Listening to Steve's messages about worldview and others has shown me that we should think of ourselves as belonging to the Kingdom of God not as mere members of a particular nation. Obviously the war issue sheds tremendous light on that distinction. Why would a German Christian want to kill an American Christian and vice versa.
We do live in nations however. My question or problem is the divide between people and their political views.
If God wants us to love him with all our hearts, minds, body, and spirits (and that is the first commandment) shouldn't HIS laws be the laws that we cherish and hold to?
Whether or not a person can see, "...Congress shall pass no law respecting one religion over the other or the free excercise thereof..." as meaning there should be a wall between church and state really isn't the issue. The issue is, what would God want us to do? Peter and the Apostles believed that they were to talk about him wherever and whenever they got the chance, regardless of what the authorities said at that time.
What about abortion?
What about gay marriage?
These are all hot topics, but because society, at this point in time, has made them so. But were these EVER not understood as bad? Do we long to go back to the 1950s? Or like Steve said, we should long to go back to 33. What was God's views on these topics in 33?
How can a Christian be on the side of those that see these issues as open for interpretation? It seems to me that "...God said it, that settles it..." should be good enough, but why isn't it?
Politics
Re: Politics
I’m not exactly sure if you’re just venting your frustration with our current society, and your questions are merely rhetorical. If they’re not rhetorical, then there are a lot of open-ended questions there.
In general I’ll say this: Without glossing over the shortcomings of our current society, a little history tells us that the Roman society is Jesus’ day was quite degenerate. Yet Jesus didn’t allow Himself to get drawn into political debates. It seems to me His strategy was not so much to try to “fix” the evils of current society, as it was to promote the Kingdom of God. To the degree that His Kingdom takes hold, the evils of society will essentially take care of themselves. The darkness has no congress with the light.
We’ve certainly got a long way to go. One view of things suggest that the world is only going to get worse and worse, until eventually things get so bad that Christ must return to fix it all. Another view advocates that the Kingdom of God is already here, and that it will continue to grow and grow like the grain of a mustard seed, or, to mix the metaphor, like a stone cut without hands that grows and grows until it fills the whole earth.
You quoted the first great commandment. The second one is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself”. This is the essence of promoting the Kingdom. To the degree that we follow these commands, the rest of the evils of society will take care of themselves, and the answers to your specific questions become, to me, rather obvious.
In general I’ll say this: Without glossing over the shortcomings of our current society, a little history tells us that the Roman society is Jesus’ day was quite degenerate. Yet Jesus didn’t allow Himself to get drawn into political debates. It seems to me His strategy was not so much to try to “fix” the evils of current society, as it was to promote the Kingdom of God. To the degree that His Kingdom takes hold, the evils of society will essentially take care of themselves. The darkness has no congress with the light.
We’ve certainly got a long way to go. One view of things suggest that the world is only going to get worse and worse, until eventually things get so bad that Christ must return to fix it all. Another view advocates that the Kingdom of God is already here, and that it will continue to grow and grow like the grain of a mustard seed, or, to mix the metaphor, like a stone cut without hands that grows and grows until it fills the whole earth.
You quoted the first great commandment. The second one is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself”. This is the essence of promoting the Kingdom. To the degree that we follow these commands, the rest of the evils of society will take care of themselves, and the answers to your specific questions become, to me, rather obvious.
Re: Politics
I am wondering if a brother in Christ is pro abortion, is that something that I should quietly ask him about? If he believes that a pastor can be a practicing homosexual, is that an issue that I could quietly ask him about? Does my brother in Christ's adherance to his pro-abortion belief qualify as a "seeing a brother in sin" or would the mere bringing it up to him qualify me as being "a brother in sin by "JUDGING" him"?
Why is abortion political? Isn't it wrong according God?
Why is abortion political? Isn't it wrong according God?
Re: Politics
I named my post POLITICS, but it should have been something like SOCIETY OF THE CHURCH. I was being lazy.
Re: Politics
It seems to me you are raising two very different questions.
1. You asked whether you should confront a brother in Christ if he is in favor of abortion or homosexual ministers. If he's calling himself a brother and is taking positions that are unbiblical then you should confront him as a brother. That is specifically who we are supposed to 'judge'.
2. You also seem to be asking a question something like this: "If God's laws are right, shouldn't we seek to enforce them in the political realm?" To that, though, I'd say not necessarily. Laws don't change people, they can actually make a situation worse. People need to change at a heart level and only the Gospel can really do that. We are not supposed to judge the outside world. We let God take care of those things. We are to focus on living out the kingdom on this earth so as to set an example.
1. You asked whether you should confront a brother in Christ if he is in favor of abortion or homosexual ministers. If he's calling himself a brother and is taking positions that are unbiblical then you should confront him as a brother. That is specifically who we are supposed to 'judge'.
2. You also seem to be asking a question something like this: "If God's laws are right, shouldn't we seek to enforce them in the political realm?" To that, though, I'd say not necessarily. Laws don't change people, they can actually make a situation worse. People need to change at a heart level and only the Gospel can really do that. We are not supposed to judge the outside world. We let God take care of those things. We are to focus on living out the kingdom on this earth so as to set an example.
Re: Politics
With respect to abortion: I suppose there are many issues, arguments, justifications, etc as to why someone might be pro abortion. However, it comes down to this, in my mind: when an abortion occurs an injustice occurs. Therefore, if you are pro abortion, I don't see how you are a "brother". Micah 6:8 says, "He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?"Haole wrote:I am wondering if a brother in Christ is pro abortion, is that something that I should quietly ask him about? If he believes that a pastor can be a practicing homosexual, is that an issue that I could quietly ask him about? Does my brother in Christ's adherance to his pro-abortion belief qualify as a "seeing a brother in sin" or would the mere bringing it up to him qualify me as being "a brother in sin by "JUDGING" him"?
Why is abortion political? Isn't it wrong according God?
With respect to homosexuality: Again, I've heard many justifications for homosexuality, but I have yet to be convinced that it is not a sin. Paul warns the Corinthians in 1 Cor 6:9-11 that homosexuals, like fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers, will not inherit the kingdom of God. From my reading of scripture it appears certain that those who refuse to repent of these sinful ways are not "brothers".
With respect to judging: Christ teaches us how to properly judge others in Matthew 7:5. It says, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
Just my 2 cents.
Re: Politics
At one of my recent meetings, I was asked the question, "If Jesus would appear to you right now and say, 'I will resolve any question for you right now,' what would your question be?"
My answer was, "What is the modern Christian's responsibility with regard to political involvement?"
I would ask this because I do not know the answer.
It seems clear that neither Jesus nor the apostles made it their goal to affect the political processes of their day. It is equally clear that Christians in those days did not have the ability to elect their governmental leaders or directly determine what the laws of their land would be.
Should we conclude that early Christians believed that the interests of the kingdom of God do not overlap those of the political State, or merely that the Christians did not become involved in State matters simply because they were not able to do so, and had to be content with building the kingdom in other ways?
That things got better, in some ways, and worse, in others, for the church after Constantine's conversion is historically observable. The Church suddenly had direct influence in the corridors of political power. With the later advent of democratic societies, Christians gained another kind of access to the helm of State.
The difficult question is, have these changes provided the church with a temptation to be distracted with the affairs of the kingdom of darkness (embodied in secular States) from their proper focus on the kingdom of God—or have they acquired a new privilege of political influence which they must faithfully steward?
This, I say, is the question. In my present state of understanding, I cannot provide the definitive answer.
I do think that we must maintain a clear distinction in our minds between political/legislative influence, on the one hand, and spiritual/moral influence, on the other. We can say, upon scriptural authority, that same-sex marriage involves a behavior that is immoral in the sight of God. This does not tell us what political actions a Christian should or should not take to restrict this immorality.
If we take no legislative action, we take the risk that our secular society may lose ground in terms of its reflecting a Christianized culture. Yet, if we do take legislative action, we risk the following:
1. That we will, without in any sense reforming or saving the homosexual, simply render illegal the activities that he/she will continue to practice (for lack of ability to do otherwise);
2. That we will possibly perpetuate the misleading notion that we have a Christian society, despite the fact that most of the citizenry live in unrepentant rebellion against the lordship of Christ—allowing us to pretend that our work here is essentially done;
3. That we will posture ourselves, vis-a-vis the homosexual community, not as "friends of sinners" (like Jesus), but as a rival political special-interest group—guaranteeing that any homosexuals who may otherwise be interested in Christ will be dissuaded by the misperception that Christianity is the enemy of sinners.
What each one ought or ought not to do with reference to political involvement must, I think, remain a matter of personal conscience among believers. Any political action that one feels inclined to perform must be examined in light of what its impact will be—not on the cultural comfort of Christians in our and the next generation—but on the message of God's kingdom and His love for the lost.
My answer was, "What is the modern Christian's responsibility with regard to political involvement?"
I would ask this because I do not know the answer.
It seems clear that neither Jesus nor the apostles made it their goal to affect the political processes of their day. It is equally clear that Christians in those days did not have the ability to elect their governmental leaders or directly determine what the laws of their land would be.
Should we conclude that early Christians believed that the interests of the kingdom of God do not overlap those of the political State, or merely that the Christians did not become involved in State matters simply because they were not able to do so, and had to be content with building the kingdom in other ways?
That things got better, in some ways, and worse, in others, for the church after Constantine's conversion is historically observable. The Church suddenly had direct influence in the corridors of political power. With the later advent of democratic societies, Christians gained another kind of access to the helm of State.
The difficult question is, have these changes provided the church with a temptation to be distracted with the affairs of the kingdom of darkness (embodied in secular States) from their proper focus on the kingdom of God—or have they acquired a new privilege of political influence which they must faithfully steward?
This, I say, is the question. In my present state of understanding, I cannot provide the definitive answer.
I do think that we must maintain a clear distinction in our minds between political/legislative influence, on the one hand, and spiritual/moral influence, on the other. We can say, upon scriptural authority, that same-sex marriage involves a behavior that is immoral in the sight of God. This does not tell us what political actions a Christian should or should not take to restrict this immorality.
If we take no legislative action, we take the risk that our secular society may lose ground in terms of its reflecting a Christianized culture. Yet, if we do take legislative action, we risk the following:
1. That we will, without in any sense reforming or saving the homosexual, simply render illegal the activities that he/she will continue to practice (for lack of ability to do otherwise);
2. That we will possibly perpetuate the misleading notion that we have a Christian society, despite the fact that most of the citizenry live in unrepentant rebellion against the lordship of Christ—allowing us to pretend that our work here is essentially done;
3. That we will posture ourselves, vis-a-vis the homosexual community, not as "friends of sinners" (like Jesus), but as a rival political special-interest group—guaranteeing that any homosexuals who may otherwise be interested in Christ will be dissuaded by the misperception that Christianity is the enemy of sinners.
What each one ought or ought not to do with reference to political involvement must, I think, remain a matter of personal conscience among believers. Any political action that one feels inclined to perform must be examined in light of what its impact will be—not on the cultural comfort of Christians in our and the next generation—but on the message of God's kingdom and His love for the lost.
Re: Politics
All great replies. Matt, I agree whole-heartedly. I've come quite a long distance on my thinking along these lines. I actually want the outcome of the next election to be whichever one will bring more people into a saving relationship with God. I once thought that a political party could bring about such a postive change that people would just get on board. But no party can change our hearts. If there are people that are coming to God due to our poor economic outlook, I'm happy. What I am not cheering for is for people to see some political change as some saving thing and go back to trusting in the government for their happiness and give up on depending on God. I think if there were a collapse, Christians would be fine, but I feel bad for those who do not know God. It may make it easier for them to find God in their dispair, but for those who wouldn't find him in their dispair, I would feel bad for their situations.
Re: Politics
Steve,
Have you ever read Greg Boyd's "The Myth of a Christian Nation"
I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on that book, just wondering.
Have you ever read Greg Boyd's "The Myth of a Christian Nation"
I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on that book, just wondering.
Re: Politics
I have had the book for over a year, and began reading it. I got distracted by other reading before I completed the reading of Boyd's book, but I agreed with the part I read. I expect I would agree with all or most of his position.