Christianity and Politics

[poptart]

Why do you advocate Christians not exercising their God-given and law-given right to be represented in society?

[Jimbob]

Most of the calls I see for a "viable third party" seem to assume that the party would be conservative in nature.

What if the "viable third party" was the "Flower Children Liberal Progressive Party" or some such?

Isn't that the Green Party?  Other than a narcissistic mayor in New Paltz, I don't know, do they still exist?

[marc]

Why do you advocate Christians not exercising their God-given and law-given right to be represented in society?

I don't.  I simply am beginning to believe that voting for a candidate who will be motivated by self-interest and will perpetrate one or the other type of evil (thus making us complicit in this evil) is not the best way for a Christian to be represented in society.

Polls show that people too often think of politics and Christianity as being hand-in-hand.  I don't think this represents us or Christ well.  Perhaps withdrawing from Earthly politics would allow us to reclaim Christ's political vision of our being part of the incoming of a subversive kingdom, helping bring forth God's will on Earth as it is in Heaven instead of subverting this vision to a political view fomented in D.C.

But I'm not dogmatic about this; it's an evolving philosophy.

[poptart]

Why do you advocate Christians not exercising their God-given and law-given right to be represented in society?

I don't.

You just said you DO advocate Christians not voting.

And now you say you don't advocate Christians not voting ... but your further words indicate that you DO.


lol



You said you are feeling more and more that Christians should have .... (your word) NOTHING ... to do with politics.

Should Christians vote or not?

Yes or no?

Take your position.

[marc]

*sigh*

I should know better than to try to communicate with you. 

You asked two different questions.  Voting is not only not the only way to be represented in society, it is, in reality, one of the least effective. 

Christians are best represented in society by following Christ. 

As I said, I'm not dogmatic on this.  I'm not sure that's a concept you understand.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I'm feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with any of this.

Nothing?

You're feeling more and more that Christians should have ... nothing ... to do with politics.

I hope you know the definition of the word and are prepared to defend your position, because that is one of the more jaw-dropping things I think I have ever read.

You really need to get out more, then.  This is hardly a new or radical view.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle...against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. 

[poptart]

You can answer the question now, marc.


You said that you're feeling more and more that Christians should have ... NOTHING ... to do with politics.

So should, in your opinion, Christians vote or not?


You seem to be having a problem standing by the word (NOTHING) which YOU chose to use.


Or perhaps you are loathe to ADMIT that someone might use a word and not intend for it to be taken by it's absolute literal definition as stated in Webster?

Yes, because common sense lets people realize that words typed on a screen are limited in what they are able to communicate, and a word used in this kind of forum is often used to convey a BROAD understanding of a situation.

Your ... NOTHING ... didn't really mean absolutely NOTHING, and only a fool would ascribe such a meaning to it.

Pretty much it, huh?




Unless, of course, you somehow REALLY think Christians ought not vote and instead ought to willingly surrender all of society over to the idol worshippers.

lol

[Arkstfan]

I don't understand how anyone who is a Christian could "support" Obama or McCain (or Bush for that matter).  A lot of Christians want change in this country and the world to come through a political party and the government, rather than through Jesus Christ.  And that's the bottom line.

They may not ultimately think this is the case, but their actions betray them.

That's because many who wear the label Christian don't care one flip about their neighbor. They care nothing about changing hearts they just want to outlaw what bothers them, they want low taxes and no government entanglement unless of course its fattens their wallet or suits their interests.

[Mere Nick]

*sigh*

I should know better than to try to communicate with you. 

You asked two different questions.  Voting is not only not the only way to be represented in society, it is, in reality, one of the least effective. 

Christians are best represented in society by following Christ. 

As I said, I'm not dogmatic on this.  I'm not sure that's a concept you understand.

Your thinking that maybe the Christian thing to do is to abstain isn't some whacked out idea, Marc. (Even if it was, so what?)  I have three kids going to a school named after a guy who thought the very same thing, David Lipscomb.

[poptart]

It's among the dumbest things I've heard.

Would you care to cite Scripture which you imagine backs the idea that Christians ought not vote, let alone even engage in any "political" activity at all?

[Arkstfan]

It's among the dumbest things I've heard.

Would you care to cite Scripture which you imagine backs the idea that Christians ought not vote, let alone even engage in any "political" activity at all?

"My kingdom is not of this world" John 18:36

How about one scripture where Jesus or any disciple went to the Roman Senate or Caesar to change government policy? The closest we get is Paul exercising his right as a Roman citizen to appeal a possible death sentence to Caesar and then not change the law but arguing it doesn't fit what he has done.

Your dismissive and rather rude response helps illustrate one argument that is made against Christian involvement in politics. Once clothed in politics we become debased in the desire to win without regard to cost. We've seen several people humiliated when their sins came to light because they became more interested in personal gain and access to power than the kingdom.

Politics by its nature requires us to weigh sin and evil and choose which particular sin and evil we desire to endorse. You don't get to vote with an * by the vote and you don't get to attach an * to a campaign contribution explaining you only support the Christian values and reject the offensive secular. While we are weighing out our own personal view of relativity how does it mesh with the sermon on the mount?

[Jimbob]

I believe Lipscomb took some of his view from Paul's advice to Timothy:

"Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.  No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.  Also if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.  The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.  Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything."
(II Timothy 2:3-7 NASB)

He believed the governmental/political affairs of this world to be so temporal as to be a sideshow in which we need not get involved.  And as Nick said, it's hardly an unknown or out of whack idea among Christians.

[lightshineon]

 What about the patriots of the United States of America? They were Christians and escaped Tyranny? Were they wrong? I will tell you I think not.

[Arkstfan]

What about the patriots of the United States of America? They were Christians and escaped Tyranny? Were they wrong? I will tell you I think not.

Jefferson didn't believe any of the Biblical miracles happened including the resurrection of Jesus and helped defeat a Virginia resolution (pushed by Patrick Henry) that would acknowledge Jesus as savior of the land. More than half of the Virgnia Assembly was willing to acknowledge God or Providence but unwilling to acknowledge Jesus.

[lightshineon]

What about the patriots of the United States of America? They were Christians and escaped Tyranny? Were they wrong? I will tell you I think not.

Jefferson didn't believe any of the Biblical miracles happened including the resurrection of Jesus and helped defeat a Virginia resolution (pushed by Patrick Henry) that would acknowledge Jesus as savior of the land. More than half of the Virgnia Assembly was willing to acknowledge God or Providence but unwilling to acknowledge Jesus.

I am talking about the Minute men, the militia, the soldier -slash farmer. I do believe our country was founded on Christian principals; in fact,there is a wonderful thread that proves it on this thread. The question though we they wrong in your opinion to break from tyranny?

[jonmower]

From Wikipedia:

When Lipscomb was discovered by radical libertarian scholars, some such as Prof. Edward Stringham noted that Lipscomb had independently questioned common assumptions that

  1. Governments need to make laws.
  2. Governments are created for the public good.
  3. Democracy is for the common good.

Further, Lipscomb argued that

  1. Governments may seek to increase disorder to expand their power.
  2. People should abstain from voting, instead seeking change through persuasive and non-coercive methods.
  3. Peaceful civilization is not dependent on the state.
  4. Governments are created for the benefit of the rulers, not the people.

While all of these arguments are common today in anarchist thought, Lipscomb may have been the first to bring them all together, at least in America and likely preceded only by William Godwin in England and Proudhon in France. The radical libertarians in America from Lysander Spooner to Murray Rothbard and beyond developed and popularized these arguments after Lipscomb did, but with no knowledge of Lipscomb. Lipscomb's theory of freedom must be understood as a radical statement positing the almost absolute separation of church and state as the only true guarantor of the freedom of religion.

Like Marc, I'm ambivalent about whether Christians should or shouldn't participate in government (I respect those that do and those that don't and don't think it is an issue of which is right or wrong but rather which is most wise or most in sync with the will of God/way of Christ).  However, I'm certain that the cause of Christ is not primarily accomplished by government, so I think that takes us pretty far towards realizing that issues of government should probably be relatively low down on the list of everyday concerns for most Christians.

[jonmower]

On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission and Destiny and the Christian's Relation to It
by David Lipscomb

[jonmower]

I am talking about the Minute men, the militia, the soldier -slash farmer. I do believe our country was founded on Christian principals; in fact,there is a wonderful thread that proves it on this thread. The question though we they wrong in your opinion to break from tyranny?

Look at the first century.  The Jews were suffering under the tyranny of the Romans and expected a messiah to come and lead them to military victory.  Jesus made it clear that political and earthly freedom were mostly beside the point to the kingdom of God and obviously did nothing at all in the direction of violent overthrow of Roman tyranny.  Following his example, his followers voluntarily gave up their rights and even suffered unjust death.

I would ask whether or not the message of the gospel is adequately summarized by the following: Beat your plowshares into swords and violently overthrow those who reign in tyranny over you, killing as many of your enemies as necessary to achieve your freedom.

No it is not.  Therefore, I would say that while the patriots may have been right by earthly standards to revolt, what they were doing was largely irrelevant to the kingdom of God and therefore are not particularly relevant to determining what is the best way for a Christian to do God's work in this world.

[Arkstfan]

The US was going to break from Britain once the economy started moving it was inevitable. If you had a question it would take two months to send the question to England, if it were answered same day it would require another two months to get the response.

I am unsure as to what religious reason was used to break from the crown?

Each colony had its own level of religious protection or restriction and those remained in place after the revolution and state sponsored churches remained until as late as 1833.

It economically made sense but as a religious decision? Not so sure. In less than 60 years Quakers and Methodists in the UK gained enough political power to outlaw slavery. It would be another 32 years and at the point of a gun barrel before it would happen here.

[lightshineon]

I am talking about the Minute men, the militia, the soldier -slash farmer. I do believe our country was founded on Christian principals; in fact,there is a wonderful thread that proves it on this thread. The question though we they wrong in your opinion to break from tyranny?

Look at the first century.  The Jews were suffering under the tyranny of the Romans and expected a messiah to come and lead them to military victory.  Jesus made it clear that political and earthly freedom were mostly beside the point to the kingdom of God and obviously did nothing at all in the direction of violent overthrow of Roman tyranny.  Following his example, his followers voluntarily gave up their rights and even suffered unjust death.

I would ask whether or not the message of the gospel is adequately summarized by the following: Beat your plowshares into swords and violently overthrow those who reign in tyranny over you, killing as many of your enemies as necessary to achieve your freedom.

No it is not.  Therefore, I would say that while the patriots may have been right by earthly standards to revolt, what they were doing was largely irrelevant to the kingdom of God and therefore are not particularly relevant to determining what is the best way for a Christian to do God's work in this world.

OK, I will agree with you on the misunderstanding of the Messiahs role, by the people of that day, but, that was peoples expectations of the earthly Messiah.  I will ask you jon if the Civil war was wrong? It also freed the slaves, and it was an internal overthrow. Was Cornelius considered a bad man, though he was a centerion? I have to find this in the OT, but was reading awhile back, where the enemy had wondered into Israel's camp, and, the king, was told by God, not to kill them but to feed them and give them something to drink. He told them though to fight them on the battlefield. Just because Jesus did not come at that point, to overthrow Rome, that does not set a precedence for not living under Tyranny. I also will disagree, that the United States, and its Christian people have not played  a role in spreading the gospel. I was talking to a Chinese woman this last Saturday. She was so grateful to be in America, she said " I had to come here to find God."  She was so grateful for freedom to be a Baptist. She was more patriotic than I am even.

[jonmower]

I will ask you jon if the Civil war was wrong? It also freed the slaves, and it was an internal overthrow. Was Cornelius considered a bad man, though he was a centerion?

I'm not arguing about right or wrong in politics and war (Civil War, revolutionary war), etc.  You can bring up WWII, 100 Years War, whatever and I'll still maintain that such conflicts over earthly sovereignty are not at the heart of the gospel.  I'm saying politics is about the workings of earthly kingdoms and that earthly kingdoms, earthly freedoms, etc. were not centrally relevant to the mission of Christ on this earth and, therefore, (I assume) are mostly irrelevant to those of us who continue to attempt to accomplish His mission on earth.  I certainly won't judge those of us that attempt to use government (for example) as a tool to promote justice, compassion, etc. (concepts that are certainly close to the heart of God) on this earth...but I have some sympathy with the view that this is not necessarily the most effective way to do so.

The gospel is about loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, voluntarily giving up your rights, being willing to suffer persecution unjustly as a testimony to Christ, etc.  Of course, I don't expect earthly governments and political revolutionaries to adopt these principles...but neither do I assume that good and desirable features of earthly kingdoms (freedom, democracy, etc.) are central aspects of Christianity.  Earthly and heavenly kingdoms certainly have some impact on and engagement with each other, but each is mostly about something unrelated to the other.  Therefore, I can understand why someone might choose to devote himself entirely to the heavenly kingdom and not make any attempt to make use of the tools of earthly ones.

[Arkstfan]

We can't know if the Civil War would have been avoided had the US not revolted from the United Kingdom. Maybe it gets abolished 30 years earlier by law rather than violence. Maybe if there were armed resistance it is quashed quickly in an American South that has fewer means of production in the 1830's.

Maybe the US as part of the Commonwealth joins World War I sooner and defeats the Kaiser before the plot to de-stablize Russia is successful and Russia never becomes a communist state and Stalin never kills millions. Maybe a quicker end to WWI avoids the harsh treaty that sets the stage for Hitler.

But maybe it all turns out worse.

[lightshineon]

 I watched "The Postman" an old Kevin Consner movie on netflix, it was really, really, good and a thinking movie. Loving your enemy, and choosing to defend the weak, helpless such as; the Jews and the civil war, or defending your freedom is not ungodly. I mentioned Cornelius, a centerion was called a good man.  Who said something like this, help me with it. For evil to prosper, all it takes is foe good men to do nothing. Not an exact quote, but someone knows it. America is a different political system than Rome, or ancient Israel. Actually God did use Constantine, a Christian to restore things in his timing, and through war, and the building of roads. Early Christians obeyed the Government, as far as it did not conflict with God. They would not worship Cesare, rescued babies left to die, met in secret. Christ never ment us to take things to unhealthy extreames. That is unbalanced, because have you ever heard of someone being so heavenly minded that they were of no earthly good? Love your neighbor as yourself is another command. If you do not protect your neighbor against evil do you love them? In Revelation, you see many wars sanctioned by God. There has to be a balance of structer in a society. Sorry about spellig errors my keyboard is going crazy. hard to post things also.

[Jimbob]

The patriots were fallible humans like us, doing the best they could with the light they had, to borrow a term from their period.  Ultimately, no matter what you think of their actions, they simply aren't the standard of what true/best/ethical/moral.

[lightshineon]

The patriots were fallible humans like us, doing the best they could with the light they had, to borrow a term from their period.  Ultimately, no matter what you think of their actions, they simply aren't the standard of what true/best/ethical/moral.

Really? When did courage, integrity and desire for liberty go out of style? I respectfully disagree with you James. I would not enjoy a comcentration camp vaction? Would you? Again forgive errors, stupid laptop.

[jonmower]

Christ never ment us to take things to unhealthy extreames. That is unbalanced, because have you ever heard of someone being so heavenly minded that they were of no earthly good? Love your neighbor as yourself is another command. If you do not protect your neighbor against evil do you love them?

I disagree...Jesus and many of his followers took it to a very unhealthy extreme of submitting to excruciating deaths to honor God.  As I've already mentioned, I'm not engaging in an argument about the "rights and wrongs" of "just" wars and the like.  I'm profoundly conflicted on that subject myself.  You may be right that much "greater good" is achieved through violence and revolution and the like and that some of it may be part of God's plan.  What I'm objecting to is the conflation of the goals, means, and methods of earthly kingdoms with those of the heavenly one and the apparent assumption that the actions of noble Christians are necessarily Christ-like...and most of all that actions that may be noble, courageous, etc. but are the polar extreme of the example set by Jesus can somehow be construed as Christ-like.

[poptart]

It's among the dumbest things I've heard.

Would you care to cite Scripture which you imagine backs the idea that Christians ought not vote, let alone even engage in any "political" activity at all?

"My kingdom is not of this world" John 18:36

How about one scripture where Jesus or any disciple went to the Roman Senate or Caesar to change government policy? The closest we get is Paul exercising his right as a Roman citizen to appeal a possible death sentence to Caesar and then not change the law but arguing it doesn't fit what he has done.

Christ's Kingdom is not of this world.

Yes, I agree.  lol

And so??


Your Scripture ... FAILS ... to support the view that Christians ought not vote or engage in any political activity at all.

You've simply latched onto a weird idea, chosen to run with it, and yanked a Scripture out of the Bible try (feebly) to support it.

Christians thinking that they should surrender their right to vote is moronic at best.


Why would I need to show you Scripture where Jesus or any disciple went to the Roman Senate or Caesar to change government policy?

Did I ever assert any such a thing???

Nope, never.

Don't toss things out and try to connect them to me.

It's a highly disingenous move on your part, and it won't divert attention away from the fact that you are standing in support of a VERY strange idea.


I said Christians should not forfeit their God-given and law-given right to vote.

That's what I said.

And that saying they should do that is among the dumbest things ever uttered.


Do you imagine the country and people will be better off if Christians forfeit their votes and the land is TOTALLY taken over by idol worshippers?


Good grief.

[Jimbob]

The patriots were fallible humans like us, doing the best they could with the light they had, to borrow a term from their period.  Ultimately, no matter what you think of their actions, they simply aren't the standard of what true/best/ethical/moral.

Really? When did courage, integrity and desire for liberty go out of style? I respectfully disagree with you James. I would not enjoy a comcentration camp vaction? Would you? Again forgive errors, stupid laptop.

Um, with which do you disagree?

A. The patriots were human.
B. The patriots were not Jesus (because he's the only true standard of what's true/best/ethical/moral to the Christian).

[marc]

Some interesting thoughts.  I have to admit that whenever I seem about to take the plunge into full pacifism, I'm confronted with something like the Holocaust.

I don't know the answer.  I think that all we can do is follow God first and not confuse His kingdom with our country.  If there wasn't some right accomplished through secular means, then there wouldn't be the temptation to trust in civil government. 

I'm not even sure what that means.

[poptart]

So what's your take, marc?? lol

You're feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with politics, or that Christians should have something to do with politics?


If you have children, what are you going to teach them?

They should have something or nothing (your word) to do with politics?


When confronted with an issue where a decision which needs to be made, most men make a decision.

[Bon Voyage]

So what's your take, marc?? lol

You're feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with politics, or that Christians should have something to do with politics?


If you have children, what are you going to teach them?

They should have something or nothing (your word) to do with politics?


When confronted with an issue where a decision which needs to be made, most men make a decision.

I think Christians need to put Christ and his kingdom first, instead of politics and an earthly kingdom.

[Jaime]

So what's your take, marc?? lol

You're feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with politics, or that Christians should have something to do with politics?


If you have children, what are you going to teach them?

They should have something or nothing (your word) to do with politics?


When confronted with an issue where a decision which needs to be made, most men make a decision.

I think Christians need to put Christ and his kingdom first, instead of politics and an earthly kingdom.

That doesn't necessarily translate into abstaining from politics, anymore than we should abstain from our means of making a living.

[jonmower]

That doesn't necessarily translate into abstaining from politics, anymore than we should abstain from our means of making a living.

To me an important question is whether or not the explicit and in-your-face participation of Christians in politics tends (overall) to mask or reveal the gospel message in the eyes non-believers.  Personally, I think that often it tends to mask it...that the stink of politics rubs off on a practice of Christianity that is too often conflated with politics.  Therefore, I also wonder whether or not it would be better for Christians to disengage from politics.  I'm not really thinking in terms of voting (since that is private anyway), but rather the more public aspects of the partisan battle royal.

[Jaime]

I would hope Christians would be the first to speak up on issues that affect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as well as religious freedoms, etc. Yes, if being politically engaged harms our witness, of course we should do our best to avoid those situations. I am the poster child of letting my mouth overload my witness. Some things are not worth losing our cool. Some ARE worth shouting over, in my opinion. Not near as many as I demonstrate sometimes.

I have hopes that "Gotcha" politics will subside, but it doesn't look good for the near future. To me it all began with the humilation of Watergate then kinda got it's second wind during Reagan's presidency and continued back and forth until Clinton was impeached. That ratcheted up the game. Bush was a magnet of partisanship and had a supportive cast in Congress, and now Obama is just as much a partisan magnet with a supportive cast in Congress.

I long for the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. At the time we all thought partisanship was hopelessly over the top. We couldn't even see the top then! 

[poptart]

I think Christians need to put Christ and his kingdom first, instead of politics and an earthly kingdom.

True, I agree, Gary.

Nearly all here would nod in agreement at your comment.


But I'm still trying to get marc to give his take.

He said he's feeling Christians ought not have ... ANYTHING ... to do with politics.

This includes voting, by the terminology which HE chose to use.

I'm simply wanting him to verify the remarkable assertion he made that Christians ought not vote.


So far he dodges.