate with my all-knowingness.

(*oh yeah, I forgot the part that I'm destined to rule and reign, so I should get some practice now)

Of course, I editorialized. But that's what you argued. Straight up.

Do you realize I could have made your exact same argument, word for word, even if Christ had never accomplished what He has and as if Christ isn't doing what He is doing???????? In what way, if at all, do you incorporate the New Covenant into your argument????????.


You set up a straw-man of the “over-spiritual do-nothing.” These people exist. Yet, not a SINGLE one has posted on this thread. NO ONE on this thread has advocated that. The only person on this thread who has advocated not bringing God into politics was me – and I wasn’t advocating doing nothing or keeping silent. Thus, I can only surmise that your post was directed at my posts. Except, my argument was nuanced and mindful of both sides of the argument. So lets be clear and talk to each other rather than to imagined arguments.

Straw men are easy to create. There is another straw-man that I could just as easily create. Here’s the recipe:

Take an extremely complicated and delicate human AND spiritual concept such as “justice,” reduce it to a few concrete issues, use some Bible verses to support your position on that narrow issue, and then commence with self-righteousess and condemnation of others. Oh, and pass laws based on that which will cover people who don’t even share your faith.

Whatever else get’s accomplished by invoking God in human politics, two things DEFINITELY get accomplished: 1) self-righteousness and 2) condemnation of others. I am not saying they were the mindful goal, but they are the only definite consequences. The other benefits – such as your un-defined notion of “justice,” or any other supposed “goal,” are debatable as to whether they were achieved. There are a number of other possible negative consequences too, though these are also debatable. But these two things are guarantees.

The same cannot be said of other kinds of advocacy or seeking justice as Christians in our society: non-political ministries to the poor, to would-be mothers, to struggling marriages, to kids who aren’t getting educated. These things don’t necessarily entail self-righteousness or condemnation. It might still be debatable how successful we are. But I trust the motives far more, since there isn’t the built-in guaranteed result of self-righteousness and condemnation.

Let’s talk about this “justice” you invoke to justify bringing God into politics. First, WHOSE Justice? God’s? If so, why aren’t we trying to pass crimes against lust, hating our brother, coveting. These are all SINS. In fact, they are more directly tied to the Ten Commandments than, say, homosexuality. And why aren’t we advocating the DEATH SENTENCE, since that is what God’s JUSTICE requires for sin? Do we really purport to be able to enact how GOD would govern?

Okay, so maybe we’re nuanced enough to realize we can’t possibly approximate GOD’S JUSTICE in human politics and wouldn’t even know where to begin (please tell me this isn’t a debatable point).

So then, whose Justice? Is it really that simple a concept that you can purport to know what it should look like? What I see, more often than not (on both sides of the political spectrum), when people invoke extremely complicated concepts like Justice as if it was a blunt instrument, is people usurping spiritual language to justify whatever the heck they want to do.


Have you ever read Michael Sandal’s book JUSTICE? He actually argues that we should have MORE moral debates in politics, not less. Because what we have now is “ideological food fights” rather than moral debate. Debate requires the humility that you might be persuaded (even if doubtful). I can recommend quite a few other books on “pursing Justice” and the political process if you’d really like to get into this, as opposed to tossing the word “JUSTICE” around as a banner above whatever it is one might be arguing. If you'd rather not getting into defining what "Justice" means, then lets leave it out of the argument.

I take moral civic engagement very seriously. And I take exercising my faith in the world toward concrete ends very seriously. That is different than bringing God’s name (and often His supposed “will”) into enacting laws for human government.

So, your point about not “over-spiritualizing” in order to justify “doing nothing,” is well taken. Except, I already knew that and evidenced it in previous posts. Do you acknowledge the dangers I flag here – of using complicated spiritual principles as blunt instruments to enact whatever human agenda one sees fit?

Pardon my intense tone. I've just seen too many people damaged by the kind of hubris at the bottom of your comments.

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I really do mean "In Love." I do hope you continue to post on this and other topics so that we can engage on numerous levels. I bark a little on this thread, in defense of humility when interacting with fellow citizens. I really am much more mushy on other topics... !!!!

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by OBW

A different way of putting some of the arguments against trying to force laws to reflect Christian morality:

I have a command to love others. To care for the widow and orphan. And so forth.

And I can do it by doing it myself, or with a group of like-minded Christians.

Or I can do it by legislating that you give up some of your funds to do it. (Seems that there is a political party that already does a lot of that. And a lot of Christians doubt and claim of being "Christian" for some of them.)

Same goes for morality laws. I don't disagree with legislating what society agrees with as necessary rules. But to legislate Christian morality is to exact human justice now for issues that God will judge them for later. Things like adultery. And if you say that you wouldn't legislate that, then how do you decide where to draw the line between secular and "spiritual" laws?

Be as involved in politics as you are lead. Be honest and righteous in it. "Vote your conscience." But don't legislate the BEMA for the benefit of the heathen.

As usual, OBW makes the point better, and with more tact, than I (though I don't know what BEMA is?).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

As usual, OBW makes the point better, and with more tact, than I (though I don't know what BEMA is?).

The BEMA is Greek, translated into English as "judgment seat'. It is from Paul's "We shall all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ" (2 Cor 5:10).

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Wow. This argument is so amazingly smug and lacking in Christian humilty.

Obviously you feel strongly about this so perhaps we can have an intelligent and civil discussion. I think I can understand where you are coming from but will try to not assume. I would also point out that there is such a thing as "false humility". Since it is quite current and relevant to the current political situation in the US I would refer to Ayn Rand. Although I feel she was seriously mistaken in her beliefs, I also think that it is very instructive as to how she formed these beliefs and why they resonate with millions of people. (I will address the rest of your post in a later post, for now I want to frame the argument so that we are both talking about the same thing).

She grew up in Russia and witnesses first hand being "bulldozed" by the politics of the day which seized businesses that people built up under a pretense of altruism, the greater good, being charitable, etc. Perhaps I oversimplify, I am really not interested in the biography of Ayn Rand, only the context of what happened in Russia.

So then, why did people allow their government to seize businesses and attack an ethnic minority? Obviously one group that was clearly targeted and attacked at this time were the Jews, but they were certainly not the only group. More importantly what is the proper response? Should the Jews have fought? How should they have stood up for their rights?

To answer that question I am not interested in anyone's philosophy, I am interested in an example of a persecuted minority standing up to an unrighteous government successfully. Mahatma Ghandi obviously comes first to mind, and Martin Luther King Jr. also comes to mind. Malcolm X is a third example albeit a little more complex.

In every case it took faith for them to stand up and speak to the mountain to be cast into the sea. In every case these were men of faith who did not hide their faith. In every case these men did not bind themselves with requirements to not speak of their faith or of their God.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Let’s talk about this “justice” you invoke to justify bringing God into politics. First, WHOSE Justice? God’s?

For example, when I talk about Justice in Politics I am thinking of the civil rights movement and the bombing in Birmingham of the little girls in the church. To me the proper way to respond to that is given by the Lord in the gospels where he talked about the widow going to the unrighteous judge. Why did the "unrighteous judge" listen to her? Because she was causing him trouble. Why did the unrighteous judge in Montgomery listen to them? Because of the bus boycott which caused them trouble.

Could the civil rights movement have been successful without meeting in churches, coordinating in churches and having pastors run the movement? No. The pastors were men that the community trusted, and they were educated and they had an existing network that allowed them to coordinate locally and nationally.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Things have changed. Now we have democracy. The common people can participate in politics and attempt to influence government. Surely for Christians to completely ignore this opportunity is irresponsible and backward.

I grew up in a liberal family and today I am a liberal: a bleeding heart, leftist liberal. To me, it has nothing to do with my faith, which I would categorize as conservative, evangelical fundamentalist. I vote as a citizen, not as a Christian. I use logic and think as a taxpayer and a human. I find both current major parties and their candidates to be dismaying, but I go in and vote anyway.

Today, occasionally I write a letter to the paper. But mostly my interests and efforts lie elsewhere. In the past, however, I got very involved in elections, causes, and debates about current events. And I did so as a fellow citizen who happened to be a Christian. I appreciate living in a free society and interacting at whatever level I want to. And also that I can vote anonymously and don't have to wear my bias on my sleeve (and believe me, we are all biased. Only God is "fair and balanced").

I would like to reference Igzy's comments on Christians using politics to influence democratic society, and that not attempting such is "irresponsible and backward". John the Baptist tried to influence Herod and got imprisoned. While he was there, he got impatient waiting for Jesus' influence in the political process, and sent messengers with a rather pointed question: "Are You the Christ, or should we (read: I) look for another?"

Jesus told the messengers, "Tell John what you see. The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."

Jesus didn't say, "John, if this was a democracy I would try to influence the political process, but since we're in an autocracy too bad for you. I must limit Myself to 'good works' ". No, I think Jesus' kingdom was on another level. Different from John, different from Herod, different from democracy. He wasn't trying to change the rules, nor enforce them (see His "Man, who appointed me a judge over you?" in Luke 12:14 -- contrast to Solomon's grandson Absalom in 2 Samuel 15:4: "Oh, if only I could be a judge!").

There was an interesting song I heard in the early '70s. It was from a "rock opera". In one scene Jesus was coming into Jerusalem, and the crowds were gathering in anticipation: the pretender Herod would be tossed out (the line of David had been absent power for centuries), the Romans as well, and the glory of Israel would return. The crowd, including the disciples, were expecting "power and glory" from Jesus' ascension.

Jesus sings "Neither you, Simon, nor the fifty thousand, nor the Romans, nor the Jews, nor Judas, nor the twelve, nor the priests, nor the scribes, nor doomed Jerusalem itself, understand what power is, understand what glory is, understand at all."

The more I read the Bible, and interact with Christians, the more I sense this. We don't understand at all. If we did, the world would look very different.

Here is a link to the song; the quote is at 3:15. I was reading Igzy's and Disciple's comments and suddenly these lyrics started playing in my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYfAIt1spGo

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

So then, whose Justice? Is it really that simple a concept that you can purport to know what it should look like? What I see, more often than not (on both sides of the political spectrum), when people invoke extremely complicated concepts like Justice as if it was a blunt instrument, is people usurping spiritual language to justify whatever the heck they want to do.

Have you ever read Michael Sandal’s book JUSTICE? He actually argues that we should have MORE moral debates in politics, not less. Because what we have now is “ideological food fights” rather than moral debate. Debate requires the humility that you might be persuaded (even if doubtful). I can recommend quite a few other books on “pursing Justice” and the political process if you’d really like to get into this, as opposed to tossing the word “JUSTICE” around as a banner above whatever it is one might be arguing. If you'd rather not getting into defining what "Justice" means, then lets leave it out of the argument.

I take moral civic engagement very seriously. And I take exercising my faith in the world toward concrete ends very seriously. That is different than bringing God’s name (and often His supposed “will”) into enacting laws for human government.

So, your point about not “over-spiritualizing” in order to justify “doing nothing,” is well taken. Except, I already knew that and evidenced it in previous posts. Do you acknowledge the dangers I flag here – of using complicated spiritual principles as blunt instruments to enact whatever human agenda one sees fit?

Unless I missed something, is this the only question in that long, bitterly scathing and caustic diatribe?

To answer the question, yes I am aware. I am aware that when you go to war you should not underestimate your opponent. I am also aware of the expression "all is fair in love and war" implying that when you lose the war you cannot complain that "they cheated". You have to be prepared for lies, cheating, deceit, etc. If you are not prepared, don't go to war. It is clear in the OT that not everyone in Israel was required to be in the Army. It is also clear in Ephesians, that the Church is to be the Army of God.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Pardon my intense tone. I've just seen too many people damaged by the kind of hubris at the bottom of your comments.

I can pardon the tone. What I find offense at is your accusation of hubris. Throughout your entire harangue which I found devoid of "christian humility" you assume that you know me, understand me, and then judge me to be arrogant. You didn't make any effort to "get to the bottom of my comments".

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I really do mean "In Love." I do hope you continue to post on this and other topics so that we can engage on numerous levels. I bark a little on this thread, in defense of humility when interacting with fellow citizens. I really am much more mushy on other topics... !!!!

Yes, I have seen this form of "love" previously in the Local Church. I think you are deceived as to what "love" is and I really do mean "deceived". I would be very interested in engaging in a discussion, but if this rant is the style to be expected here then no, this will be the last I post.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

P.S. I really do mean "In Love." I do hope you continue to post on this and other topics so that we can engage on numerous levels. I bark a little on this thread, in defense of humility when interacting with fellow citizens. I really am much more mushy on other topics... !!!!

If you agree that the Civil Rights movement in the US was an example of political involvement in order to change laws and seek justice, then I would continue discussing your view about not bringing the name of God or the word of God into the battle.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here's you're argument:

1) As a Christian, I know "justice" and "righteousness" (if you don't believe me, trust me, "I was trained in the way of it").

2) I have the blueprint for justice (God's laws, memorized word-for-word. Forget that Jesus told many people who had God's laws memorized that they were "workers of lawlessness").

3) The Constitution says its okay for me to participate with my all-knowingness.

(*oh yeah, I forgot the part that I'm destined to rule and reign, so I should get some practice now)

Of course, I editorialized. But that's what you argued. Straight up.

I was unable to put the "quoted" material into my previous post. Clearly this is not a direct quote from my post, to portray it as though it was is disingenuous. Then to say this is what I argued "straight up" is a lie.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Disciple

Clearly this is not a direct quote from my post, to portray it as though it was is disingenuous. Then to say this is what I argued "straight up" is a lie.

Disciple,

My sense was that Peter was making a characterization of your argument. To me this is like if someone ran through a theater shouting "Flames! Smoke! Heat!" and Peter said that they ran through a theater shouting "Fire!" that person could say, "That is a lie. I never used the word, 'Fire' ". I felt he was characterizing your argument, even though he presented his characterization as quotes. And I felt his characterization was fairly accurate, though it might have been a bit too vehement (this from one whose posts are often too vehement, in retrospect).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Disciple,

My sense was that Peter was making a characterization of your argument. To me this is like if someone ran through a theater shouting "Flames! Smoke! Heat!" and Peter said that they ran through a theater shouting "Fire!" that person could say, "That is a lie. I never used the word, 'Fire' ". I felt he was characterizing your post, even though he presented them if they were quotes. And I felt his characterization was fairly accurate, though it might have been a bit too vehement (this from one whose posts are mostly too vehement, in retrospect).

I found this thread to be quite engaging to me personally, exploring areas that I long have questioned, learning from diverse posters. We were just presenting ideas for others to consider.

Then Disciple jumped in with a fervent opinion. I have heard it before, but I passed on it since he is new to the forum, and it's hard to know what someone really thinks based on a short post. I think it would be better if Disciple register and then begin to elaborate his/her views being mindful of prior discussions. That said, Peter D's paraphrased quote of your post did seem to take on unintended liberty.

Can we all please turn the volume down so this discussion does not get closed down. I, for one, hear much better this way.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Disciple

It is clear in the OT that not everyone in Israel was required to be in the Army. It is also clear in Ephesians, that the Church is to be the Army of God.

Isn't this an over-simplification? Is it not more in keeping with the text of Ephesians to state that the Church has an aspect of being an army? Or that the metaphor of an army is a good way to describe some aspect of the church?

I would suggest that there are parallels. But the bulk of the NT does not describe an army. Rather, it describes the changing of lives and the propagation of the gospel that changes those lives. In focusing on the goals, an army may be a good metaphor. But the way that the church actually goes about accomplishing its goals is mostly un-army-like. So if you read Ephesians and you come away with "the Church is to be the Army of God" then I believe that you missed the point. Especially if you think that the goal of that army is to set out and do battle with the earthly rulers and force God's justice upon them.

God can "do" his justice very well without out us.

And did you catch the equivocation above? I first used "justice" the way we use it when we get on political discussions. I used it as the term for the judging and meting out of punishment of a court (kangaroo or otherwise). But in the Bible, justice is mostly used in a very different way. There is a connection. But it is not about discovering, accusing, and punishing. It is about changing our being such that we recognize how society has outcast God's children (in the sense that mankind is all God's children) and reach out to bring them back into the fold.

Yes, as Christians we like to include the preaching of the gospel with that effort. But it is not always the immediate need. And if you realize that your changed life reaching out to a marginalized person is part of the gospel, then you realize that you do not always need to say anything to have preached at least part of the gospel. Just plant a seed with your actions. Or water the seed that another has left behind. God will make it grow.

Where is the "army" in that? Maybe in the fact that we are all in agreement about it. And all engaged in some way in it. But not in the way of "marching to war." The government is not our enemy. That may be easier to say in the US than in some other places. But even if the government is an enemy, no government is the kingdom, or a theocracy (at least not relative to the One True God). And in terms of the mission of the kingdom and the gospel, the government is not the enemy. Satan is. The snares that bind people from hearing and seeing the truth are the enemy. You may argue that the allowances of government assist this. And that may be true.

But we are not fighting against people. And that is what you do when you fight the government. You fight against people. Even against your own kind (Christian). Note that at least one among us who is clearly Christian has admitted to not being a Reagan Republican. If you are simply fighting liberals, then you fight your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Just like the arguments on this forum, we are free to differ and discuss. We can disagree with our brothers and sisters on matters of politics. And we should be willing to accept that it is just the way it is. And discuss our different opinions and thoughts. Try to persuade. Do not always think that you will be the one persuading and the others will be the persuaded.

How do you think I came to this kind of conclusion? It was not by being so certain that what I already thought was perfectly right and sticking to my guns and shouting at everyone else. If that was the case, maybe I should have stuck with the Assemblies of God. Or after moving to the LRC, sticking with that.

And maybe I would have made a great far-right, Tea Party conservative. Not any more. I'm still far from anything truly liberal. But the Tea Party guys think I've gone there. It's all black and white to them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Disciple

It is clear in the OT that not everyone in Israel was required to be in the Army. It is also clear in Ephesians, that the Church is to be the Army of God.

I also have to protest the implications of this statement.

The reason is that Christians often lose sight of who their enemy is. This analogy has been used often in church history to justify a myriad of atrocities. The Apostle Paul clarified this in another verse by saying that, "we wrestle not with flesh and blood."

Yes, we are an army, even the army of God, but no, we don't fight with anyone that we can see!

Our fight is with the unseen. We "fight the good fight," not in the courtrooms nor with guns nor with political back-stabbing, but through prayer. We need to know who our enemy is. Our enemy is not our brother.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also have to protest the implications of this statement.

The reason is that Christians often lose sight of who their enemy is. This analogy has been used often in church history to justify a myriad of atrocities. The Apostle Paul clarified this in another verse by saying that, "we wrestle not with flesh and blood."

Yes, we are an army, even the army of God, but no, we don't fight with anyone that we can see!

Our fight is with the unseen. We "fight the good fight," not in the courtrooms nor with guns nor with political back-stabbing, but through prayer. We need to know who our enemy is. Our enemy is not our brother.

Yes there are many implications of this statement, which is why I gave numerous examples to define the context and limit the implications. I gave three in particular: Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. To be sure, only one had the testimony of being a Christian and this was intentional. To say that these three saw their ministry as "a war" is not unreasonable. To say that these three saw their supporters as members of an army is also a very reasonable analogy. To say that this analogy is supported by the NT is scriptural.

[Peter Debelak]

Dear Disciple:

I apologize for placing my characterization of your argument as if it was a quote. I wasn't thinking. I was trying to "set off" a part of MY post, since lengthy posts (which mine tend to be) can be hard to read (yes, often for more than one reason).

I am also sorry I did not first ask you to elaborate. I should have done this.

To that end, there were a few other genuine questions in my post:

1) WHOSE Justice do you refer to when you advocate for invoking God in politics?

2) I noted that your argument could be made based solely on Old Testament principles; In what way do you incorporate the New Covenant into your argument?

As a final note, I do agree that the Civil Rights movement was an attempt to seek justice.

I know this doesn't erase my tone, but I would much rather discuss the substance of each other's arguments than get into a "food fight." So, take this, if you will, as a mea culpa.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Dear Disciple:

I apologize for placing my characterization of your argument as if it was a quote. I wasn't thinking. I was trying to "set off" a part of MY post, since lengthy posts (which mine tend to be) can be hard to read (yes, often for more than one reason).

I am also sorry I did not first ask you to elaborate. I should have done this.

To that end, there were a few other genuine questions in my post:

1) WHOSE Justice do you refer to when you advocate for invoking God in politics?

2) I noted that your argument could be made based solely on Old Testament principles; In what way do you incorporate the New Covenant into your argument?

As a final note, I do agree that the Civil Rights movement was an attempt to seek justice.

I know this doesn't erase my tone, but I would much rather discuss the substance of each other's arguments than get into a "food fight." So, take this, if you will, as a mea culpa.

Accepted.

1. I would like to constrain the discussion to specific examples. Obviously the intent of the thread had Perry and Palin in mind. But in my mind I am thinking of Ghandi, King, and Malcolm X. But I brought up Ayn Rand to include the Russian Pogrom and the German holocaust and by extension other genocides like the Armenian, Pol Pot, Rwanda, etc. In each case a "minority" was singled out since by definition they are smaller, weaker and easier to bully. I suppose I am talking of the "justice" from the oppressed point of view.

2. I believe that the strategy of passive resistance as advocated by Ghandi, adopted by King and later acknowledged by Malcolm X is the strategy that I am thinking of and this idea had a NT origination. When you read Ghandi he makes a case for, supports and even suggests that his idea was inspired by Jesus' words. Now to require him to have done what he did without bringing the Bible into it would have been a huge disadvantage for him.

Likewise King made a case for this approach based fully on the New Testament. He admonished his supporters with New Testament principles and his speeches were filled with Biblical references. To have put him under the constraint of not using the Bible would have been a huge disadvantage.

Malcolm X had many justifiable outrages towards hypocritical Christians. Yet he also was swayed in the end by both his personal experience and the Bible. His personal experience was completely entwined with his believe in God. It was his visit to Mecca that converted him to embrace passive resistance.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Disciple

Obviously you feel strongly about this so perhaps we can have an intelligent and civil discussion. I think I can understand where you are coming from but will try to not assume. I would also point out that there is such a thing as "false humility". Since it is quite current and relevant to the current political situation in the US I would refer to Ayn Rand. Although I feel she was seriously mistaken in her beliefs, I also think that it is very instructive as to how she formed these beliefs and why they resonate with millions of people. (I will address the rest of your post in a later post, for now I want to frame the argument so that we are both talking about the same thing).

She grew up in Russia and witnesses first hand being "bulldozed" by the politics of the day which seized businesses that people built up under a pretense of altruism, the greater good, being charitable, etc. Perhaps I oversimplify, I am really not interested in the biography of Ayn Rand, only the context of what happened in Russia.

So then, why did people allow their government to seize businesses and attack an ethnic minority? Obviously one group that was clearly targeted and attacked at this time were the Jews, but they were certainly not the only group. More importantly what is the proper response? Should the Jews have fought? How should they have stood up for their rights?

To answer that question I am not interested in anyone's philosophy, I am interested in an example of a persecuted minority standing up to an unrighteous government successfully. Mahatma Ghandi obviously comes first to mind, and Martin Luther King Jr. also comes to mind. Malcolm X is a third example albeit a little more complex.

In every case it took faith for them to stand up and speak to the mountain to be cast into the sea. In every case these were men of faith who did not hide their faith. In every case these men did not bind themselves with requirements to not speak of their faith or of their God.

What happened in Russia is a good example of the sort of thing that I'm arguing against. I have long argued this about Communism in particular. Theoretically, the theory can be defended. The problem comes in when you impose a "religion" on a diverse population. All sorts of unintended negative consequences flow from it.

Ghandi and MLK are very good examples of "seeking justice" in politics. And I would agree that they tood their stands because of their faith. I would argue, though, that their public presentation did not need to invoke "God's will" in order to have a powerful moral force. Both of their arguments could be made by invoking premises that everyone in their audience could engage with, regardless of faith. Indeed, Ghandi was very careful when it came to attaching his arguments to a faith. As soon as he died, the coalition of diverse faiths (at least of Hindu and Muslim) fell apart.

Thoughts on this?

Peter

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

What happened in Russia is a good example of the sort of thing that I'm arguing against. I have long argued this about Communism in particular. Theoretically, the theory can be defended. The problem comes in when you impose a "religion" on a diverse population. All sorts of unintended negative consequences flow from it.

Ghandi and MLK are very good examples of "seeking justice" in politics. And I would agree that they tood their stands because of their faith. I would argue, though, that their public presentation did not need to invoke "God's will" in order to have a powerful moral force. Both of their arguments could be made by invoking premises that everyone in their audience could engage with, regardless of faith. Indeed, Ghandi was very careful when it came to attaching his arguments to a faith. As soon as he died, the coalition of diverse faiths (at least of Hindu and Muslim) fell apart.

Thoughts on this?

Peter

A second source that greatly influenced Gandhi is the “New Testament” in the Bible. A particular Bible verse that greatly inspired Gandhi is in the book of “Matthew,” “‘Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also’”(NIV Bible 1540). Gandhi, although a devout Hindu, was tolerant of all religions and continuously studied the Bible along with other religious books. Gandhi believed that if one “turned the other cheek,” then overtime the enemy would have no other choice but to respect that person for their self-control. Gandhi adopted and expanded his belief in peaceful, non-violent resistance or satyagraha from the Bible, for “Jesus suggested a new, radical response to injustice: instead of demanding rights, give them up freely! According to Jesus, it is more important to give justice and mercy than to receive it” (NIV Bible 1541). Even though Gandhi advocated satyagraha, he did not support passive resistance. (Taken from http://mgandhi.weebly.com/influences.html)

The first source of influence was David Thoreau who probably follows your model of not “invoking God or the Bible”.

You might not realize that Ghandi once published an article called “Crime of reading the Bible” because he was being accused of being a secret Christian. He saw this as a sign that religious intolerance was sweeping through India. But the influence of the Bible on Ghandi and that he read the Bible for his entire life is undeniable.

Obviously Martin Luther King Jr used the Bible extensively in his speeches and essentially codified passive resistance as a narrow way to take to get justice. But what I find much more important is the integral part that the church played in that battle. It wasn’t merely a speech that convinced people, all the hard work was done by the church. The little girls martyred in the basement of the church were probably the single most important event of the movement.

As for Malcolm X he said “I believe in a religion that believes in freedom. Any time I have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my people, I say to hell with that religion.” I think that sums up my position.


(PS Igzy, I read your Mom's advice and I anticipated that. I have made a copy of the post in question, just in case. Also, sorry for all of these posts, I felt I had to respond and did not originally intend all of this.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Disciple

Accepted.

1. I would like to constrain the discussion to specific examples. Obviously the intent of the thread had Perry and Palin in mind. But in my mind I am thinking of Ghandi, King, and Malcolm X. But I brought up Ayn Rand to include the Russian Pogrom and the German holocaust and by extension other genocides like the Armenian, Pol Pot, Rwanda, etc. In each case a "minority" was singled out since by definition they are smaller, weaker and easier to bully. I suppose I am talking of the "justice" from the oppressed point of view.

2. I believe that the strategy of passive resistance as advocated by Ghandi, adopted by King and later acknowledged by Malcolm X is the strategy that I am thinking of and this idea had a NT origination. When you read Ghandi he makes a case for, supports and even suggests that his idea was inspired by Jesus' words. Now to require him to have done what he did without bringing the Bible into it would have been a huge disadvantage for him.

Likewise King made a case for this approach based fully on the New Testament. He admonished his supporters with New Testament principles and his speeches were filled with Biblical references. To have put him under the constraint of not using the Bible would have been a huge disadvantage.

Malcolm X had many justifiable outrages towards hypocritical Christians. Yet he also was swayed in the end by both his personal experience and the Bible. His personal experience was completely entwined with his believe in God. It was his visit to Mecca that converted him to embrace passive resistance.

Your posts have moved us from "should we bring God's will and God's name into politics," to a much different topic of "what is justified when a people are repressed." There is just too much disparity and diversity to even follow this type of discussion.

I think the example of MLK is a good one, because of how the KKK used scripture for its own rotten justifications. Both attempted to apply God's "justice" to the same conflict, albeit in very different ways. PeterD might say that this is reason enough to keep God's will out of the fight. Disciple might say this is reason to keep God's will front and center.

At least if we stay in context of American political movements we can understand one another. Wandering around the globe and throughout history makes discussions difficult.

Agreed? At least we have a better chance of staying on topic.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Disciple

Accepted.

1. I would like to constrain the discussion to specific examples. Obviously the intent of the thread had Perry and Palin in mind. But in my mind I am thinking of Ghandi, King, and Malcolm X. But I brought up Ayn Rand to include the Russian Pogrom and the German holocaust and by extension other genocides like the Armenian, Pol Pot, Rwanda, etc. In each case a "minority" was singled out since by definition they are smaller, weaker and easier to bully. I suppose I am talking of the "justice" from the oppressed point of view.

(my emphasis).

This is a good place to start. I'd like to tease out this point of view first before getting into specific examples, if that is okay. I find it helpful to identify the common features of the examples, so that our analysis can transfer when we look at other, modern, examples.

First, the fact that the one invoking the Bible is in an oppressed position - rather than in a power position - does make them a little more sympathetic. They are requesting "more liberty" rather than seeking to deny it to others.

For example, I do have more sympathy for a slave who quotes "Let my people go!" than the slave owner who quotes "slaves, obey your masters."

But here's the thing, simply because there are examples of people invoking the Bible in politics that I agree with, doesn't mean that its a good practice. Especially in cases where there are people being oppressed, one can make very strong moral arguments without hinting at what God's will may or may not be in that situation. The case is strong without using a method (invoking God or the Bible) that we'd balk at if others did the same.

Furthermore, the cases you bring up are the extreme cases. We may even need to consider them "special cases." In modern America, blacks are still the minority. Though it would be a lot less crystal clear that they are oppressed (some argue they are, others not).

The same kind of sympathy/agreement I have wil the slave quoting to Bible in order to obtain freedom doesn't carry over to the case where someone is quoting the Bible in order to get an affirmative action policy passed.

Which brings me to another point I have made: there is a difference between speaking out to "change hearts and minds" in general society versus trying to get a specific law passed as the presumed solution to a problem.

I gave the example before of the neo-nazis marching in predominately Jewish Skoakie Illinois. I TOTALLY would have beem there to protest their march. And I may have even quoted the Bible in support of my arguments. But that would be very different than trying to get hate-speech legislation passed. The former I would agree with, the latter no.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Do you realize I could have made your exact same argument, word for word, even if Christ had never accomplished what He has and as if Christ isn't doing what He is doing???????? In what way, if at all, do you incorporate the New Covenant into your argument????????.

The Sermon on the Mount is fundamental to the New Covenant. I'll begin there.
Matthew
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

This is the foundation of the passive resistance that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. used. For example during the bus boycott. The law was that Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. This is like be smitten on the cheek. Deciding that if you won't let us sit in the front we also won't sit in the back is like turning the other cheek.

Of course, imho, the best example of turing the other cheek is Jesus willingly going to the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus is absolutely critical in the New Covenant and is set as an example for all believers when Jesus said that we must take up our cross and follow Him.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to reference Igzy's comments on Christians using politics to influence democratic society, and that not attempting such is "irresponsible and backward". John the Baptist tried to influence Herod and got imprisoned. While he was there, he got impatient waiting for Jesus' influence in the political process, and sent messengers with a rather pointed question: "Are You the Christ, or should we (read: I) look for another?"

Jesus told the messengers, "Tell John what you see. The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."

Jesus didn't say, "John, if this was a democracy I would try to influence the political process, but since we're in an autocracy too bad for you. I must limit Myself to 'good works' ". No, I think Jesus' kingdom was on another level. Different from John, different from Herod, different from democracy. He wasn't trying to change the rules, nor enforce them (see His "Man, who appointed me a judge over you?" in Luke 12:14 -- contrast to Solomon's grandson Absalom in 2 Samuel 15:4: "Oh, if only I could be a judge!").

That's an interesting interpretation, but I think you are reading a lot into it. To say that John the Baptist's experience was evidence that we should not petition government to do what is right is a stretch. John antagonized a self-serving leader who abused his power and killed him. That's different than saying petitioning government is wrong. Like I said, petitioning government was probably always a dodgy matter in those days. But it ain't necessarily so.

Obviously Jesus' kingdom is on its own level. It is above politics. It is also above marriage, child-rearing, healthy diet and exercise, and cooperating with neighbors. But that doesn't mean we don't employ good human behavior in those situations and just resort to being spiritual. We do both. Likewise, we pray about the government and live godly lives, and we also can engage in political action.

The key is wisdom and discretion, not black or white. We are spiritual beings and also human beings. God doesn't resent the earthly, just the earthly without the heavenly. He, after all, created the earthly. As C.S. said, "He likes it. He made it."

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Furthermore, the cases you bring up are the extreme cases. We may even need to consider them "special cases."

Human government was established by God with his covenant with Noah. The specific mission of human government is to deal with the case of murder. If the government is the perpetrator of that murder, as in the case of Jesus Crucifixion, then it is incumbent on us as people of faith to respond. The covenant with Noah precedes that with Abraham, so we are not talking about any particular faith. All men are accountable.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html This site lists over 50 genocides in the 20th and 21st century. On average we see one major genocide every two years over the last century. What is the 5th seal?

Revelation
6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

All I know is that when this seal is opened I want to be standing for righteousness alongside of my brothers and servants of God who were slain for their testimony and for the word of God.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Disciple

The Sermon on the Mount is fundamental to the New Covenant. I'll begin there.
Matthew
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

This is the foundation of the passive resistance that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. used. For example during the bus boycott. The law was that Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. This is like be smitten on the cheek. Deciding that if you won't let us sit in the front we also won't sit in the back is like turning the other cheek.

Of course, imho, the best example of turing the other cheek is Jesus willingly going to the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus is absolutely critical in the New Covenant and is set as an example for all believers when Jesus said that we must take up our cross and follow Him.

From an objective point of view, it is not "just" that someone would compel me to go a mile. It certainily doesn't achieve further justice that I go another mile.

This principles I don't think were spoken as a basis to seek justice. In fact, they mostly imply that you cannot expect justice in the human experience. Instead, do not focus on human justice - seek after God's kingdom. Humans seeking human justice seems to be the OPPOSITE of Jesus' argument in the sermon.

Do not get me wrong. I think the civil rights struggle was a noble chapter in American history. I like to think I would have been marching right alongside. And I think it was an attempt to reach toward a better "justice" in America.

I also agree that invoking Christian principles was effective part of the argument.

But none of this justifies taking Jesus' argument out of context and employing for one's own political aims EVEN IF I happen to agree with your political aims.

Is the distinction I'm making clear?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Disciple

The Sermon on the Mount is fundamental to the New Covenant. I'll begin there.
Matthew
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil...

This is the foundation of the passive resistance that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. used.

The sermon on the mount says "resist not" and then you use it as a foundation of your argument on resistance. I don't get it. Passive resistance is still resistance. Jesus didn't say "resist passively"; He said, "resist not."

Originally Posted by aron

The sermon on the mount says "resist not" and then you use it as a foundation of your argument on resistance. I don't get it. Passive resistance is still resistance. Jesus didn't say "resist passively"; He said, "resist not."

Ghandi's insight was that instead of demanding rights, give them up freely. For example, in Alabama blacks didn't have the right to sit in the front of the bus, therefore they gave up the right to ride the bus altogether. The bus boycott was extremely difficult on the blacks since most depended on the bus. But it was equally difficult on the bus company since they depended on the revenue from blacks to be solvent. I think this is a good example of "turning the other cheek". The law took away the front of the bus, the blacks willingly gave up the back of the bus.

This concept is the cornerstone of the civil rights movement and highlights the wisdom of the Lord Jesus.

Whenever you look at institutional abuse, genocide of course being the most extreme example, but slavery, Jim Crowe laws, KKK, etc are all examples. You learn that the "bully" has all the cards. They control the police, the courts and the media. You could be defending yourself while being attacked by two people, yet it will be portrayed as an assault, you will be tried, convicted and spend 10 years in jail. Look at the story of the Hurricane, that is a prime example. So then being provoked into fighting back, resisting, is playing straight into their hands. The fact that you were righteous is irrelevant, you will be portrayed as just one more angry black, no one will care, and your conviction will strengthen the feeling that blacks are dangerous which in turn gives support to the institutional abuse.

But the flip side of this is that the entire house of cards is built on the backs of the poor. If the poor willingly give up their rights the house collapses, as it did in Montgomery. Reasonable people realize that we want our poorest members of society to be gainfully employed so that they can support themselves and their families. We also want everyone to have hope of a better future as a deterrent to choosing crime or some other anti social path. We also want everyone to have a certain minimum of healthcare so that we don't worry on the bus or in the movie theater that we are going to get TB or some other communicable disease. We want these things because they are in our best interests and the best interests of our family. Also, "economy of scale" is the basis on which many public works are done. We build things anticipating a certain demand for these services. If you remove 20% of your demand it could cause basic public services to collapse. So rather than viewing themselves as poor blacks, they now see themselves as integral parts of society without which the entire system collapses.

They shall know the truth and the truth shall set them free.

[Peter Debelak]

I wanted to share a little thought regarding the Founder's and their appeal to God (most evident in the the Declaration that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable right").

This point will also shed light on why I think some appeals to God are okay, or at least less problematic to me.

I have argued here that, in debates regarding human government, it is critical that the parties who are in debate share their premises. If I appeal to God to an athiest, I don't have a chance of persuading them. So, if I actually have any chance of persuading them, I need to appeal to a foundation I share with them....

There is a big debate in legal scholarship about the "source authority" for any given legal system. If you aim to ultimately alter the legal system, you have to reference your arguments in terms of that "source authority."

The Founders were attempting to make a legal/moral argument to the British about why they were justified in separating and even in revolution. What was the "source authority" for the British monarchy? God. The king was directly commissioned by God in the British system (to be sure, later "sovereignty" would reside in parliament). If a group was to make a clear argument for justifiable separation from the British government, it would have to be based on an argument from the British "source authority." In this case, that was God.

A lot of Tories (Americans sympathetic to the British) were still attached to Britian because of religious beliefs about the monarchy and "God's government" (I can get sources for this, if that's a point of contention).

By appealing to the "source authority" of the British argument, the revolutionaries could meet the "doubters" where they were at.

The "doubters" were inclined to agree with the "God-approved" monarch. The founder's argued that liberty - which was being trampled by that monarch - was a God-given right. If the monarch was of God, it certainly wasn't following God's way.

The invocation of God was pragmatic.

Similarly with MLK. The "toughest" audience for him was the South, which was statistically mostly Christian. An appeal to the Bible was instrumentally effective. That is not to say MLK didn't believe in his appeal to God and the Bible. Its obvious he did. But he was also trying to connect to a population who shared his belief in God and the Bible.

Importantly, however, these are instrumental arguments. NOT arguments about "universal truth" or "God's will." So I would still argue that they are out of place.

Does that make sense?

Peter

P.S. This is the same concept that drove some GLA leaders to root their arguments against LSM in WL and WN. I remember one blog post of Kerry Robiceaux's where he took Nigel Tomes to task. Nigel argued that one publication was against the teaching in the Bible. But he didn't elaborate. Instead, he made his argument by reference to Watchman Nee's arguments. This was an attempt to appeal to a perceived common "source authority." Kerry called him out (rightly, in my opinion) on why he chose to appeal to WN rather than the Bible - since that was, at least theoretically, a common source authroity among Christians. That said, Nigel likely recognized what Kerry didn't acknowledge: if you want to convinces LCers of something, you can't just appeal to the Bible - you have to appeal their "de facto" "source authority" - WL or WN....

[OBW]

I think Peter's last argument is quite insightful. Sometimes you must deal with the very thing that people cite as their authority.

And among Christians, we should be willing to argue what the Bible actually says about certain things. And where it does not comment, we may find that it still deals with the attitude which which we face the issues.

I've had forum discussions (elsewhere) on the topic of immigration policy and reform. My conclusion is that there is nothing in scripture that demands open borders or laxness in enforcement for those who have entered illegally. But how I treat any man, whether here legally or illegally is a different matter. I still have a command to love them, and to "do justice" with respect to them in either case where it is called for.

But when it comes to immigration reform, it is not a "Christian" issue to argue that we should simply allow everyone to stay. It might make it easier to do my personal efforts in "justice" toward them. But that is not the purpose of government and immigration laws. It is the security and well-being of the citizens and residents. Those are not served by simply open borders.

This kind of thinking is, I believe, like the "hate the sin but love the sinner" command (or so-called command for those who don't think that is valid). As Christians, we are called to be. I don't even need to put the "what" into that statement. There actually are many "whats." I must act justly toward my neighbor (with expanded definition as provided by Christ). But while I do so, I cannot demand that government relinquish its civil authority to deal with lawbreakers. I cannot demand that society agree with my positions on morality and other things as if their rules and actions must be according to God's rules and actions (or my perception of them). And you can't expect to have open ears for the gospel that will change lives if you first demand that everyone change their lives without the gospel. And you won't have any open ears if you are openly despising those you would claim to want to convert. They already expect you don't like them and will dismiss virtually anything you say.

If for no other reason, we should leave the religious arguments about the founding America to the context in which it is found and not presume more on it than that. And we do not make it better for anyone — especially our testimony — when we demand that all be like us.

While I think that rationality tends toward the political right, I cannot simply dismiss those who disagree as simply being irrational. And as I walk this life, I find that I am not as strong to the far right as I once was. In fact, I find that while I hold many of the positions of the right, I despise the way that my positions are represented by the leaders of the right. They may be politically right, but they are not morally right in how they go about it. It is disturbing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Importantly, however, these are instrumental arguments. NOT arguments about "universal truth" or "God's will." So I would still argue that they are out of place.

Does that make sense?

Peter

I'd like to think I was following along with your train of thought, that is, until you concluded with this statement, at which time I realized I missed it all, thinking that you actually were refuting your prior arguments.

Normally when ideas like this go right over my head, I try not to let on to others, but since you asked ...

As they say, it's usually better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid, than to open it up and remove all doubt ... but here I decided to take a chance.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Importantly, however, these are instrumental arguments. NOT arguments about "universal truth" or "God's will." So I would still argue that they are out of place.

Does that make sense?

Sort of. But I think you have failed to realize that discretion about mentioning God is also instrumental, not universal.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sort of. But I think you have failed to realize that discretion about mentioning God is also instrumental, not universal.

No, I do realize that invoking or not invoking God in politics isn't dictated by the Bible. (see my post where I assured OHIO that I wouldnt quarantine him... ).

But I do see a negative side to it and there are some Biblical principles which support my view, so I will make a good effort at persuasion. If folks aren't persuaded, that certainly doesn't mean fellowship should be hindered on iota.

I know two blood brother each of whom believes
Their faith dictates their political views. One is staunchly Democratic and one has never disagreed with Rush Limbaugh. Because their political views are tied to what they believe is God's will, the gulf between them is as big as if they didn't share a common faith.

Since it is NOT clear that God wills us to do HIS work in politics, I think there ate less downsides to refraining.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'd like to think I was following along with your train of thought, that is, until you concluded with this statement, at which time I realized I missed it all, thinking that you actually were refuting your prior arguments.

Normally when ideas like this go right over my head, I try not to let on to others, but since you asked ...

As they say, it's usually better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid, than to open it up and remove all doubt ... but here I decided to take a chance.

I still maintain my argument that it's preferrable nit to invoke God. I just find it LESS problematic when your audience shares your faith and/or belief in God.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Since it is NOT clear that God wills us to do HIS work in politics, I think there ate less downsides to refraining.

I would simply say that one must use discretion in invoking God's name in politics. But the principles one seeks to establish through politics should be God's principles. Otherwise, whose principles are you seeking to establish? Should one enter politics to establish Satan's principles?

The only alternative is to leave politics to the unbelievers. Do we think that's what God wants? C.S. Lewis made me clear on that. If we leave art to the unbelievers, then all art will express unbelief. If we leave literature to the unbelievers, then all literature will express unbelief. If we leave TV, movies and, yes, politics to the unbelievers, then... I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that's what God wants. God made us artists, writers, thinkers and leaders. Do we think he holds that the only valid expressions of those gifts express ungodliness?? That's a flat no, as far as I'm concerned.

That's the vision the LC held. We check out of the world and let it go to hell in a hand basket*, hoping the Lord comes back quickly and delivers us from all this distasteful inconvenience.


* Which reminds me of a favorite bumper sticker I once saw, which read: "Where are we going and what are we doing in this hand basket."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

But I do see a negative side to it and there are some Biblical principles which support my view, so I will make a good effort at persuasion. If folks aren't persuaded, that certainly doesn't mean fellowship should be hindered one iota.

I know two blood brother each of whom believes. Their faith dictates their political views. One is staunchly Democratic and one has never disagreed with Rush Limbaugh. Because their political views are tied to what they believe is God's will, the gulf between them is as big as if they didn't share a common faith.

Since it is NOT clear that God wills us to do HIS work in politics, I think there ate less downsides to refraining.

You definitely would have had a problem with the message I heard this morning while visiting a congregation for the first time. The topic was the Christian citizen -- standing up for life, marriage, and religious liberty.

Your example of two brothers who can't even fellowship really surfaces other problems such as the obsession to win arguments.

I wonder how much your political views are a reaction to TC. When I first contacted the church in Cleveland, I heard endless derogatory comments about "peanuts" Carter, the current WH resdent.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

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

Originally Posted by Igzy

The only alternative is to leave politics to the unbelievers. Do we think that's what God wants? C.S. Lewis made me clear on that. If we leave art to the unbelievers, then all art will express unbelief. If we leave literature to the unbelievers, then all literature will express unbelief. If we leave TV, movies and, yes, politics to the unbelievers, then... I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that's what God wants. God made us artists, writers, thinkers and leaders. Do we think he holds that the only valid expressions of those gifts express ungodliness?? That's a flat no, as far as I'm concerned.

As an old guy, who used to be a young guy once upon a time, I can see both points of view here. Of course I’m going to side with the old guy, and not just because he happens to be right. It’s a lot easier to talk about “the only alternative” when you’ve been around the block a time or two. Mind you, it doesn’t make you an expert, just somebody who has been around the block a time or two. Old guys can be just as foolish as their younger counterparts, but the one thing they do have is the perspective of time. There is no substitute for time….unless you are God and that’s a story for another day.

There is a rather “curious” passage that comes to mind. (John 17:15,16)
“I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”

Why didn’t the One with the power to do so just take us out of the world? The original apostles certainly thought that He was going to do this. Many or most of them thought the Lord Jesus was going to come back within their lifetime. He certainly left them with that impression - certainly some of their writings reflect that they had this impression. Yet this part of the Lord’s prayer to the Father in John 17 seems to indicate something different than our natural intuition.

If we are not of this world, why wouldn’t God simply let us fly up to the heavens right now and be done with it? The Bible is complete. His Word has been published far and wide. One could argue that it has reached “the uttermost parts of the earth”. What’s He waiting for? What’s the hold up? Lee and company would have us believe that it’s because “the Bride has not yet been produced”. Maybe so, maybe so. But I would argue, as Igzy might, that God has not produced enough “artists, writers, thinkers and leaders” yet. God is a Creator. Despite what some might say, He is still creating. He never stopped, and He never will. It’s mankind - it’s us that seem to be in a rut. We just need to stop resisting his creating power. Us Christians are probably the biggist hindrance to His creating power.

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Mmmm… My question to the author of this statement might be: aren’t the things of Ceasar also the things of God? I think His answer might very well be “My point exactly”.

[Peter Debelak]

When I drudged up this thread, I had this crazy notion that I could leave my own politics out of it…

Let me first say this: I have more respect for the person I disagree with on an issue who argues it with cohesive integrity that for the person who I might agree with who does so leaving inconsistencies in his wake. It’s a matter of discerning motives and intellectual honesty.

My difficulty, in short, with Christians invoking God in politics is that it is tremendously difficult to remain internally consistent with the Bible. The reason, I suspect, is that when it comes to government of any kind, God’s way is far more complex than our feeble minds can comprehend. And so, we do damage when we try to approximate it.

But this is not a call to stay out of politics (I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise - as I've been involved in most ways to Sunday). I also agree that if we are to engage at all in our political system, it must be from our beliefs as believers. But such an endeavor is fraught with danger-zones. The threshold for getting caught out in hypocracy is INSANELY LOW! The possibility of human Christians usurping “God’s will” as a blunt instrument to judge others is INSANELY HIGH! Importantly, it is a PUBLIC ENDEAVOR, which means onlookers will use it to judge the TESTIMONY OF CHRIST.

So, it is a tremendously delicate endeavor, if one is to attempt it. To some degree, I would say the burden on Christians to be thoughtful, fair, balanced and comprehensive, is FAR HIGHER than on any other citizen when engaging in politics. That is because of our claims to be speaking on behalf of our belief in Christ. If we are two-faced, or narrow minded, or too judgemental without countervailing love – that reflects on Christ’s testimony and the “softness” of unbelievers’ ears for the gospel.

Let me try to talk this out with the case-study of abortion…

If I was to try and conjure the “most Christian way” to protest abortion, here’s what it might look like:

To be sure, they would protest abortions themselves and try to get legislation passed to ban the practice. However, more than any other constituency group, Christians would be the biggest advocate of making sure that young mother’s life, health and success were paramount. Making sure that child had a good home. More than any other group, Christians would be advocating for a more robust adoption system (which actually might mean MORE government – heaven forbid), more educational opportunities for the mother and for the child, better health services for both.

That is, Christians working intensely and more than any other group to try to eliminate the need for abortions.

But that’s not what we see. What we see is an (understandable) protest of the practice itself, without apparent concern for how difficult and damaging it is for the mother and the child when the choice of abortion is off the table. When the other side is absent, the protests smack of self-righteousness, not justice or love.

The current public political stance of Christian groups on the issue is one of judgment without the follow-up of love.

When I think of the notion of Christians getting involved in politics, I think that NO OTHER GROUP should be able to hold a candle to the broadness, the inclusion, the forgiveness, the real-world help to others.

But we don’t get that. What I see is Old Testament approach to politics. I don’t see the New Testament involved very much in most of Christian political advocacy. Judgement, as if from God, without the robust follow-up of love and care.

Non-beleivers see that. And it matters.

Given how delicate Christian as Christian involvement in politics is, it seems far easier to damage Christ’s testimony than to advance it. That’s why, I advocate for leaving His name out of it, even while engaging passionately in politics. You can still get your “issue” passed, but you might avoid sullying Christ’s testimony in the process.

Am I any closer to clarity here?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I actually didn’t expound on my politics, and actually would hope no one would presume I am for/against this or that. I am NOT making the case that a particular stance on an issue is wrong. Only the manner in which and the arguments with which it is argued. Sense?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As an old guy, who used to be a young guy once upon a time, I can see both points of view here. Of course I’m going to side with the old guy, and not just because he happens to be right. It’s a lot easier to talk about “the only alternative” when you’ve been around the block a time or two. Mind you, it doesn’t make you an expert, just somebody who has been around the block a time or two. Old guys can be just as foolish as their younger counterparts, but the one thing they do have is the perspective of time. There is no substitute for time….unless you are God and that’s a story for another day.

There is a rather “curious” passage that comes to mind. (John 17:15,16)
“I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”

Why didn’t the One with the power to do so just take us out of the world? The original apostles certainly thought that He was going to do this. Many or most of them thought the Lord Jesus was going to come back within their lifetime. He certainly left them with that impression - certainly some of their writings reflect that they had this impression. Yet this part of the Lord’s prayer to the Father in John 17 seems to indicate something different than our natural intuition.

If we are not of this world, why wouldn’t God simply let us fly up to the heavens right now and be done with it? The Bible is complete. His Word has been published far and wide. One could argue that it has reached “the uttermost parts of the earth”. What’s He waiting for? What’s the hold up? Lee and company would have us believe that it’s because “the Bride has not yet been produced”. Maybe so, maybe so. But I would argue, as Igzy might, that God has not produced enough “artists, writers, thinkers and leaders” yet. God is a Creator. Despite what some might say, He is still creating. He never stopped, and He never will. It’s mankind - it’s us that seem to be in a rut. We just need to stop resisting his creating power. Us Christians are probably the biggist hindrance to His creating power.

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Mmmm… My question to the author of this statement might be: aren’t the things of Ceasar also the things of God? I think His answer might very well be “My point exactly”.

Your argument is very good if arguing with someone from the LC who doesn't see the value in interacting with the world and stays in the "womb" of the meetings. But that's not what I'm arguing.

I have argued for (and in fact live out, for better or worse) a life that is neck-deep in positive concerns of the world, including being engaged in politics.

My argument is mostly to ask, when a Christian is involved in politics which will impose laws on multitudes who may or may not share our faith, "Who are your speaking for?" If you presume to speak for "God" or "Christ" have you thoroughly thought through the testimony you are establishing on their behalf? Others can read the Bible too. Its a publically available document. Are you consistent with it? Are you leaning to heavily on the Old, rather than the New Testament? Are you over-prioritizing some comands over others? If so, it is exposing of your "balance" or lack-thereof. And it makes unbelievers challenge not-only your stance on the partiuclar issue, but your faith itself.

So, to be clear - I do NOT advocate Amish or "LC" living which is to isolate from the world. Anyone who knew me would laugh at the suggestion (for better or worse...).

In Love,

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

C.S. Lewis made me clear on that. If we leave art to the unbelievers, then all art will express unbelief. If we leave literature to the unbelievers, then all literature will express unbelief. If we leave TV, movies and, yes, politics to the unbelievers, then... I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that's what God wants. God made us artists, writers, thinkers and leaders. Do we think he holds that the only valid expressions of those gifts express ungodliness?? That's a flat no, as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

But I would argue, as Igzy might, that God has not produced enough “artists, writers, thinkers and leaders” yet. God is a Creator. Despite what some might say, He is still creating. He never stopped, and He never will. It’s mankind - it’s us that seem to be in a rut. We just need to stop resisting his creating power. Us Christians are probably the biggist hindrance to His creating power.

I wanted to touch on this - since its actually a point I feel very strong about - and in agreement with you. In fact, this topic this thread worthy.

(First, extremely well said Unto)

I believe firmly that God wants to display, in and through us, the vastness of His person - his beauty, his justice, his kindness. He does this in a tremendously delicate relationship with each one of us.

My own path has been a ride. I'm predisposed to be a writer, artist, thinker, tinkerer... I cannot tell you how much time I have spent thoroughly enmeshed in beautiful human endeavors, only to feel "LC guilt" about that involvement.

I've had periods in my life of "abstinence" out of some spiritual asceticism. How debilitating! No, God is developing each of is, in His multifarious wisdom and varied grace, through the very particular earthly life into which He called us.

Moreso than any well-crafted articulation, how we live that life and engage with it according to our flawed but earnestly evolving beliefs, is the gospel.

My own creative writing is filled with the human experience - yet infused with the hope that can only come from the knowledge that "we do not have a High priest who cannot be touched by the feeling of our weakness."

Even when I engage with unbelieving friends... I don't generally bludgeon them with the gospel. Instead, I try just to relate, trusting in faith that all human experience - if you give people space to vent - is Romans 7. Human experience without Christ is a catch-22. But you don't get people opening up in that way if you're a holier-than-thou type who has the "right answers."

The Christian life, to my mind, is humilty and aspiration/hope. Both are necessary. Humility without aspiration/hope is ascetism. Aspiration (or "surety") without humility is ugly judgmentalism.

Utterly broken, catch-22, mind-boggling failure and incapacity...... met by a Savior who is God - who created all things - who exhibits Beauty in art and literature and small human moments of kindness and tenacity against all odds.

Unto, you mentioned Christians are often the biggest hinderance to God's creating power... Could it be, like the Pharisees, we too often presume that because we have access to the "ultimate truth" that we presume to know what is "right"? That is, could it be our very faith itself is what hinders a humility that says "I don't know, and therefore have to keep in engaging in the world around me, with an open mind and in prayer about it?"

I really could write on and on with this topic. Honestly, it has very little to do with what I'm arguing regarding politics.

Thanks for indulging.

In Love,

Peter

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Let me try to talk this out with the case-study of abortion…

If I was to try and conjure the “most Christian way” to protest abortion, here’s what it might look like:

To be sure, they would protest abortions themselves and try to get legislation passed to ban the practice. However, more than any other constituency group, Christians would be the biggest advocate of making sure that young mother’s life, health and success were paramount. Making sure that child had a good home. More than any other group, Christians would be advocating for a more robust adoption system (which actually might mean MORE government – heaven forbid), more educational opportunities for the mother and for the child, better health services for both.

That is, Christians working intensely and more than any other group to try to eliminate the need for abortions.

But that’s not what we see. What we see is an (understandable) protest of the practice itself, without apparent concern for how difficult and damaging it is for the mother and the child when the choice of abortion is off the table. When the other side is absent, the protests smack of self-righteousness, not justice or love.

The current public political stance of Christian groups on the issue is one of judgment without the follow-up of love.

The tone of this post seems to negate the ten of thousands of loving christian volunteers who sacrifice their time to care for pregnant young girls and their unborn. They are struggling to provide more positive alternatives to abortion on demand. How easy it is to characterize all politically active Christians by the few self-righteous ones.

Yesterday I heard the sad story of one young girl at a Planned Parenthood clinic. She bled to death waiting for medical assistance because the Clinic did not want an ambulance to be seen outside their doors during business hours. These are the kinds of stories that never make it to mainstream news. It's no wonder that Christian churches and agencies are working hard to take abortion "off the table."

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The tone of this post seems to negate the ten of thousands of loving christian volunteers who sacrifice their time to care for pregnant young girls and their unborn. They are struggling to provide more positive alternatives to abortion on demand. How easy it is to characterize all politically active Christians by the few self-righteous ones.

Yesterday I heard the sad story of one young girl at a Planned Parenthood clinic. She bled to death waiting for medical assistance because the Clinic did not want an ambulance to be seen outside their doors during business hours. These are the kinds of stories that never make it to mainstream news. It's no wonder that Christian churches and agencies are working hard to take abortion "off the table."

Again, I am talking about the PUBLIC stance. I know there are there innumerable loving Christian acts done by loving Christians. I am arguing that I don't necessarily see it reflected in the POLITICAL stance. Bush adocated for a more "compassionate conservatism" when he ran the first time. But that fell by the wayside.

The flip side of your story is also true: liberal Chrisitan who believe a government safety-net is the right "Christian" policy, yet often privately don't lift a finger to help the poor.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

That is, Christians working intensely and more than any other group to try to eliminate the need for abortions.

But that’s not what we see. What we see is an (understandable) protest of the practice itself, without apparent concern for how difficult and damaging it is for the mother and the child when the choice of abortion is off the table. When the other side is absent, the protests smack of self-righteousness, not justice or love.

You need to look closer. There are plenty of Christian support groups that work toward alternatives to abortion. The gospel in general is an alternative to abortion, as it is an alternative to all coming short of the glory of God.

Christian political opposition to abortion is only one piece of the puzzle. But it's the one the liberal media focuses on, and tries to discredit, which is why it is the one you "see."

I recall Leonard Pitts, the black liberal writer for the Miami Herald, bashing Christian advocacy, as he regularly does. He was harping about how negative it was. He asked, "Why don't we see them working in Darfur, etc." I wanted to scream "Good grief! Most humanitarian efforts in the world are Christian efforts! You can bet they are in Darfur." Hasn't he ever heard of World Vision? A huge post-Katrina effort was spontaneously headed up by pastor Larry Ficklin of Mississippi, who I personally know, who found himself in the middle of that mess and felt called to jump in and help.

But, no, it's too easy to bash Christian abortion opponents as strident, mean-spirited, yada, yada, and not talk about the things they do which are less easy targets.

I've noticed that a lot of people who are against Christian political advocacy are actually against Christian conservative political advocacy. But if some priest or other Christian figure takes a stand for an issue that liberals like, well then that's just fine.

My point is that much disgust with Christian political advocacy is not with their methods, but with their conservative platform. If it were more liberal, like Jimmy Carter's, then you see less complaining. They'd be hailed by the media.

[Cal]

Another example is Rick Warren. There is probably no more influential advocate for Christian charitable serving in the world today. He is succeeding in changing the face of the Church. (Probably to one you would like better, Peter.) But do you think the media gives him credit for this? I haven't seen it. They grudgingly respect him but still warily watch him. Why? Because he's still fairly conservative and an abortion opponent. And when he says anything political they don't like, you can bet they aren't going to call attention to his charitable efforts. They are going to try to paint him in a bad light. I know because I've seen them do it.

Imagine if Larry Ficklin (see last post) had not been a Christian pastor, but a gay artist. Do you think the media, had they caught wind of that, would have missed the chance to trumpet his name far and wide? Had that been so, you can bet you would have heard of Larry Ficklin.

The media's message would have been "See? Gays can be great people, too. Don't you feel bad for being prejudiced against them?"

Do you think they are looking to trumpet the same about Christians? Nope. So maybe what you "see" about Christians has more to do with what the media reports than what's actually going on.

I'm not for stridency and self-righteousness. But to say Christians should refrain from political advocacy because some are that way is an over-correction, IMHO. That's playing right into the hands of the bullies.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Again, I am talking about the PUBLIC stance. I know there are there innumerable loving Christian acts done by loving Christians. I am arguing that I don't necessarily see it reflected in the POLITICAL stance.

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point is that much disgust with Christian political advocacy is not with their methods, but with their conservative platform. If it were more liberal, like Jimmy Carter's, then you see less complaining. They'd be hailed by the media.

Peter I agree with many of your points, but when we step into the public arena, rife with self-serving politics, it's almost impossible to differentiate based on what is presented in the news. Most news outlets present nothing positive about Christian works, rather magnify every failure of Christians. Instead of just interviewing Christian leaders, they look for ways to stumble the interviewee. It's no wonder that public opinion exists as it does with such media bias.

There's nary a news event which does not exhibit this. It is my observation that most people's political views are not shaped by the facts of history, rather how those facts were skewed to influence them. One recent example was ABC News linking the Denver theater massacre to the Tea Party. The general public tends to remember "first impressions." Another example was the Gabby Gifford. The general public tends to remember these "first impressions." These were not careless "mistakes," but orchestrated efforts by reputable news outlets to skew American views. Why would these "mistakes" always paint conservatives or Christians in a bad light.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

you mentioned Christians are often the biggest hinderance to God's creating power... Could it be, like the Pharisees, we too often presume that because we have access to the "ultimate truth" that we presume to know what is "right"? That is, could it be our very faith itself is what hinders a humility that says "I don't know, and therefore have to keep in engaging in the world around me, with an open mind and in prayer about it?"

The fact is that we are living in a broken world. Unbelievers know this just as well as we do, they just don't realize or understand how it got broken, and much less what to do about it. They see the "whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now", but their eyes have been blinded to the cause and effect of all the brokenness we see in ourselves and everything around us.

God has not called us Christians to fix the brokenness. Even when He came to earth as a man, as the Son of God, he did not come to fix the brokenness. (although he did fix some of the brokenness of certain individuals on a case-by-case basis) Jesus Christ, our ultimate mentor and example, came not to be a judge, he came to do the the work of the Father: "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." (John 10:37,38) Follow closely his words “though you do not believe Me, believe the works”….this almost seems incredulous. Is this coming from the same guy who said “believe in God, believe also in Me”?

There are a lot of people out there who think that the brokenness can be fixed with a certain program. Sadly, there are even a number of Christian ministers and teachers who fall into this category. When the programs don’t work everybody runs around blaming somebody because the program didn’t work. Well, the program didn’t work because it is being administered by broken people in a broken world. God’s mercy and grace are not given to us to fix the brokenness, only for us to survive this whole mess, and maybe, just maybe find enough courage and fortitude to “proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9)

So are there only “professional” proclaimers? Or does this broken world maybe need some ditch digger proclaimers? What about an accountant proclaimer? Hey…I know, what about an NFL Quarterback proclaimer? (picture me “Tebowing” right now in from of my computer) Seriously though, what about a politician proclaimer? Starting to get the idea? Don’t forget about Joseph, he was a big time politician, and at the very same time quite the proclaimer as well.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Given how delicate Christian as Christian involvement in politics is, it seems far easier to damage Christ’s testimony than to advance it. That’s why, I advocate for leaving His name out of it, even while engaging passionately in politics. You can still get your “issue” passed, but you might avoid sullying Christ’s testimony in the process.

Am I any closer to clarity here?

1Pet 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Couple of questions:

1. When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of the civil rights movement did he speak “as the oracles of God”?
2. Was God glorified in the civil rights movement?
3. Did the application of Jesus word by the Civil rights movement result in God being glorified?
4. Was the dominion of Jesus Christ manifested during the civil rights movement?

1PetMore 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
4:13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

5. Would you say that the bombing of the church in Alabama, the assassination of Medgar Evers, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., and many other events during the civil rights battle could be described as “a fiery trial”?
6. Is it fair to say that these ones suffering of these trials could be described as “being partakers of Christ’s suffering”?
7. Was Christ’s glory revealed during the civil rights movement?

Now suppose the civil rights movement had been conducted in a way in which no one quoted the Bible or referenced God. Supposed they had 'left the name of Jesus Christ out of it so that they wouldn't sully his testimony.' Could you still say that they “spoke as the oracles of God”? Could you still say “God was glorified”? Could you still say that “they were partakers of Christ’s suffering”?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another example is Rick Warren. There is probably no more influential advocate for Christian charitable serving in the world today. He is succeeding in changing the face of the Church. (Probably to one you would like better, Peter.) But do you think the media gives him credit for this? I haven't seen it. They grudgingly respect him but still warily watch him. Why? Because he's still fairly conservative and an abortion opponent. And when he says anything political they don't like, you can bet they aren't going to call attention to his charitable efforts. They are going to try to paint him in a bad light. I know because I've seen them do it.

Imagine if Larry Ficklin (see last post) had not been a Christian pastor, but a gay artist. Do you think the media, had they caught wind of that, would have missed the chance to trumpet his name far and wide? Had that been so, you can bet you would have heard of Larry Ficklin.

The media's message would have been "See? Gays can be great people, too. Don't you feel bad for being prejudiced against them?"

Do you think they are looking to trumpet the same about Christians? Nope. So maybe what you "see" about Christians has more to do with what the media reports than what's actually going on.

I'm not for stridency and self-righteousness. But to say Christians should refrain from political advocacy because some are that way is an over-correction, IMHO. That's playing right into the hands of the bullies.

This is the type of discussion I was at least trying to be careful not to get into. I've tried to make clear, over and again, that I'm not debating a particular stance on an issue - or a platform. Indeed, just so we're clear, I am against abortion. I have debates with pro-choicers on it all the time. I do not know a SINGLE argument for "pro-choice" which does not ALSO justify infanticide (e.g. "you're poor and can't care for the child? Well, there's poor people with 2 year olds. Is it okay for them to kill their child?"). I just try to stay away from stamping my arguments with God's approval. There is a strong moral argument against it - yes, one that comes from my conscience and faith - which doesn't need to reference my faith as a premise.

(I will admit, though, that I feel a little bit like I'm showing my "credentials" right now...)

I definately don't want to discuss media bias or platforms. Lord knows once this discussion starts happening outside of a Bible-based audience - it's no holds barred what people will do. I'd rather not shift the discussion to being based on our shared citizenship, as opposed to our shared faith. Doing so would be to abandon what I'm arguing for.

So, I have to make a distinction I've made many times over. Christians can be active in society through private action or they can be active in society through public, political action. I know that thousands (millions?) of Christians are engaged in private action - through church ministry or counseling or soup kitchens or Darfur or Katrina - the list is endless. Those are PRIVATE acts (i.e. non-government). I have never once in all these posts advocated that Christians shouldn't do these things. In fact, I have no problem Christians saying they are called by God to do them. That's a ministry. Throughout history the gospel has spread most effectively when Christians set up hospitals, schools etc...

My last post was describing the PUBLIC AND POLITICAL stance on abortion. That is, Christians pursue LEGISLATION to ban abortion. What I claimed was missing - and I could be wrong - was an PUBLIC AND POLITICAL follow-up to ensure young mothers and otherwise unwanted children are taken care of.

I was not claiming that individual/groups of Christians do not do charitable works for mothers and children. I was claiming that I didn't see those efforts in any PUBLIC AND POLITICAL agenda.

If you say its okay for Christians to get involved in politics as Christians, then have a political agenda that reflects the full scope of your Christian beliefs.

If you claim that you want to ban abortion AND claim that you are concerned about the future welfare of the mother and child, then what POLICIES are you advocating for to that end? Are you holding rallies protesting the reduced funding for Child and Family Services? Are you advocating for expanded health-care coverage for a poor young mother and her new child? Or is this for the "invisible hand of the market" to take care of?

What is the ratio of Christian lobbyists working to ban abortion versus working to get legislation passed that would alleviate the perceived "need" for an abortion - such as exanded foster care, adoption services, education, healthcare? If it was a lopsided ratio, wouldn't this concern you and make you wonder about the claims being made? Unbelievers certainly wonder about that.

But my broader argument doesn't need to make its point through the abortion example. Perhaps it would have been better to use an example of liberal Christians - since my argument applies equally to them.

In fact, from my experience and study, one of the biggest abusers of invoking God's name or a "spiritual cause" in politics was Ceasar Chavez who helped found the Farmer Worker's Movement. Many on the left consider him a "saint," right up there with Martin Luther King. Indeed, he likely thought of himself as one. But the extent of his usurping spiritual principles in the service of his cause knew no bounds. And because of this he was "covered," regardless of who he hurt (very much like WL in that way). But keep in mind, he rooted his arguments in Christian arguments, and felt he was "called" to do what he did.

It is unnerving when either side does it. I'm a fan of getting the goose and the gander a new profession.

Peter

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

This is the type of discussion I was at least trying to be careful not to get into.

Peter, Peter. Relax. You made a point about what you "saw" Christians doing. My point is that the media affects what you see and how you evaluate what you see. How the media influences your opinion is definitely relevant to this discussion because it totally affects your overall view of what Christians are doing. That's why I brought it up. It just so happens the media's bias is liberal.

If you claim that you want to ban abortion AND claim that you are concerned about the future welfare of the mother and child, then what POLICIES are you advocating for to that end? Are you holding rallies protesting the reduced funding for Child and Family Services? Are you advocating for expanded health-care coverage for a poor young mother and her new child?

I think you are missing a major consideration here. Perhaps these Christians believe such programs as Child and Family Services or expanded health-care coverage are not proper roles for the Federal government. To say that if one protests abortion but doesn't advocate for government welfare benefits for unwed mothers that one is incomplete or unbalanced is simply fallacious. I can be for the welfare of mothers without trying to get the Federal government involved. You see a lack of advocacy for government welfare as a sign of not caring. But who says you have to advocate for government welfare in order to really care? Such is the belief of liberals. This is why I said that you, perhaps unconsciously, have been influenced by them in the media and how things are slanted.

You need to take into account that other Christians may have completely different views from you regarding the proper role of government. Welfare can be achieved without government. Making something illegal cannot.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Peter, Peter. Relax. You made a point about what you "saw" Christians doing. My point is that the media affects what you see and how you evaluate what you see. How the media influences your opinion is definitely relevant to this discussion because it totally affects your overall view of what Christians are doing. That's why I brought it up. It just so happens the media's bias is liberal.



I think you are missing a major consideration here. Perhaps these Christians believe such programs as Child and Family Services or expanded health-care coverage are not proper roles for the Federal government. To say that if one protests abortion but doesn't advocate for government welfare benefits for unwed mothers that one is incomplete or unbalanced is simply fallacious. I can be for the welfare of mothers without trying to get the Federal government involved. You see a lack of advocacy for government welfare as a sign of not caring. But who says you have to advocate for government welfare in order to really care? Such is the belief of liberals. This is why I said that you, perhaps unconsciously, have been influenced by them in the media and how things are slanted.

You need to take into account that other Christians may have completely different views from you regarding the proper role of government. Welfare can be achieved without government. Making something illegal cannot.

Igzy,

My whole point is that "other Christians may have completely different views from [me] regarding the proper role of government."

And there is nothing in the Bible that proves me right and you wrong. You'd do better to invoke Ayn Rand than Ephesians. Yet I am not invoking my faith as an argument (even if implicit) to advance my human political agenda. Christians who get involved in politics as Christians, on both sides, do. And yet, despite a genuine dispute amoung Christians about what the Bible "requires of them", each side proceeds as if commission by God in matters that concern a human government.

You can dance around it all you want, but when Christians as Christians advance political arguments, they are implicitly (in the minds of all onlookers, even if not themselves) saying this is "God's will."

The argument applies equally to liberal Christians.

I would tend to agree with you that government cannot solve society's ills. Indeed, the liberal Christian who thinks Obamacare is the "Christian policy" and yet doesn't advocate for empowering people to act for themselves, is just as guilty of internal inconsistency.

But I don't care to discuss the particular rightness of a given stance, except to make the broader point.

Your post acknowledges that Christians can - and have - taken very different PUBLIC (read: "unbelievers are watching") approaches to what political policies the Bible "requires of them." And yet they contradict each other.

Some testimony.

I am a little suprised that on a forum that comes from a VERY POLITICAL Christian group (in the broad sense of politics - not American politics) and having experienced the damage that comes from invoking God in the service of what is really just politics, there isn't more understanding of the point I'm making.

In Love,

Peter

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I am a little surprised that on a forum that comes from a VERY POLITICAL Christian group (in the broad sense of politics - not American politics) and having experienced the damage that comes from invoking God in the service of what is really just politics, there isn't more understanding of the point I'm making.

And that's the point. We are coming from diverse places, and having difficulty grasping one anothers' thoughts. At least I am.

I am just beginning to understand that the word "PUBLIC" means Wash DC legislation. Duh!

Next I need to understand what "Very Political" means.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And that's the point. We are coming from diverse places, and having difficulty grasping one another's thoughts. At least I am.

I am just beginning to understand that the word "PUBLIC" means Wash DC legislation. Duh!

Oh, Ohio, that's not on you - that's a function of my scattered way of writing...

But, yes, conversations like this require a "step back a second" approach in order to hear eachother. You've written that's you've been politically active against abortion. I want to be clear that I am not in disagreement with your goals. I'm not challenging your conscience. I think I share your concerns.

I am making another argument entirely. Ineptly as I do.

You and I could have a citizen debate about the role of government all day long. And afterword, study the Bible together or pray or just share a warm meal.

But if we attached our arguments to "what the Bible says God wants in human government", we are inherently talking about implicit universal truths. There isn't room for "live and let live." Your political stance is an implicit commentary on my faith if I disagree with you. You don't have to actually say "God is against you" for me to imply that's what your argument entails. And vice versa.

We can either argue for Christians to have "liberty" to get involved in politics as Christians (again, different than engaging in politics with secular arguemnts, which is fine in my boat - or Christians pursuing private ministry to right societal wrongs, which is also fine in my boat) which may lead to a contradictory testimony and a gulf between you and I. Or we can say, "engage in politics all you want with moral, secular arguments - we can debate them all day long and then, when done, we can still mutually discuss spiritual matters and what 'God's will' is for our respective lives."

In Love,

Peter

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Oh, Ohio, that's not on you - that's a function of my scattered way of writing...

I'm just doing my best to follow along. Seriously.

Your background, education, and experience is diverse from mine. I see things in a simpler manner. I normally have to communicate my ideas to those around me who never made it to college.

Let me use a bad example. My son is in finance. He has immersed himself in a culture that is entirely foreign to me. Stocks, bonds, and mutual funds are child's play compared to the activities he is engaged in every day. I still cannot grasp all the implications of derivatives and hedge funds. I plan to visit him soon, and he wants some time alone to discuss his new employment. I am terrified.

Perhaps this thread can somehow assist.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm just doing my best to follow along. Seriously.

Your background, education, and experience is diverse from mine. I see things in a simpler manner. I normally have to communicate my ideas to those around me who never made it to college.

Let me use a bad example. My son is in finance. He has immersed himself in a culture that is entirely foreign to me. Stocks, bonds, and mutual funds are child's play compared to the activities he is engaged in every day. I still cannot grasp all the implications of derivatives and hedge funds. I plan to visit him soon, and he wants some time alone to discuss his new employment. I am terrified.

Perhaps this thread can somehow assist.

Just a quick note for the flow of the thread: I edited my last post since you posted this...

And, for the record, you communicate more wisdom in your posts than any university degree could possibly achieve.... And, believe it or not, the life-path I chose puts me around folks with whom I can't use scholarly argument. I have to, ineptly, meet them where they're at and more times then not, I am the learner, not the teacher... It's mind-blowing, but only if I'm not "too cool for school."

And on the "I don't know how to engage my son on the substance of his work," I am familiar. I can't tell you how many times I've invoked artists and poets and philosophers to my dad, only to get a blank stare back. But he still engages, not quite sure where I'm coming from, but giving food for thought. If I was antagonistic, I might think "you have no clue what you're talking about." Instead, I see it as his heart-felt way of engagement with me, take his comments to heart and - amazingly - often find an insight I never saw in all the "expert" writings I poured over...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I am a little suprised that on a forum that comes from a VERY POLITICAL Christian group (in the broad sense of politics - not American politics) and having experienced the damage that comes from invoking God in the service of what is really just politics, there isn't more understanding of the point I'm making.

I understand the point you are making. I just think (1) it's fundamentally flawed, and (2) even if it isn't your fear about it is overblown in a democracy. If a theocracy starts invoking God that's one thing. That's a power play. But if a bunch of diverse people each start invoking God for different, diverse causes, they are just identifying that the root of their convictions is the spiritual. What's wrong with that? That sounds like honesty to me.

Really, what's the difference between saying "I think we should help the poor because it's right to do so" and "I think we should help the poor because God wants us to"? Both are saying that helping the poor is in line with what is essentially right and true. They are just saying it in different ways.

In fact, if you don't go back to God eventually, then all convictions are just opinions. Why should we help the poor, really? You can make arguments that it's in the best interests of everyone. But the fact is the power of the idea is that it is about compassion. Now, why should we be compassionate? Why not just look out for number one? Who says we should help others? What's the source of that idea?

See? Eventually you get back to God whether you want to or not. You seem to be advocating that we should pretend truth doesn't resolve to God when making political arguments. I understand that people should make room for the idea that they could be wrong on their beliefs, and they should respect others' rights to hold their own beliefs. But at some point avoiding the fact that God is the source of what is right is actually a kind of political pretense. There are no "human" matters that do not eventually resolve to him. So why pretend there are, except, ironically, for political gain?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I understand the point you are making. I just think (1) it's fundamentally flawed, and (2) even if it isn't your fear about it is overblown in a democracy. If a theocracy starts invoking God that's one thing. That's a power play. But if a bunch of diverse people each start invoking God for different, diverse causes, they are just identifying that the root of their convictions is the spiritual. What's wrong with that? That sounds like honesty to me.

Really, what's the difference between saying "I think we should help the poor because it's right to do so" and "I think we should help the poor because God wants us to"? Both are saying that helping the poor is in line with what is essentially right and true. They are just saying it in different ways.

To me, the problem is that there is a rather vocal group of Christians that have seized on the idea that America was founded as a "Christian Nation" and that they have both a right and a command to return it to that position. They believe in America as a theocracy. They may not be the majority position among Christians, or even among the evangelicals. But they speak as if they are. And within too many assemblies, the proponents of this position are the strong voices that phrase their arguments in such a way that speaking against them becomes seen as speaking against God.

Taking on that kind of rhetoric is quite difficult. It is a little like the problem we have here of identifying how mostly correct teachings are made part of very incorrect teachings. You are seen as fighting against "enjoying God" or something like that. Fighting a Christian Nation proponent is seen as fighting against the very core of the gospel.

And because there are those people, positions that might otherwise be acceptable stances have been clouded by that extreme. "Christian" has become the bully of the "right." (And I despise the implication that just because it is conservative it is "right." It equivocates and makes conservatism "right" and liberalism "wrong" rather than "left." I am conservative, but I see the effects it has on the proponents of the "right.")

I do not say that Christians should not be in politics. But how we package our positions is questionable. Is it really the "right thing to do" when we take positions on issues that places us as those fighting against people for being what they consider themselves to be when society has determined that their being is not illegal? I can see the argument against the change of the definition of marriage. But is there a legal equivalent that could be allowed? At present there is not uniformly such a thing. Are we so opposed to the people that are gay that we would march out like an army to fight them? Where is this found to be consistent with the command to love your neighbor?

And many of us are not engaged in these things. But because there are those who are, our efforts at much of anything are (somewhat rightly) viewed with skepticism. The very mention of God in the marketplace of ideas has been damaged by those who use it so openly for the extreme ideologies of the gay-bashers, abortion clinic bombers, and foam-at-the-mouth Christian Nation advocates trying to "take the nation back." If we can't openly debate these things in our congregations and even in the public eye, we will be labeled as one with it. It won't be true, but our testimony will be damaged.

But whether or not we take it on so openly, we need to do as much of the kind of justice that Jesus spoke of, and was mentioned over and over in the OT. We need to be actively kind to everyone. Even the gay guy, the abortionist, and especially those who have been touched by abortion. Be kind, not condescending and judgmental.

We need to marginalize the voices of hate that march out claiming to be God's army. They need to find themselves in the same position as the slave proponents of the 19th century, and the racists of the 20th century.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

.....In fact, if you don't go back to God eventually, then all convictions are just opinions. Why should we help the poor, really? You can make arguments that it's in the best interests of everyone. But the fact is the power of the idea is that it is about compassion. Now, why should we be compassionate? Why not just look out for number one? Who says we should help others? What's the source of that idea? ....

..... There are no "human" matters that do not eventually resolve to him. So why pretend there are, except, ironically, for political gain?

You and I agree on this as a GENERAL truth, that all human truth eventually resolves ti God. But when it comes down to specific situations, there is an INDETERMINACY problem as to to what "truth" is God's and what is just opinion. You are exactly right that if we take reference to God out of it we are left with just "opinions." But THAT is honesty. Unless you actually think you CAN know God's will for what laws a human government should have.

But recognizing the REALITY that we're just exchanging reasoned opinions, it gives us pause. We're more willing to listen to one another. The fellow who uses "God says so" as one of his premises is less likely to allow mutuality in debate.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

You and I agree on this as a GENERAL truth, that all human truth eventually resolves ti God. But when it comes down to specific situations, there is an INDETERMINACY problem as to to what "truth" is God's and what is just opinion. You are exactly right that if we take reference to God out of it we are left with just "opinions." But THAT is honesty. Unless you actually think you CAN know God's will for what laws a human government should have.

But recognizing the REALITY that we're just exchanging reasoned opinions, it gives us pause. We're more willing to listen to one another. The fellow who uses "God says so" as one of his premises is less likely to allow mutuality in debate.

The principle of indeterminacy is one Christians should be familiar with simply from their relationship with the Church. So that should carry over to society in general. People have a right to their opinions and to voice them. But none of us are obligated to agree with anyone, only to be honest with ourselves about what our conscience tells us.

This is apparently how God expects thing to work: That somehow in this to-ing and fro-ing and pushing and pulling we are to arrive at something which resembles what He would be pleased with. No one of us knows much for sure, but everyone together arrives at something that's pretty close to what's right. That's the way the Church is supposed to do it through prayer and fellowship; and that's the way democracies are supposed to do it through debate and voting.

Stridently insisting one has the corner on God's will is as distasteful in the Church as it is in Public. But that doesn't mean we still can't invoke God, as long as we say "For me, I believe this is God's will." The only reason to leave that out in public is that it might be taken the wrong way, not that doing so is wrong in principle.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Just a quick note for the flow of the thread: I edited my last post since you posted this...

And, for the record, you communicate more wisdom in your posts than any university degree could possibly achieve.... And, believe it or not, the life-path I chose puts me around folks with whom I can't use scholarly argument. I have to, ineptly, meet them where they're at and more times then not, I am the learner, not the teacher... It's mind-blowing, but only if I'm not "too cool for school."

And on the "I don't know how to engage my son on the substance of his work," I am familiar. I can't tell you how many times I've invoked artists and poets and philosophers to my dad, only to get a blank stare back. But he still engages, not quite sure where I'm coming from, but giving food for thought. If I was antagonistic, I might think "you have no clue what you're talking about." Instead, I see it as his heart-felt way of engagement with me, take his comments to heart and - amazingly - often find an insight I never saw in all the "expert" writings I poured over...

Thanks for the encouragement, and yes, I am well aware of the father-son dynamics which at some point transition from "you know everything" to "don't you know anything." Perhaps I thought this only happened to me.

And I do understand the "blank stare" when I read some of your posts. It's accompanied with this overwhelming inner sense of helplessness. That's why I appreciate your patience here. Every time I think I'm heading in the right direction, you quickly point out that I'm lost again. And I took the other posters with me.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for the encouragement, and yes, I am well aware of the father-son dynamics which at some point transition from "you know everything" to "don't you know anything." Perhaps I thought this only happened to me.

And I do understand the "blank stare" when I read some of your posts. It's accompanied with this overwhelming inner sense of helplessness. That's why I appreciate your patience here. Every time I think I'm heading in the right direction, you quickly point out that I'm lost again. And I took the other posters with me.

Dear Ohio,

If it's not clear already, I will emphasize that my concern is more in how things are argued and the process in which they're argued - that is, the integrity of it - than it is on the ultimate conclusions.

Here's the bottom line: if you're making an argument with integrity, as a Chrisitan, you have to do so from an admitted and open standard (not a shifting one). Thus, you are either arguming for something based on God's standard which may or may not be provable in human terms, or you are meeting your fellow citizens where they are at and arguing based on a shared moral standard which is provable in human terms.

Let's look at homosexuality.

It is clear in the Bible that it is a sin. We can agree on that. But so is hating your brother and coveting (I'm trying to stay in the New Testament, because OT arguments are really suspect and complicated given that we have a New Covenant). I don't see where, Biblically, Christ makes a distinction.

Given that, you have a few choices: 1) show me how/why/where God cares more about this particular sin and thus justifies focusing on it in secular politics; 2) if you can identify, in human terms, the detrimental effect on the American polupace, describe those effects and argue them - any unbeliever can relate to such arguments.

If you can't do the first, then your argument will be (rightly) called out as disingenuous. If you can't do the second - i.e. argue why same-sex marriage (in this example) is detrimental to society in secular terms - then you're arguing for a theocracy. But it won't even be God's theocracy (since you couldn't be consistant with God's standard in the first place).

Do you see what dangerous territory this can be?

You have mentioned giving Christians "liberty" in engaging in politics according to their conscience. I am DEFINATELY an advocate of giving Christiains liberty to engage according to their OWN conscience in the world. But what you are arguing is that Christians pass laws that govern OTHER Christians and unbelievers (e.g. I got no problem if Kerry R wants to restrict himself to "One Publication" - but don't pass an EDICT that puts it on me).

That's like giving "liberty" to the Judiazers in Roman's 14 to PASS LAWS about diet/sacrifices. That's not pursuit of liberty. That's pursuit of your vision of God's will being imposed on OTHERS. It's the exact opposite of the "liberty" Paul describes in Romans 14.

There is no such thing as "liberty" to impose one's concept of God on others, no less with the force of secular law and police and sentencing behind it.

I am NOT saying the Bible gives LIBERTY to believers to be homosexual. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about secular American society. So that brings us back, again, to whether you purport to argue GOD'S STANDARD (good luck in not being hypocrytical) or a HUMAN STANDARD with some "God approved" versus tossed in to justify your position in order to pass SECULAR LAWS FOR A HUMAN SOCIETY.

But I want to stress AGAIN, that is VERY DIFFERENT than expressing your views in the public arena - WITHOUT trying to get a secular law passed. One should ABSOLUTELY attempt to convince those around them of the truth. And share the gospel. And share their morals.

But that is different than PASSING A LAW which imposes a morality REGARDLESS of whether anyone's heart has changed.

That's not "liberty," that's the opposite of what Christ and Paul advocated for - EVEN THOUGH they agree with your moral convictions.

Any closer to getting where I'm coming from?

In Love,

Peter

[Ohio]

Dear Peter,

I thought best to just periodically comment here in blue, leaving your post intact. I am simply trying to understand your views, stating some of my own, and hope this becomes readable.

Dear Ohio,

If it's not clear already, I will emphasize that my concern is more in how things are argued and the process in which they're argued - that is, the integrity of it - than it is on the ultimate conclusions.

It seems the process and the how for each (Christian) citizen will naturally differ. Each is applying their talents to reach differing goals. Some are content to simply vote, others prefer not even to do that. Some pray and some do not. Some are guided by scripture and some are guided by principle. Some write letters, some give messages, some are in the courtroom, some on committees, etc. Some attempt to follow the Lord step by step, others follow political agendas. Perhaps the only common ground here is to restrict present actions to the laws of the land while attempting to change them.

Here's the bottom line: if you're making an argument with integrity, as a Christian, you have to do so from an admitted and open standard (not a shifting one). Thus, you are either arguing for something based on God's standard which may or may not be provable in human terms, or you are meeting your fellow citizens where they are at and arguing based on a shared moral standard which is provable in human terms.

I'm not sure this is a restriction that Christians are willing to make. Most folks do not agree to a shared moral standard. This is why most defer to God's standard. There are grey areas here. The political process is so complex that homogeneity is an impossibility. Moral standards in our country are rapidly changing as we speak.

Let's look at homosexuality. It is clear in the Bible that it is a sin. We can agree on that. But so is hating your brother and coveting (I'm trying to stay in the New Testament, because OT arguments are really suspect and complicated given that we have a New Covenant). I don't see where, Biblically, Christ makes a distinction.

Many Christians will not limit their discussion to only the NT, since that removes the story of Sodom from the discussion. But you are right that hating and coveting are also sins, the distinction being that these are restricted to man's heart, and are victimless. I Cor 6.9-10 is often used as justification, but as you say, homosexuality is not singled out.

Given that, you have a few choices: 1) show me how/why/where God cares more about this particular sin and thus justifies focusing on it in secular politics; 2) if you can identify, in human terms, the detrimental effect on the American populace, describe those effects and argue them - any unbeliever can relate to such arguments.

Christian "focus" is more a reaction to a changing culture and legal sytem. New laws are being enacted almost daily, and existing laws discarded by liberal judges. Christians fear for their country and their children. It's obvious that the goal of the gay agenda is not bedroom freedoms. The Christian public tends to pick their battles and the attack on traditional family structure is now their priority. If the argument centers on one's "personal liberties," then God's laws are deferred to as the standard. It's amazing how research studies always confirm scientifically that God's plan in creation is best for the populace. Liberal social engineering "improvements" have never helped our physical health, psychological well-being, aptitude of our children, etc.

If you can't do the first, then your argument will be (rightly) called out as disingenuous. If you can't do the second - i.e. argue why same-sex marriage (in this example) is detrimental to society in secular terms - then you're arguing for a theocracy. But it won't even be God's theocracy (since you couldn't be consistent with God's standard in the first place).

Do you see what dangerous territory this can be?

The only time I see conflicts is when Christian behavior becomes hypocritical, e.g. the politician promoting family values gets caught in an affair, the pro-life advocate herself gets an abortion. I don't see the dangers of a so-called Christian theocracy in America. It is the role of government to mandate morality and not liturgy. (Here, however, the dangers from Islam are very real.) Liberal changes in legislation all fall under the guise of "victimless choice." But is an aborted fetus not a victim.

You have mentioned giving Christians "liberty" in engaging in politics according to their conscience. I am DEFINITELY an advocate of giving Christians liberty to engage according to their OWN conscience in the world. But what you are arguing is that Christians pass laws that govern OTHER Christians and unbelievers (e.g. I got no problem if Kerry R wants to restrict himself to "One Publication" - but don't pass an EDICT that puts it on me).

That's like giving "liberty" to the Judiazers in Roman's 14 to PASS LAWS about diet/sacrifices. That's not pursuit of liberty. That's pursuit of your vision of God's will being imposed on OTHERS. It's the exact opposite of the "liberty" Paul describes in Romans 14. There is no such thing as "liberty" to impose one's concept of God on others, no less with the force of secular law and police and sentencing behind it.

Here's my problem with this line of reasoning -- it takes minor ordinances that can't even be vetted within the church, and theorizes that they would become the laws of the land.

I am NOT saying the Bible gives LIBERTY to believers to be homosexual. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about secular American society. So that brings us back, again, to whether you purport to argue GOD'S STANDARD (good luck in not being hypocritical) or a HUMAN STANDARD with some "God approved" versus tossed in to justify your position in order to pass SECULAR LAWS FOR A HUMAN SOCIETY.

But I want to stress AGAIN, that is VERY DIFFERENT than expressing your views in the public arena - WITHOUT trying to get a secular law passed. One should ABSOLUTELY attempt to convince those around them of the truth. And share the gospel. And share their morals.

But that is different than PASSING A LAW which imposes a morality REGARDLESS of whether anyone's heart has changed.

That's not "liberty," that's the opposite of what Christ and Paul advocated for - EVEN THOUGH they agree with your moral convictions.

Any closer to getting where I'm coming from?

In Love, Peter

I'm slowly coming around to understand your views, but they're not persuading me. I definitely can see how political issues can divide a church, and have even witnessed it at times. For me personally, I much rather see politics out of the church, than to keep the church out of politics, if that makes sense. But that too is fraught with dangers since the message of the Savior's love gets lost in the shuffle.

[OBW]

For me, the issue with moral standards is that, like the command to husbands is to husbands, and the one to wives is to wives, the Christian moral standard as a command is to me, not you (generically). But that does not mean that there are not rational arguments for those moral standards that do not require "God said so" to sway those who do not believe.

What I see in Peter's arguments is a position to refrain from using a sort of "just because" argument by invoking God and religion. There are arguments that can be made for many positions without it and they are more likely to sway those who otherwise will cease to even listen if God is invoked. If the goal is to improve the standards of society, PO-ing the unbelievers is not a good way to get them to listen and consider.

Of course, this methodology will not likely do much about the homosexuality issue. But the homosexual and the heterosexual are both in a pickle if they do not believe in and follow Christ. Seems that the real issue is following Christ. I would rather that the efforts at preaching the gospel not be clouded, or even drowned out, by those who are already chastised and dismissed by those whose charge was to love them.

The problem is not that I and others would not prefer a more moral society. But the process of insisting on it in the manner that trying to criminalize personal sin does stomps on our first priority as citizens of the kingdom. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Or does this say something about how little we love ourselves?

And coupled with so much of this is more and more "conservative" politics treated as if it is the very mind of God. So many are certain that God would always vote Republican. I generally do (vote, not think that God would). But I'm not so sure about God. I know many of his people that do not and I don't doubt their faith, honesty, or sincerity.

But I do not deny those of faith the privilege of trying to influence the political realm. But if they speak as if their position is God's leading and I don't agree, then is God speaking, or is God being slandered? I can't say because I don't know his mind on the subject. But I'm fairly sure that taking the "God is on my side" position flies in the face of any claim of "love your neighbor." And for the rest of us, even if we disagree with that particular position, it has placed roadblocks on our testimony.

Yes, it is everyone's right (according to American law) to do as they please. But is it expedient? Maybe this is a little like some of those freedoms that Paul admits we have but would probably be better off refraining from.

[Peter Debelak]

Mike, as usual, says a lot of what I'm trying to say more poignantly.

I could reduce my argument to "No, the Bible doesn't mandate what I'm arguing for. But please, brothers. Please. Let's stick to love your neighbor and the gospel, in those times when invoking His name. Take the liberty to engage in politics, but don't take His name with you."

That said, I really have benefitted from this back and forth. Ohio, given how much I respect you and your voice, I don't take your conviction lightly on these matters.

I don't feel anything is riding on me convincing you or vice-versa. This sort of fellowship opens us both up, regardless of our conclusions.

Thank you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

If the goal is to improve the standards of society, PO-ing the unbelievers is not a good way to get them to listen and consider.

I don't think most subscribe to that policy. Most enter the political arena because they fear for their children and others'. Most believers are scared about the way things are going, and they are afraid to do nothing about it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't think most subscribe to that policy. Most enter the political arena because they fear for their children and others'. Most believers are scared about the way things are going, and they are afraid to do nothing about it.

Afraid that their own teaching to them will not protect them against the evil society.

Do we think that the Greek society was really any better? Jesus saves and changes lives. Trust him. Don't beat-up the heathen to make your Christian life easier.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Afraid that their own teaching to them will not protect them against the evil society.

Do we think that the Greek society was really any better? Jesus saves and changes lives. Trust him. Don't beat-up the heathen to make your Christian life easier.

You missed the whole point.

Aren't you the one with the banner To our Children's Children's Children?

That's what I'm talking about.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You missed the whole point.

Aren't you the one with the banner To our Children's Children's Children?

That's what I'm talking about.

You are correct about the banner. But even the training of our children is our responsibility, not society's (the need for a village not withstanding). If my part is to love God and love my neighbor, how am I relieved of that obligation because I want to be sure that it is easy to keep my children from getting bad information from other sources?

That is sort of how I read that kind of argument.

It is a little like an argument against home schooling I heard many years ago — — Keep your children from even hearing about all the disagreeable stuff out there for as long as possible and they won't have any idea about how to combat it when if finally appears on their radar in college.

There are clearly holes in that argument. But it is also valid. What I'm saying is that I do not take my position for the goal of making it harder on our children's children's children. But making that easier cannot be an excuse to shortcut our righteous and God-given commands. Just like some intuition cannot override God's righteousness, no matter what Nee, Lee, or anyone else says about it (in the other thread).

How to "protect" our children will always be an issue. It is a valid and important discussion. But going "on to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before" as we set out to force the laws of society to make our job easier is not the "Christian" solution. I don't say to not try to make society more just and moral. But when we join with the foam-at-the-mouth "conservative Christians" (like my aunt) who think that we should fill the jails with homosexuals, we deny that God is loving. At least as far as the world will be concerned (and not just the homosexuals in the world). Just an example.

If you don't see it, then I hope that one day you do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

How to "protect" our children will always be an issue. It is a valid and important discussion. But going "on to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before" as we set out to force the laws of society to make our job easier is not the "Christian" solution. I don't say to not try to make society more just and moral. But when we join with the foam-at-the-mouth "conservative Christians" (like my aunt) who think that we should fill the jails with homosexuals, we deny that God is loving. At least as far as the world will be concerned (and not just the homosexuals in the world). Just an example.

If you don't see it, then I hope that one day you do.

Now I "see" where you are coming from.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now I "see" where you are coming from.

I actually thought you might. Despite times that we seem so far apart, it probably is never what it seems.