Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > New Christians and Politics Thread

Forum Quick Jump

37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 4/15/2002 2:06 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia:God's will is to be found in individuals working out their relationship with Him in the place they find themselves…

Tim: Such as with Joseph and Daniel?

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 5/14/2002 10:42 PM (GMT -6)

I am a first timer here and a youngin'(19), so all you bearded scholars take it easy on me, I’m getting there. This is an interesting thread, and to be honest I don't really buy the hands off approach. Obviously we must not make our government involvement an idol, just as we should not make our church involvement an idol, but this shouldn’t stop us from being an influence of the Truth. Also, if we are to say that because our allegiance is to heaven that we should not become involved with earthly things, then I don’t believe we should even be on this message board or educating ourselves or doing any of the daily routines of life. But since we have been given this earthly existence, I believe we should make the best of it so that God may be glorified in his creation.

The approach seems to be since Jesus and his disciple preached peace and lived peacefully, so should we “so far as it depends on you.” However, I think, and some may disagree, that we need to take Jesus’ actions and words in historical context. Jesus was on a specific mission of sacrificial atonement, and he was not there to be elected governor(or president) or lead a rebellion. So I believe first we need to recognize that he had a specific purpose for being on earth. If Jesus would’ve opposed Pilot or lead a rebellion I believe this would have jeopardized the work that he intended to do on the cross. Also, when Jesus spoke to the believers, if he would have told all of them to go get politically involved and be an influence, the earlier Church might not have survived very long if they did so. In fact the early church was more concentrated on spreading the gospel and eluding government capture, so to go and be the “Christian” politician surely wouldn’t have been a great idea since the government was trying to kill them. However, we do not live in the circumstances of the early Church, nor do we have the same specific mission that Christ had with atonement. So how are we to live then? I believe we are live as Christ would. We are to seek love, truth, and justice, doing to others as “we would have them do to us,” being a voice for those without a voice, and defending the truth with the freedom/responsibility that God granted us so that we may be a cause of goodness. If all that is good comes from God, in seeking God, we should therefore seek to do what is good. Now, to “do good” is a loaded phrase, and up to the ethical approach that you take. However, putting definitions of what good is aside, whatever is good we should seek through the means we are supplied with. In America we have been granted an ability and freedom to be an influence for good, and as defenders of what is good I believe it is our responsibility to use this avenue as your conviction may lead. Even though some may consider the government an evil institution, just as God used evil governments to accomplish justice, I believe that God can use us through an “evil” government to accomplish justice and goodness. If the voice of truth and justice was to remain silent, I think that would be horrifying. As someone already quoted, “all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”

As far as our involvement in war goes, God’s character in the OT seems quite vengeful, whereas His character in the NT seems to be of peace and mercy, so I believe it comes down to conviction and the worthiness of the cause. Since at times I am bit of a pragmatist and follow a more John Stuart Mill’s type utilitarian ethics(not completely and only in certain situations), if we as Christians were to fight in a war, I believe it should be so that we may insure the greatest possible peace and mercy in the long run. I think there was and are some just wars fought against acts of oppression, however, I am doubtful whether Christians should become involved in wars over such things as capitol and land mass.

Well that is it for now from the kid with a lot of opinions.

In the Middle East, Peace

David

P.s. I was going to add a bunch about how Jesus was involved in culture and politics (in a sense) and how he gave examples of how we should stand up for what’s right and the less fortunate, but I think “trosie” covered this pretty well, and what he/she said needs to be addressed as well. But, also I think I have written enough for a first time post.

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/15/2002 12:36 AM (GMT -6)

I have stayed away from this one diamondd, although so much of what Christians disagree on is minor; I do not believe this subject is. Glad to see your excellent input; keep your view.

In God’s Love,

Tim

P.S. Everyone is back on the original Thread, I believe.

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 5/15/2002 10:12 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks Tim, yeah I saw that there are some more recent posts on the original thread, however they were on kind of a seperate subject matter. So I decided to put my input here, i don't know if the subject is beat into the ground or not yet, oh well. Oh by they way, what were your trying to stay away from Tim? The whole debate or taking Christ's actions and words in historical context? Thanks, have a good day.

David

P.S. also those of you, like Dr. Boyd, on the otherside of the issue seem to have different views as far what it means to be involved in government, so i was just wondering if you guys/gals vote, or do believe that we should stay away from this government involvement? Peace.

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/15/2002 2:38 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I am a first timer here and a youngin'(19), so all you bearded scholars take it easy on me, I’m getting there.

Hehe. Welcome on board, David!

I just started voting in the last presidential election. I voted for Al Gore, and my family nearly disowned me. I wasn’t going to vote in my local election, but I found out that a friend from church was going to vote for a particular candidate because she heard he would lower taxes and he wanted to pass a law that would put a flag in every classroom, so she figured he must be a Christian. I couldn’t believe it. I went and voted just to counteract her vote.

I live in a poor neighborhood so I try to vote in ways that benefit this context, out of solidarity with my neighbors. I want them to be blessed. Anyway, that’s about the extent of my political involvement. Maybe I should be more reflective.

Electra

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
He said to me, “Mortal, can these bones live?”
I answered, “O Lord God, you know.”
Ezekiel 37:3

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 5/15/2002 9:19 PM (GMT -6)

hey electra! thanks for the greeting. way to get involved with the voting! last year was my first year to vote as well, and even though some may think it's a insignificant thing, to tell you the truth it felt great to vote because i releaze how many would and have fought and died for that priveledge to make a difference in their country. I enjoy studying politics a lot, maybe cause it's very practical, but i have been fairly involved with it, going to some rallys. I have some friends who are very involved. I am glad that you voted your conscious inspite of family opposition. I come from a fairly conservative backgeound as well(which i don't mind), and i guess somethings i am conservative on(i.e.pro-life, small government, etc.), however other things i am somewhat liberal(i.e. education, environment). i try to just go by my conviction, which is probably more conservative. THat is funny about the friend thinking lowering taxes made someone a Christian canidate. Oh well. I think with voting comes a responsibilty, to be informed and on the information vote your conscious, because it is a privelege that not every country is granted. so if we continue to do that then we won't have any more people voting in Jessie Ventura's becasue they think it is funny

.

have a good day,

David

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/16/2002 12:56 AM (GMT -6)

Dear David,

I was trying to stay away from the whole thing. Below, Paul is obviously involved in the government; God Himself put in place for the Jews. Peter puts despising the government; I assume any government, in some ugly company, and we know upon whose shoulder all government is. I live in a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, in its form of government. I will not change my mind about being involved as a Christian in politics. There is no room for debate in my mind, for being active in the politics of our government as a Christian.

Act 23:1-5And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, [thou] whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isa 9:7 Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

In God’s Love,

Tim

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 5/16/2002 5:34 PM (GMT -6)

Dear Tim, thanks for the clarification, i was just trying to understand where you were coming from and you explained wonderfully. Great verses! Yeah, to me it just seems logical, and there is nothing for to even question, i guess i was a little suprised by the whole debate in the first place. but, i guess they clarified later on the other thread, and now the stance is that the church as a whole shouldn't be politically involved but the individual can, which seems to be a slight change from the beginning. oh well, that sounds more reasonable and understandable to think that way anyways. have a great day.

-David

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/17/2002 12:44 AM (GMT -6)

Hey David,

You are welcome, and I truly love reading the Bible and quoting it, in these conversations; it makes so much more sense, than I ever could, of these issues; you have a wonderful day also.

Isa 9:6…his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Amen.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/24/2002 12:53 PM (GMT -6)

Friends-

I posted this on the original Christians and Politics thread but then realized you guys moved over here.

I feel completely unqualified to interact on this one, but I need some stretching, so I’ve tried to read through all the pages of this thread to get a grasp on what’s been said. I made it through the first seven pages and hope to catch up on the rest.

I find myself in basic agreement with almost all of Doc’s original post. I haven’t read Cal Thomas’ book yet but look forward to doing so. Maybe I can order a copy and have somebody bring it to me this November in Toronto.

I think I’d begin by qualifying Doc’s very first point in that original post—not to deny that the kingdoms of this world are the domain of Satan’s rebellious work, but rather that we consider whether or not the idea, put forward by Doc, that it was never God’s intent that humans rule humans in any sense of the word is completely accurate. Though human government has always been less than perfect, corrupt and oppressive by in large, I still wonder whether “government” as such, that is, humans ruling/administrating/governing creation in cooperation with one another, by definition rules out everything remotely connected to human government as we know it today.

Today government may be cancerous with corruption, the realm of Satan’s domain, but so is much else corrupted. Creation itself is prisoner to “decay” and the arena of spiritual civil war, yet it remains, as celebrated by psalmists, a vehicle for displaying God’s glory. I wonder whether or not “government” is in the same sense a hopeless prisoner to demonic powers yet still points forward to an eschatological redemption when Christ will reign, yes, but “through” us. If Paul can assure us that human rulers are ordained by God to punish evil, if God can anoint and reward Old Testament leaders for ruling righteously, if righteousness exalts a nation, and if Scripture commands spiritual leaders to “rule” rightly, then perhaps it is because “human government” is not the creation of Satan pure and simple but rather a perversion and corruption of human social relations. I don’t know how else to say it.

It’s certainly seems right to say, with Doc and others, that human government as the world has only known it has been corrupt, self-serving, and demonic. But is that all it has always been? I’m not so sure. When it has shone the brightest, I’d agree that it is still imperfect. Perhaps this is nothing different that the eschatological tension experienced by creation, and by our own bodies. Creation groans. We groan, physically and spiritually, yes, but why not socially and governmentally too? If our bodies carry still the curse of the fall and await resurrection glory, why can we not hope that “government” as practiced by fallen humans under the influence of Satan may also undergo a redemption of its own. If “humans ruling humans” in any conceivable sense of the word is by definition absolutely contrary to every divine intention for humankind, then one is left to wonder why God makes such use of it in his church, and manages to make some civil use of it.

Doc: The principle I'm trying to digest is this: if there's anything I'm a part of that inclines me toward a disposition or action that looks anything different than that kind of love expressed on the cross, I must "opt out."

Tom: I totally agree. But consider—Paul commands us to pray for civil leaders so that we may live a quiet and peaceable life. Does it not follow that “praying” for our civil leaders in this regard assumes that there exist right and good choices these leaders may make with regard to our living quiet and peaceable lives? And if unbelieving civil leaders may rightly be the object of our prayers for such an end, why cannot believing civil leaders be the object of such prayers? If we may “prayer” for such ends, may we not “act” for such ends? Must such acts exclude civil leadership? I don’t see that it must, though I’d agree that if such leadership inclines us to a disposition or actions that is contrary to love, we must opt out.

There were so many very good and challenging things said by everybody, I hardly know what to say. I think I’ll stop here. Hope my basic thought is clear, even if it’s not so smart.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/27/2002 3:30 AM (GMT -6)

I'm writing this online as I'm eating, watching TV, and helping my daughter with homework, so I hope it makes sense!

Wasn't one of Doc's original reasons for arguing the Church ought NOT to speak from within the system (i.e. government) that believers don't in fact all agree on what THE biblical view ought to be on welfare reform, low income hoursing, tax reform, foreign policy, etc. etc.? I was just wondering if this didn't actually prove too much, for if lack of a unified position on these and similar issues means the Church shouldn't speak from within the system then it would also mean the Church can't speak from without the system either. My question is: if we admittedly have no consensus on what THE biblical view ought to be on such issues, then doesn't it follow that the Church has NOTHING to say "as the Church" about this issues?

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Edited by - TGB on 05/27/2002 08:32:26 AM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/27/2002 10:01 AM (GMT -6)

Tom,

I thinking that the church hasn't got much of a consensus on many issues and therefore it doesn't have the ability to speak on these issues. This would go for both inside and outside the church. That is why we came (I think) to the conclusion that as individuals we can influence government. I think someone mentioned that it is impossible to discern the mind of God on many issues (the problem that the Religious Right seems to have, they seem to speak for God). Actually, there is much consensus on many issues, homosexuality, abortion, pornography, however, when it translates into particular programs on how to deal with these issues, that is, the application we should not assume that because a brother or sister might confront the situation in such a way that we would not, does not mean they are passive, narrow, liberal, conservative, wrong, right, etc. I think God leaves the details up to us as a part of the cultural mandate to partner with Him over the earth.

For example, I take a strong stand against abortion. Yet one morning, as I was on the job driving a particular right to life group stood on main streets and intersections that would go for a block or two with huge 5'-5'1/2ft long and 3'-3'1/2ft high boards showing pictures of babies all chopped up. Now, legally, I think the law should reflect their right to do such activities-as long as it is peaceful.

Digression: Is there a point where more violent measures could be used? Good question, haven't thought aboot it for a while, but that would fall under "civil disobedience," if such a moment were to occur, one would have to lay out the rules such as, tactics, goals, consequences, etc.

However, personally, I wonder how much good "shock"

does. Things done for shock value? Seemingly don't leave a long lasting impression. So really, it is not a question of "legal rights" but "appropriateness." Let me say, that most of the people that were on my bus that morning were not "pricked in their conscience" but were angered

that this was the first thing they woke up to in the morning along with their coffee and donut.

Therefore, I agree with their right to do such activities. I disagree with their tactics.

But I certainly don't frown upon the fact that they were out there trying to save some lives. My deal would be to persuade them to use different tactics.

Brandon
"Nerds," incidentally, are almost always men." 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization

37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual