In his no. 4 he says: 

Here's a big one. At dinner I argued with Jim and Tony that if we agree that our only authority to speak to governements or to anyone else is the moral authority we earn by sacrificially serving others, and if we agree (as we do) that the Church isn't remotely close to having this moral authority in western culture, then, I said, doesn't it make sense for us to BE QUIET about politics and put all our energies into motivating and mobilizing the church to be the Jesus-looking kingdom we're called to be in order to perhaps someday gain this authority? And if the Church ever did win this broad respect such that people and government actually cared about our opinions, then we wouldn't have to demand it. It would come naturally. (Moral authority, I believe, can NEVER be demanded. It must be earned).

On the other hand, when we speak into politics without this moral authority, we are heard simply as one of the many political voices trying to enforce our wills on others through the power of law. We're just another "power-over" special interest group. So, shouldn’t we simply "Seek first (to be) the Kingdom of God, and (trust that) all these things (include a voice in steering society) will be given unto you" (Mt 6:33)?

In his no. 5 he says:

5. On top of this, what business does the Church have trying to get Caesar to act more Christian than we ourselves act? How can we possibly tell Caesar what he should do about the poor when we ourselves are not bleeding as much as we can bleed for the poor? The Church can have a role in leading government, I believe, but only if it does so BY EXAMPLE, not cheap opinions.

I can't say I whole heartedly agree with his no. 2 as "Thus saith the Lord" was applied to other nations outside of Isreal as well.

In all of these statements above Greg is pointing out that there is a distinction between politics and the rest of life.  Let's look at this for a second.  Greg is basically saying one to two things here.  That the Church needs to be the Church and not become entangled in politics.  That the Church being the Church needs to BE THE KINGDOM.  What is being the Kingdom?  It is looking like Jesus.   And looking like Jesus is what?  It is sacrificially caring about the poor, the homeless, the economically and racially oppressed.

But here is where I have a problem with this.  A VERY LARGE PART of what it means to sacrificially care about the poor, the homeless, the economically and racially oppressed, in other words, a VERY LARGE PART of what it means to BE THE KINGDOM and LOOK LIKE JESUS is to become politically active!

This is problem.  Greg does not rightly differientiate between Social Service and Social Action.

Social Service would entail this:  Relieving human need.  Philanthropic activity.  Seeking to minister to individuals and families.  Works of mercy.

Social Action would entail this:  Removing the causes of human need.  Political and economic activity.  Seeking to transform the structures of society.  The quest for justice.

Years ago (1982) there was joint sponsorship of the Lausanne Committee and the World Evangelical Fellowship, the Consultation on the Relationship between Evangelism and Social Responsibility" in Grand Rapids MI.  As a result of this a report was issued entitled, "Evangelism ans Social Responsiblity:  An Evangelical Committment."  In a chapter entiled, "Grand Rapids Report" it delineated socialpolitical action in these terms:  "It looks beyond persons to structures, beyond the rehabilitation of prison inmates to the reform of the prison system, beyond improving factory conditions to securing a more participatory role for the workers, beyond caring for the poor to improving--and when necessary transforming--the economic system (whatever it may be) and the political system (again, whatever it may be) until it facilitates their liberation from poverty and oppression."

In other words, GENUINE social concern will embrace both social service AND social action in which it would be artifical to divorce them.  That is, some cases of need CANNOT be relieved at all without political action i.e. the harsh treatment of slaves could be ameliorated, but not slavery itself--that HAD to be ABOLISHED.  To simply go on relieving needs, though necessary, may condone the situation which causes them.  If the travellers on the Jerusalem--Jericho road were habitually beaten up and habitually cared for by Good Samaritans, the need for better laws to elimanate armed robbery might well be overlooked.  If road accidents keep occuring at a particular crossroads, it is not more ambulances that are needed but the installation of traffic lights to prevent accidents.  It is always good to feed the hungry--it is better if possible to eradicate the causes of hunger. 

So.  If we truly love our neighbour and want to serve them?  That is, to look like the Kingdom?  To look like Jesus?  Our service may oblige us to take (or solicit) political action on their behalf.   By the way, this could look Republican, Democratic, Independent or Green.  Whatever.  That there, I agree with Greg.  But on this divorcing of social service and social action I'm in disagreement with him.  I understand his angst?  I understand he is concerned over the "politicization of Christianity" that is the internal transformation of faith itself so as to become defined in terms of "political values?"  I totally gel with that.  But I'm afraid he leaves us with the tendency that the church should be entirely apolitical.  While I think his concerns and criticisms can be raised against particular churches?  I cannot agree with the concept itself that the Church does not have sociopolitical responsibilities.

Oh and by the way.  On being the Kingdom and look'n like Jesus and all that?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/004/12.20.html

Wow.  I'm pretty much getting my own thread here.  Sweet! 

So, I watched the three part series on CNN, "God's Warriors."  I agree with Greg's blog that Christiane Amanpour did an exceptional job.  She was very inquisitive and got at some root issues. For an example, the lady in Ohio that she was with in the cafe and getting to fundamental base questions as to why she was doing what she was doing and all she could do is repeat her assumptions and not giving a reason for them as if we should all hop on board with her agenda.  Christiane didn't let up on her.  Why?  Why? Why?  Excellent.

But if this lady was not giving some responses to base assumptions neither was Greg.  For example, Greg stated that he was pro-life and that there was a connection between poverty and abortion and if one wanted to stem the problem of abortion one would have to deal with the poverty issue first.  Aside from the question as to whether 1.2 million abortions a year is due to poverty or to the question of federal laws which open the door to abortion on demand or convenience, the question STILL REMAINS as to whether Greg thinks the Christian community ought to concentrate their efforts here and if so, how exactly would they then go about solving the problem of abortion if they do go this route?  Do you speak to government (of course from the "outside") about poverty?  Is not the ultimate aim of speaking to government from the outside the attempt to influence government and thus influence government policy to stem poverty and thus to stem the abortion problem (if you even believe it to be a problem)?  Would this not ultimately be an exercise in "powering over" others?

And that's the thing.  Why would you blame the Religious Right for powering over others while you are essentially doing the same thing but from the left?  So you (generally speaking) say that the RR is captivated by right leaning politics.  Too much infusion going on.  So what?  You are captivated by left leaning politics.  Does not the politics of Wallis and Sider look leftist?  Yeah, the lady in Ohio is to the right in her approach to abortion, but does not addressing poverty first to respond to the abortion problem look leftist?  Well sure.  I don't have a problem with that though.  Some of the specifics of what is advocated and how to achieve it may be right on.  They may be the best way to go.  Yay.  The question is not about the specifics per se other than Greg's concern that if the Church thinks that the right leaning policies is the ONLY way to go then there is too much infusion going on.  But this would be just as problematic for the left.

The real issue here is that ultimately you can't get away from influencing government (whether from the inside or out) and thus "powering over" others (though I don't see this particular form of "power" as necessarily violent).  And if you want to take the tack saying that Jesus was never involved in politics one will also have to ask if Jesus would deal with abortion via poverty through speaking from the outside. 

If poverty is one of the mitigating factors, dealing with poverty would reduce abortions.  But poverty is only a mitigating factor in some cases.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/mapworldabrate.html

If that was universal (poverty == abortion) the poorer countries in the southern hemisphere would have higher abortion rates than the richer countries in the northern hemisphere.  But they're lower.

Post Edited (selah) : 9/3/2007 7:54:26 AM (GMT-5)

Hey Brandon, I didn't catch anyone responding to your first entry (and this is the first time I've seen it)... but here's my thoughts...

First my disclaimer... I'm not Greg (my blond hair is a dead giveaway ), but from what I've gathered, I think he'd probably agree with your point in the first paragraph I have quoted here (perhaps minus the "VERY"... j/k).

I have to add an edit so I don't spoil #666 post.

But Friday the 13th is next week...

can't..........hold.............on..............much...............longer.................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/7/2007 2:26:39 PM (GMT-5)