Should Christians engage in culture wars?

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

As I recall, pundit Cal Thomas wrote a book many years ago on this subject. Being a conservative, it caught him some flack from his fellow Republicans, since he decided, as I recall, that politics should not be mixed with Christianity.

Regards, Brenden.

[thrombomodulin]

Greetings,

As I recall, pundit Cal Thomas wrote a book many years ago on this subject. Being a conservative, it caught him some flack from his fellow Republicans, since he decided, as I recall, that politics should not be mixed with Christianity.

Regards, Brenden.

Why shouldn't politics be mixed with Christianity?

[TheEditor]

I have to believe you've already heard all the arguments. But, just to make my own thinking clear:

I believe that for the person who professes Christanity, the more they ally themselves with the secular intrigues of this world, the more they have to allow that same world and it's intrigues to have a stake in the Christian and his allegiance. For example, if I as a taxpayer should decide to vote in an election where a local proposition would forbid gambling halls and topless bars from within 1,000 yards of an Elementary school, I may see a reason to vote on such a matter, and feel that my taxpayer status entitled me to a bit of a "say" if you will.

On the other hand, if i campaign actively for the leading "moral" canddate for some political office, and dontate my time and talents to that end, I may feel constrained to let said candidate consume my otherwise opportioned time in political matters when the need should arise. Or, if I am very vocal in supporting the US as a beacon of light in a dark world, and I start blurring the distinction between God's world view and the US world view, I may feel constrained to have the US ship me or my son off to another country, to bludgeon someone to death that is wearing a different uniform than I.

The degree to which one allies himself with the State is the degree to which that State lays claim to one's time and talents. Donate what time and talents you are willing to, my brother...

Regards, Brenden.

PS "Party spirit" as I recall, is one of the works of the flesh.

[jaydam]

So he was thinking of celibate men with attraction to other men (but not acting on it)?

Yes, I liked what the Pope said, because as I read it, it indicated he held no judgment on people who were homosexuals that did not practice or act on their desire. His withheld judgment, not on the sin, but on the temptation somebody faces. I've seen it too often where people are judged just on what tempts them, thus people become hesitant to even open up about their struggle before it becomes a defeat.

On the main topic, it seems to me that for the church to get involved in politics is to try to shape a world that doesn't understand where we come from idealogically anyway, and thus puts greater division between us and people we would otherwise attempt to evangelize.

I'll be a voice for morality, but I don't see a call to be a moral force, physically or legislatively on an unbelieving world. Legislation is just physically enforcing Christian ideals by proxy.

[thrombomodulin]

Brenden,

I consider my political views to be 'mixed with' Christianity, so that is why I asked the question above. Thank you for replying.

I would like to respond by saying that the description you have given is not applicable to all political views. Allegiance to the State only arises when a person's political views are such that they wish to utilize the power of the State to accomplish their objectives. My view of the State has developed in a direction towards the anarcho-capitalist position. That is to say, I believe the vast majority of the actions done by the State are wrongdoing in one form or another. If one's political efforts are aimed at diminishing the State (e.g. by abolishing and repealing), then the concerns you have raised are not applicable. Instead, using peaceful means to oppose such wrongdoing strikes me as something appropriate for a Christian to be involved in. Are there any grounds by which you would find political activity aimed in the direction described above to be in inappropriate for a Christian?

Peter

[Singalphile]

It seems to me that the danger is when Christianity, broadly speaking, is seen as allying with any particular political party or is seen as a voting bloc to be wooed. Politics is more likely to corrupt the church than the church is likely to clean up politics, at least in the U.S. The Church can be a united voice on certain moral issues, and individual Christians can of course vote, but I don't like to see Christian people distracted by political mud-slinging.

So that's something to guard against, I think.

[TheEditor]

Hi Peter,

It's an interesting point you raise. But the nature of the involvement doesn't necessarily diminish my distaste of the involvement, even if I can see reasons for such involvement from a practical standpoint. Let me use an illustration.

People will sometimes make comment on how the government acts in certain cases, for example taxation or warfare etc. I've often use boardgames as an analogy for how a person can see what the practical endgame or strategy might be but not necessarily be particularly interested in the game. I used to play the game Risk when I was younger; sometimes Monopoly as well-- but I watched people play Risk who didn't know how to play it. I knew enough about the game of Risk to know that there are certain countries you just don't want have anything to do with if you hoped to control the entire map. And so likewise with games like Monopoly; there are certain properties that are more valuable to have and will ensure that you have much greater success in winning the game. Likewise with political conversations. I might feel a certain way about a particular issue and I may see practical ways in which that particular issue could be championed through the secular government--through political intrigues. The question for me really isn't so much how to best do that but whether or not that is even something I want to spend my time doing.

For example I don't read in the Gospel accounts that Jesus spent a great deal of time telling his disciples how to get the Romans to change marginal tax rates; or whether or not the Romans need to curtail that social umbrella; or whether or not they should lobby for the right to keep and bear swords. I may agree with one or two or all three of these issues or I may disagree with them. The question for me isn't so much whether or not change can be achieved in government and by what means it can be done, but whether I should be using my time making that change? Should I be for example spending time polishing the brass on the Titanic?

I don't see Jesus message as being one of social change or government changes. I see it as being the change of the human heart. I see Jesus as being here primarily to teach people how to draw close to the Father through his agency and to spend one's time cultivating the fruit of God's spirit and to grow genuinely as a disciple of his rather than how to make this world reflect some kind of pure ideological political utopia; and I'm not sure that something like that is frankly even possible to achieve or necessarily desirable once achieved. I guess I see party spirit and politics as being intrinsically divisive and I am genuinely concerned when believers find their passions so easily aroused by political issues, because to me there is meaning in Jesus words that "where your treasure is there your heart will be also."

Regards, Brenden.

[thrombomodulin]

I may see practical ways in which that particular issue could be championed through the secular government--through political intrigues.

As per what I wrote above, this is attributing something to my point of view that does not represent my position. My position is that the State ought not be the champion of issues, but rather that the State does not have a proper place in addressing issues. Consider, for example, the issue of education. I do not think the political argument ought to be about whether government should teach X instead Y, or whether funding should be more or less, or whether standards should be higher or lower. Rather my position is that there should be no government schools at all, that there should be no regulations regarding educational content, that there should be no compulsory attendance laws, and that there should be no government financing of schools whatsoever.

The question for me isn't so much whether or not change can be achieved in government and by what means it can be done, but whether I should be using my time making that change?

It is my understanding that a significant, and ever increasing, portion of my time is being consumed by carrying the burdens imposed by government. I see the state of affairs between tax payers and government as being analogous to the situation Paul described between slaves and masters. Paul said that slaves should obtain their freedom if they were able (I Cor 7:21). It is not obvious to me that a certain amount of effort towards the end goal of diminishing this burden, isn't worth the potential rewards that would be had by attaining that goal it in part or whole. Unlike the first century, the present system has substantially greater opportunities for citizens to influence the State which they are subjected to.

[TheEditor]

Hi Peter,

So, in no particular order; I didn't misunderstand your postion. But to achieve your ends, political intrigues are necessary, unless you want violent revolution.

Paul's counsel to slaves is interesting. Especially other passages. It's rather interesting and makes for some speculation if one has time. I feel this passage is being made too elastic, however, to support your position.

And your view of human governance fits perfectly the definition of Utopia; not possible "this side of the veil". I may even agree with you in spirit, but I believe that what would come of a system like the one you are suggesting is not a palatible thought when the world is teeming with carnal minds.

Again, this is precisely why I believe this all to be dirty business best left to those with unclean hands.

Regards, Brenden.

[thrombomodulin]

In no particular order:

I do not favor violent revolution of any sort, the only valid means of pursuing such change is to convince others of the worthiness of these ideas.

Why do you believe my application of Paul's counsel to slaves is invalid?

I am not arguing for a utopia. It is not my opinion that a society constructed in such a way would be without the ill effects of carnal minds. I am making the lesser claim that such a system would be a better system than the one we have now.

Regards, Peter