Should Christians participate in politics?
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Should Christians participate in politics?
Many conservative Christians want other Christians to go out and vote, usually for the Republican candidate or some other conservative issue. I am not sure that is the way to go. In fact, I am not sure that participation in politics is even the correct way that we should go about it. I just want to say that Jesus was not a Republican, (nor Democrat). If we are citizens and ambassadors for Christ, why participate in politics? Why vote? What do we have to do with the world system. I am not going to cast a vote for a candidate that is a rebel agaisnst Yahweh and His Christ (Psalm 2). Some would say that we should choose the least evil and that that choice is a necessary evil. But if it is evil, why is it necessary? I thought the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual and mighty in God. I thought that our faith doesn't rest on argument or debate, but on the power of God. We would be better to leave those world systems behind and cast our vote with Christ in pray instead of choose between two (or more) evils. Any thoughts?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Dear Anon.
I myself have never been very politically involved. I am 51 years old and have only voted in two presidential elections. My reasoning has been much like yours. I reasoned as follows: Those who govern are appointed as ministers of God (Romans 13:1-7). To appoint leaders hastily is forbidden in scripture (1 Tim.5:22). Though this instruction is in the context of church leaders, not political leaders, yet if the latter are upon a divinely-mandated errand, it seems not too different, in terms of my participation in their appointment. Voting a man into office is thus similar to "laying hands" on a minister. Do I know enough about any of the candidates to lay my hands on them? If only two men were available candidates for church eldership, and they were both evil (but one less so than the other), I would lay my hands on neither, and let God sort it out.
On the other hand, while we are not (as you said) to be spotted by or entangled in the world system (James 1:27/ 2 Pet.2:20), we do have some role to play in the world. As leaven in a lump of dough (Matt.13:33), or as salt and light in a dark and rotting environment (Matt.5:13-16), we are supposed to, in some way, impact the society where we have been planted.
It is not clear that this impact is to be accomplished through political means. The early Christians had no access to political power, other than by converting people who were already in office, yet they overthrew paganism as the dominant worldview in the Roman Empire. They did this without voting or running for office, but by preaching, living holy lives, praying for rulers, and being faithful unto death (Rev.12:11). One of their most effective levers against the pagan culture was the Christians' martyrdom. The bloody gladiatorial games were finally discontinued, not by the election of Christians to the Roman Senate, but by the damands of popular sentiment because of the martyrdom of a Christian named Telamachus.
It is true, however, that Rome finally embraced Christianity through the conversion (or apparent conversion) of people (especially Constantine) who held political offices (e.g., Acts 13:12), though it was possible to have a Christian influence as a conscience to rulers, even when the rulers remained unconverted (Acts 24:25-26/26:28). Christians were converted from every walk of life, including positions of political influence (Phil.4:22), and there is reason to allow that, when political leaders were converted, they may normally have remained at their posts (though we cannot be sure of this). I suppose this is little different, morally, from the attempts of Christians to gain political offices through being elected.
What seems so significant to me is that Christ and Paul never sought to mobilize the Christians into a political special interest group or lobby. The Jews sometimes tried to get Jesus to speak up about political or civil issues (Luke 12:13/ 13:1) and a multitude once attempted to force Christ to take political office (John 6:15). In every case, He refused to get involved in political discourse. Paul specifically said that he had no interest in judging the morality of society at large (as officers of government must do), but that his whole concern was judging matters inside the church (1 Cor.5:12-13) and straitly charges the Christians to stay out of the civil courts (1 Cor.6:1ff). Apparently, Jesus and Paul felt that the triumph of the Kingdom of God did not depend upon Christians' involvement in politics.
What does all of this add up to? I would say that Christians have no duty, as a political body, to become activists—or even to vote, if they can not vote in good conscience for any of the available candidates. But political office is not mentioned as a forbidden vocation in the New Testament, and if some believers feel that they are called to serve in this realm, I am in no position to condemn them or question their conviction.
While I would not vote an evil man into church office, even if he was the lesser of two evils, I would, in some cases, vote for a political candidate who was not a perfect Christian. This is because the church stands directly for Christ, and its leaders must be exemplary witnesses to the church's message and character. Governmental leaders need not even be Christians in order to govern under God, so they needn't be held to quite the same standard in gaining recognition from Christians. If the rise of one man would forward God's stated ideals for society more than would his his opponent, I can see why Christians might feel some obligation to influence society in the right direction by casting their vote his way. Incrementalism and compromise might be tolerated in the secular realm of politics, where we would not tolerate it in the church government.
When wicked men rule, people (including Christians) hide themselves (Prov.28:12). The rise of conscientious rulers (even if they are not Christians) can be an occasion for rejoicing (Prov.29:2/ Eccl.10:17). We are to pray for rulers so that our exemption from persecution might be extended (1 Tim.2:1-3), and working toward that end through legitimate means (even political) can be a way of putting feet to our prayers, it seems to me.
Though we are citizens of heaven, and only ambassadors here, our domicile nation doesn't recognize this and mistakes us for its own citizens—with the result that we have the privileges of any other citizen, including that of influencing society through our votes. Paul was one who modeled how a citizen of heaven might use the illusuion of Roman citizenship to his Christian advantage (Acts 16:37ff/ 22:25/ 25:11). I think our doing the same is not a compromise of our loyalty to Christ, and might even sometimes be mandatory in the proper exercise of our stewardship of unique opportunities that Christians in other times and in other lands never had.
When it comes to political involvement, therefore, my counsel would be, "let every man be fully pursuaded in his own mind."
I myself have never been very politically involved. I am 51 years old and have only voted in two presidential elections. My reasoning has been much like yours. I reasoned as follows: Those who govern are appointed as ministers of God (Romans 13:1-7). To appoint leaders hastily is forbidden in scripture (1 Tim.5:22). Though this instruction is in the context of church leaders, not political leaders, yet if the latter are upon a divinely-mandated errand, it seems not too different, in terms of my participation in their appointment. Voting a man into office is thus similar to "laying hands" on a minister. Do I know enough about any of the candidates to lay my hands on them? If only two men were available candidates for church eldership, and they were both evil (but one less so than the other), I would lay my hands on neither, and let God sort it out.
On the other hand, while we are not (as you said) to be spotted by or entangled in the world system (James 1:27/ 2 Pet.2:20), we do have some role to play in the world. As leaven in a lump of dough (Matt.13:33), or as salt and light in a dark and rotting environment (Matt.5:13-16), we are supposed to, in some way, impact the society where we have been planted.
It is not clear that this impact is to be accomplished through political means. The early Christians had no access to political power, other than by converting people who were already in office, yet they overthrew paganism as the dominant worldview in the Roman Empire. They did this without voting or running for office, but by preaching, living holy lives, praying for rulers, and being faithful unto death (Rev.12:11). One of their most effective levers against the pagan culture was the Christians' martyrdom. The bloody gladiatorial games were finally discontinued, not by the election of Christians to the Roman Senate, but by the damands of popular sentiment because of the martyrdom of a Christian named Telamachus.
It is true, however, that Rome finally embraced Christianity through the conversion (or apparent conversion) of people (especially Constantine) who held political offices (e.g., Acts 13:12), though it was possible to have a Christian influence as a conscience to rulers, even when the rulers remained unconverted (Acts 24:25-26/26:28). Christians were converted from every walk of life, including positions of political influence (Phil.4:22), and there is reason to allow that, when political leaders were converted, they may normally have remained at their posts (though we cannot be sure of this). I suppose this is little different, morally, from the attempts of Christians to gain political offices through being elected.
What seems so significant to me is that Christ and Paul never sought to mobilize the Christians into a political special interest group or lobby. The Jews sometimes tried to get Jesus to speak up about political or civil issues (Luke 12:13/ 13:1) and a multitude once attempted to force Christ to take political office (John 6:15). In every case, He refused to get involved in political discourse. Paul specifically said that he had no interest in judging the morality of society at large (as officers of government must do), but that his whole concern was judging matters inside the church (1 Cor.5:12-13) and straitly charges the Christians to stay out of the civil courts (1 Cor.6:1ff). Apparently, Jesus and Paul felt that the triumph of the Kingdom of God did not depend upon Christians' involvement in politics.
What does all of this add up to? I would say that Christians have no duty, as a political body, to become activists—or even to vote, if they can not vote in good conscience for any of the available candidates. But political office is not mentioned as a forbidden vocation in the New Testament, and if some believers feel that they are called to serve in this realm, I am in no position to condemn them or question their conviction.
While I would not vote an evil man into church office, even if he was the lesser of two evils, I would, in some cases, vote for a political candidate who was not a perfect Christian. This is because the church stands directly for Christ, and its leaders must be exemplary witnesses to the church's message and character. Governmental leaders need not even be Christians in order to govern under God, so they needn't be held to quite the same standard in gaining recognition from Christians. If the rise of one man would forward God's stated ideals for society more than would his his opponent, I can see why Christians might feel some obligation to influence society in the right direction by casting their vote his way. Incrementalism and compromise might be tolerated in the secular realm of politics, where we would not tolerate it in the church government.
When wicked men rule, people (including Christians) hide themselves (Prov.28:12). The rise of conscientious rulers (even if they are not Christians) can be an occasion for rejoicing (Prov.29:2/ Eccl.10:17). We are to pray for rulers so that our exemption from persecution might be extended (1 Tim.2:1-3), and working toward that end through legitimate means (even political) can be a way of putting feet to our prayers, it seems to me.
Though we are citizens of heaven, and only ambassadors here, our domicile nation doesn't recognize this and mistakes us for its own citizens—with the result that we have the privileges of any other citizen, including that of influencing society through our votes. Paul was one who modeled how a citizen of heaven might use the illusuion of Roman citizenship to his Christian advantage (Acts 16:37ff/ 22:25/ 25:11). I think our doing the same is not a compromise of our loyalty to Christ, and might even sometimes be mandatory in the proper exercise of our stewardship of unique opportunities that Christians in other times and in other lands never had.
When it comes to political involvement, therefore, my counsel would be, "let every man be fully pursuaded in his own mind."
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
One thing: If a Christian was to be voted into political office, like President Bush is said to be, wouldn't that eventually end up in a conflict of duties? If the President is a Christian, yet commander in chief of the armies, and there was a war, like there is now, doesn't loving your enemies stand as a higher Christian duty than bombing them? I am simply saying this: I think that is unlikely that the Christian can continue on in faith without any compromise. If the President says that as leader of the nation he must bomb this country or that, (and probably inevitably kill his own Christian brother through the means of war even by chance) doesn't that end up in some compromise; the President has thus murdered his brother. I used to be harder on the President, but it is a job that should not be envied, so I am more sympathetic because he has hard choices to make. Is the political officer's duty to Christ first, or to what he swore by oath to uphold even if it runs counter to the command of Christ? It just seems like it is too much of a compromise.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Everything you have just said, I have also said many times, and cannot deny. I believe that the point at which a Christian cannot hold political office (or any other secular employment) is the point where doing so necessarily involves him in a conflict of interests vis-a-vis his prior Christian obligations. The office of Presidency may, in fact, be such an office.
Some would argue that the President (or any ruler) is obliged to act as an agent of the State—not in his own personal interests—in which role he must make decisions that involve actions which are lawful and moral for the State to perform (e.g., defending its citizens against aggressors), which would be inappropriate for him as an individual to do, acting in his own personal interests. Thus, whatever is moral for a State to do, is moral for a Head of State to do, and whatever is moral for a Head of State to do, is moral for a Christian Head of State to do.
I understand this reasoning, though I have personal problems with it, to the degree that I could never serve as President—not only because of my incompetence, but because of conscience. I see the State and the Church has having separate goals, separate ideals, and separate spheres of authority. As an agent (i.e., a member) of the Body of Christ, I cannot see how I could ever perform most of the duties of a Head of State—and every citizen ought to be grateful not to have me in such a position in their government.
Some would argue that the President (or any ruler) is obliged to act as an agent of the State—not in his own personal interests—in which role he must make decisions that involve actions which are lawful and moral for the State to perform (e.g., defending its citizens against aggressors), which would be inappropriate for him as an individual to do, acting in his own personal interests. Thus, whatever is moral for a State to do, is moral for a Head of State to do, and whatever is moral for a Head of State to do, is moral for a Christian Head of State to do.
I understand this reasoning, though I have personal problems with it, to the degree that I could never serve as President—not only because of my incompetence, but because of conscience. I see the State and the Church has having separate goals, separate ideals, and separate spheres of authority. As an agent (i.e., a member) of the Body of Christ, I cannot see how I could ever perform most of the duties of a Head of State—and every citizen ought to be grateful not to have me in such a position in their government.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_JohnBarbour
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: McMinnville, OR
Presidential Elections
Check out Presidential Elections Forum at the bottom and participate in poll.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
John Barbour
-
_bradshawm
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:31 am
While I am not sure that I fully aggree that it is a conflict of interest to serve both the state and God (the assumption is that we will always choose the state when a conflict of values between the two arises, or that everything the state stands for is a conflict of values), When it comes to the president, I think it is a mute point.
If a person running for president were a godly Christian, he would be honest and forthright about what he would or would not be willing to support or do. Thus, "if" he did get voted into office, those who voted him in would know ahead of time that he would not go to war or act to defend the country and he would be free to remain consistent with his values in that area.
Marshall
If a person running for president were a godly Christian, he would be honest and forthright about what he would or would not be willing to support or do. Thus, "if" he did get voted into office, those who voted him in would know ahead of time that he would not go to war or act to defend the country and he would be free to remain consistent with his values in that area.
Marshall
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Anon
I tend to think that power is to be distrusted; we should be suspicious. Anyone who wants the job of president who desires that kind of power, is asking for an aweful lot of trouble. I don't know if a godly Christian would run for presidential office, and even if one did, I am not sure that all the wicked would want someone like that in office. Light only tends to reveal. I think people would resist that kind of person, if one really chose to run for office. Also, having to be so convoluted as to be a head of State and a Christian...it is hard to love your enemies when you are bombing them. I think that the job requirements for a head of State are of such nature that in good conscience one could not take the risk of having to disobey the commands of Christ. I think that is one reason why Carter didn't have a lot of success in his foreign policy with the hostage situation and the like. At least the pagan knows how to be cruel enough to keep his power when threatened by another country. And honestly, it is not like the media is the most honest and unbiased of institutions. They are all owned by businesses that have a vested interest in who is in power; they shape the candidates accordingly. That is why independent media is still worthwhile reading. It isn't like the President can say " I'll do this, but I won't do that". It is all included, and if he can't or isn't willing to do something, say go to war and kill, he can't just hand that decision over and abdicate to who, some congressman from Rhode Island? A delagation in Alaska? A bunch of online gamers? The job requirements preclude a Christian I think from taking public office, even if taking public office was something that a devout Christian could do or should do.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_bradshawm
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:31 am
Anon,
I find your response to be very interesting. While the old addage is,"Power corrupts", I am curious as to why all these issues are so black and white to you. I have heavy responsibilities as a husband, and father of four. You could say that I have lots of "power" in my home. I always wanted to be married, and have a large family. Since, on a very small scale, it is a position of "power", does it necessarily mean that I desire power? I know many people very closely who are in positions of great "power" whether it be in the church, the military or in the corporate world. Yes, there are some who are on ego trips, and want power and authority, but most are not. Most are very sincere people who want to make a difference. When God created Adam, He created him in his image, and the command given him was to manage. It is in our nature to manage and even desire to do so, and God see's it as a good thing. It isn't the position of managment that makes a person good or evil, it is whether the person in management is good or evil.
The issue is that, most peole in government are just people. Imperfect, and prone to sin, just like you and me. The issue isn't who they work for, but who they are related to, God or Adam, and how strong that relationship is. The issue is how strong their convictions are. Your convictions are strong in your not being willing to vote, or even participate. While you may not approve of President Bush, he has had enough convictions as a president to say what he will and won't do, even under heavy pressure. Those around him have the right to lobby, and vote against what he is trying to do, but how that can be construed as abdicating or letting others make a decision for him I don't know. Yes, someone with yours or my conviction and interpretation of scripture would probably not get voted into office. But if we don't get involved, or run for anything, we provide no other alternatives. Isn't it a contradiction to say that Christians should not be involved, and then righteously condemn the options that are available?
I've asked the questions before, and would like your answers. Do You think that God only wants people making the decisions in the world to be heathans? Do you believe that when it comes to issues of life and death for babies (I'm not talking being an activist), that God only wants non-Christians to have an input in making that decision. God has placed you in a position where you have the priveledge of voting to decide whether a tax should be established. Does God want you to avoid voting all together, even when there is evidence that it might be unfair, or would place a great hardship on your neighbors?
These aren't issues of government, control, or even power. In some cases they are issues of mercy for the unborn, in others they are issues of justice, or merely the opportunity to have input from a godly and morale standpoint. Aren't these all things God has called us to do? Black and white thinking may seem like a safe place to be, because we can avoid getting muddied by having to face even tougher issues, and possibly making mistakes or feeling pressured to violate our convictions. It is difficult to try and sort through some of this stuff, and it would be easier to just say that Christians should not get involved. I wish I could, but I can't. Not because of a desire for power, but because of a feeling of responsibility.
God bless.
Marshall
I find your response to be very interesting. While the old addage is,"Power corrupts", I am curious as to why all these issues are so black and white to you. I have heavy responsibilities as a husband, and father of four. You could say that I have lots of "power" in my home. I always wanted to be married, and have a large family. Since, on a very small scale, it is a position of "power", does it necessarily mean that I desire power? I know many people very closely who are in positions of great "power" whether it be in the church, the military or in the corporate world. Yes, there are some who are on ego trips, and want power and authority, but most are not. Most are very sincere people who want to make a difference. When God created Adam, He created him in his image, and the command given him was to manage. It is in our nature to manage and even desire to do so, and God see's it as a good thing. It isn't the position of managment that makes a person good or evil, it is whether the person in management is good or evil.
The issue is that, most peole in government are just people. Imperfect, and prone to sin, just like you and me. The issue isn't who they work for, but who they are related to, God or Adam, and how strong that relationship is. The issue is how strong their convictions are. Your convictions are strong in your not being willing to vote, or even participate. While you may not approve of President Bush, he has had enough convictions as a president to say what he will and won't do, even under heavy pressure. Those around him have the right to lobby, and vote against what he is trying to do, but how that can be construed as abdicating or letting others make a decision for him I don't know. Yes, someone with yours or my conviction and interpretation of scripture would probably not get voted into office. But if we don't get involved, or run for anything, we provide no other alternatives. Isn't it a contradiction to say that Christians should not be involved, and then righteously condemn the options that are available?
I've asked the questions before, and would like your answers. Do You think that God only wants people making the decisions in the world to be heathans? Do you believe that when it comes to issues of life and death for babies (I'm not talking being an activist), that God only wants non-Christians to have an input in making that decision. God has placed you in a position where you have the priveledge of voting to decide whether a tax should be established. Does God want you to avoid voting all together, even when there is evidence that it might be unfair, or would place a great hardship on your neighbors?
These aren't issues of government, control, or even power. In some cases they are issues of mercy for the unborn, in others they are issues of justice, or merely the opportunity to have input from a godly and morale standpoint. Aren't these all things God has called us to do? Black and white thinking may seem like a safe place to be, because we can avoid getting muddied by having to face even tougher issues, and possibly making mistakes or feeling pressured to violate our convictions. It is difficult to try and sort through some of this stuff, and it would be easier to just say that Christians should not get involved. I wish I could, but I can't. Not because of a desire for power, but because of a feeling of responsibility.
God bless.
Marshall
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
involvement
Marshall,
You are right to assert that the issues seem black and white to me, but they weren't so always. I spent a couple years working on the issue of power while in college, looking at it from every angle I could, every political theory, every idea about government that I could. I also looked at it from the perspective of the Christian and tried to find where our allegiences lie. By this time, you probably realize that I am not a big fan of secular government, nor government in general. The fact that remains is this: We, as Christians are already part of a government -- the kingdom and reign of YahWeh through Christ Jesus. That is where our allegiences lie. I think the question to ask is what is power, and really, what is legitimate power. I too am a father, and have power in the home. But what is the legitimate use of that power? It is not a haphazard reckless power that beats the children when I am not feeling good at the time. I teach my children the fear and admonition of the Lord. I tell them about the world and about the kingdom of God and how the two are enemies. I have well-behaved children and we have lots of fun. So am I excercising power? We could say the same thing in the church. Is the minister exercising power when he is teaching the doctrines of the church? The authority isn't in the minister but in the doctrines themselves. The apostles teaching, Jesus's teaching didn't come from someone else. It came from Christ. THe teaching is authoritative, at least for the Christian.
You are right about the people in government. They are usually pretty normal people, even just in some sense (though sitting at the DMV for 2 hours doesn't seem just at all
).
I am indifferent to the President. I think he is in a tough position and I disagree with his course of action as a Christian to go to war, but I understand it as a head of State. I think that doesn't excuse those choices, but he will answer for his own.
The thing to remember about power is that it is not just overt. It is hidden. It is in the systems and superstructure that we consider normal. We normalize judgement; a score of this high is good, under this is bad, and the person is placed accordingly. They want us to vote in what is a two party system essentially, but that is no meaningful choice. Power shapes our decisions, shapes what we think is normative, what we think is right. The very process of it is power covertly working. For an example, the churches have a tax status with the State that means they are cooperating with the State. THe 501(3)C status is meant to support the State system. That makes the Church compromised, especially when the churches have to go against something that the State wants. The State can then threaten or use coercion to pull their status.
There is no nationalism in the kingdom of God. The idea of a Christian Nation, like many people say America is, is only a myth. THe kingdom of God i.e. the Church is made up of people from many different ethnic backgrounds throughout the world. THere are no geographical, territorial borders to the Church. To participate in the system of teh world, which sometimes forces the inhabitants to go to war against other inhaibitants of the world who may or may not happen to be Christian, is not an option for the Christian.
As far as life and death issues, the Christian has a responsibiltiy to warn the wicked of their wickedness right? Just as Ezekiel did, but I don't know that translates into participation in civil government. I am inclined to say, especially with the gay marriage issue, to let them have their sin and see how they like it: we will be there to pick up the pieces. Besides, marriage doesn't belong to the State; it belongs to God. THat is why they say "By the power invested in me by the State of Oregon or whereever". The best the civil government can offer, to man and woman, is civil union. Marriage belongs to the church and is signified by an event threshhold accompanied with responsibilities and obligations for both partners.
I am not against preaching about the righteousness of God, that is our Godly input, but I don't think that means we should sign up for civil service. What ever happened to not being conformed to the image of this world? DOesn't Paul say that "Bad Company corrupts good morals"?
IF you feel as though you have a responsibility to vote, then vote according to your conscience. I don't think less of people who do, nor should those who don't vote for conscience sake be thought of less. I just believe that we as Christians are to be seperate in every way possible from the world. Regards, Anon.
You are right to assert that the issues seem black and white to me, but they weren't so always. I spent a couple years working on the issue of power while in college, looking at it from every angle I could, every political theory, every idea about government that I could. I also looked at it from the perspective of the Christian and tried to find where our allegiences lie. By this time, you probably realize that I am not a big fan of secular government, nor government in general. The fact that remains is this: We, as Christians are already part of a government -- the kingdom and reign of YahWeh through Christ Jesus. That is where our allegiences lie. I think the question to ask is what is power, and really, what is legitimate power. I too am a father, and have power in the home. But what is the legitimate use of that power? It is not a haphazard reckless power that beats the children when I am not feeling good at the time. I teach my children the fear and admonition of the Lord. I tell them about the world and about the kingdom of God and how the two are enemies. I have well-behaved children and we have lots of fun. So am I excercising power? We could say the same thing in the church. Is the minister exercising power when he is teaching the doctrines of the church? The authority isn't in the minister but in the doctrines themselves. The apostles teaching, Jesus's teaching didn't come from someone else. It came from Christ. THe teaching is authoritative, at least for the Christian.
You are right about the people in government. They are usually pretty normal people, even just in some sense (though sitting at the DMV for 2 hours doesn't seem just at all
). I am indifferent to the President. I think he is in a tough position and I disagree with his course of action as a Christian to go to war, but I understand it as a head of State. I think that doesn't excuse those choices, but he will answer for his own.
The thing to remember about power is that it is not just overt. It is hidden. It is in the systems and superstructure that we consider normal. We normalize judgement; a score of this high is good, under this is bad, and the person is placed accordingly. They want us to vote in what is a two party system essentially, but that is no meaningful choice. Power shapes our decisions, shapes what we think is normative, what we think is right. The very process of it is power covertly working. For an example, the churches have a tax status with the State that means they are cooperating with the State. THe 501(3)C status is meant to support the State system. That makes the Church compromised, especially when the churches have to go against something that the State wants. The State can then threaten or use coercion to pull their status.
There is no nationalism in the kingdom of God. The idea of a Christian Nation, like many people say America is, is only a myth. THe kingdom of God i.e. the Church is made up of people from many different ethnic backgrounds throughout the world. THere are no geographical, territorial borders to the Church. To participate in the system of teh world, which sometimes forces the inhabitants to go to war against other inhaibitants of the world who may or may not happen to be Christian, is not an option for the Christian.
As far as life and death issues, the Christian has a responsibiltiy to warn the wicked of their wickedness right? Just as Ezekiel did, but I don't know that translates into participation in civil government. I am inclined to say, especially with the gay marriage issue, to let them have their sin and see how they like it: we will be there to pick up the pieces. Besides, marriage doesn't belong to the State; it belongs to God. THat is why they say "By the power invested in me by the State of Oregon or whereever". The best the civil government can offer, to man and woman, is civil union. Marriage belongs to the church and is signified by an event threshhold accompanied with responsibilities and obligations for both partners.
I am not against preaching about the righteousness of God, that is our Godly input, but I don't think that means we should sign up for civil service. What ever happened to not being conformed to the image of this world? DOesn't Paul say that "Bad Company corrupts good morals"?
IF you feel as though you have a responsibility to vote, then vote according to your conscience. I don't think less of people who do, nor should those who don't vote for conscience sake be thought of less. I just believe that we as Christians are to be seperate in every way possible from the world. Regards, Anon.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: