View Comments |  Print This Post |

Labels: Politics: General, Culture: Religion

1. The worldview of the political and religious Left makes everything political. Everything that happens in society, everything that is said, every person of position or visibility, it all has a political context and it all has a political purpose and impact. For the Left, politics is the framework for everything that happens.

   But for those on the religious Right, everything is spiritual. Everything boils down to a spiritual event with spiritual impact and is interpreted according to a spiritual wordview. Their spiritual viewpoint filters throughout society and into the political realm.

   And herin lies the rub. The Left wants to "keep religion out of politics," as it were, while the religious Right believes these things to be one in the same. For the Left, politics is their god. For the right, God is their politics. No wonder the Left can't understand Christians. They are so fundamentally ignorant of the spiritual matters of Christianity that all they can do is stereotype them, ridicule them, and ultimately, fear them.

   Then throw in a few choice scripture verses, twisted around a bit to match their politics, and the picture of Leftist political theology is complete.

   Comment by Rich S | March 23, 2006

2. Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

   By this statement, I've always believed Jesus wanted his followers to be involved politically. Otherwise, he would have been advocating taxation without representation.

   Comment by Philip | March 23, 2006

3. If we deny the divinity of Christ, as so many are wont to do today, then I'm sure that according to that view Jesus was nothing BUT political. By the standards of so many who believe there is no place for religion in politics, Jesus, who definitely existed as a man at the very least, should be their saviour. His arguments about 'render unto Caesar', 'turn the other cheek', and the writings of those who followed him are more about politics and day-to-day living than religion. There is no doubt that Jesus, whoever he was, was possibly the most politically motivate naitonalist of all time.

   Comment by alex | March 23, 2006

4. In churches where the social gospel is priority, they never seem to get around to the good news of the actual gospel. The church becomes a place where people feel good about their own do-gooder actions. Soon they justify themselves and the idea of needing to repent and be saved is a quaint notion.They are psuedo-christians whose character is tied to relativism and pretty soon voila! There is really no difference between communist utopian idealogy and the modern 'christian' version of social justice. Ends justify means and all that.

   Comment by parsimonious mom | March 23, 2006

5. What amazes me about this whole thing is, which brand of Chrisitanity should we embrace? Which rules should we follow, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist or one of the hundreds and hundreds of non-denominational bible churches? Which Dogma is correct? A quote from my favorite essayist:

   "Every sect is a certificate that god has not plainly revealed his will to mankind. To each reader the bible conveys a different meaning." - Col. Robert Ingersoll

   Comment by LiberPaul | March 24, 2006

6. In my view of the Bible, Jesus is the Word made flesh…and that means that the very words of scripture are the words, and thoughts, of Jesus.

   If this is the case…and I truly believe that it is…then all that was spoken in the Old Testament applies to Jesus, and all that was written in the epistles applies to Jesus, because Jesus is the embodiment of God's will for mankind.

   It is because I believe this that I find Jesus ultimately inseparable from politics. The Ten Commandments…Jesus…the laws of our land. David, the ruler of Jerusalem…Jesus…a model king. Moses, the liberator of hebrew slaves and author of the Pentateuch…Jesus…the leader of a great nation, and an emancipator.

   America is letting go of it's Christian Heritage and trading it in for a lie, all in the name of "separation of church and state". This, by the way, is a judicial construct, and not a constitutional right, and therefore it is still subject to interpretation by our courts. As the courts hear these critical cases where church and state are intermingling, they are still free to interpret the boundaries of each as they see fit.

   Jesus would most certainly encourage His followers to be engaged in that process.

   Comment by Tyler Dawbin | March 24, 2006

7. The fundamental and critical method that Christ taught for His followers to impact society was through love and care of the follower and then the non-follower. That love should be revealed through obedience. That obedience includes defense of the helpless and the innocent.
   I shudder to think of the consequences of civil rights without Uncle Tom. Today, Uncle Tom is an unborn baby. If Christians do not defend these innocent, through love that acts and obeys, then what good are we? I pray the salt has not lost it's flavor to be thrown out and trampled.
   I do not believe Christians should spend all their time in political causes, but for those political issues that are clear, Christians have no excuse. Action is compelled by love.
   I suspect Dietrich Bonhoeffer would find this discussion comptemptuous.

   Comment by J.C.H. | March 24, 2006

8. Just a few of the many religious people who've meddled in politics:
   • Eve (first person to take exception to a rule)
   • Moses
   • Julius Caesar (Pontifex Maximus concurrent with various civic and military positions)
   • William of Occam
   • John Wyclif and Jan Hus
   • St. Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury
   • Louis IX of France (St. Louis)
   • Joan of Arc
   • Martin Luther, John Calvin & Ulrich Zwingli
   • Thomas Cranmer and Thomas More
   • Reginald Cardinal Pole (Yorkist claimant to the English crown)
   • Oliver Cromwell
   • George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson
   • John Brown
   • Abe Lincoln
   • Rev. Martin Luther King
   • too many popes to name individually, including John Paul II

   Separation of church and state is an impossible fiction. People are simultaneously political and religious creatures; all people. Even the denial of religious belief is a statement of religious conviction that intersects with a person’s civic ideas.

   The 1st Amendment’s provision, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, …”, imposes a non-reciprocal constraint on government. By that, I mean: while government is thereby constrained from meddling in or dictating to religion, religion is in no way constrained from participating in the formulations and expectations of government.

   Indeed, if we are to remain a free and ethical people, we should always prefer that religion be a partner in our civic deliberations. Religion, besides being a matter of faith, is the distilled and time-tested wisdom of countless sages and a comparative record of social experiments (both good and bad). It commends the independence of the early Jews as contrasts with Judea’s more powerful and despotic neighbors. Israel and Judea were weak nations in the crossroads and crossfire of several empires, who nonetheless preserved national identity, commitment to G-d, and unmatched personal freedom while others were absorbed and lost to history. The Tanakh (Old Testament) repeatedly warns the Jews not to follow after the fashion of other countries; where kings are regarded as gods and G-d is forgotten. In those nations, men are slaves to despots who distort the meaning of religion for their own use, and are not within the designs G-d has in mind for us. Biblical Israel lost it’s way, succumbed, was chastised and resurrected. Kings and the notion of kings are repeatedly discredited. Each time we return, our strength is shown to be not in great men but in ourselves and in the progress we represent. The Jewish people have been gradually and incrementally shaped, sometimes against our will, into a model for all people to follow and to live as equals. With or without a country, we are so formed and fortified that we have retained our identity by the means of a rule-set revealed to us in scripture and carried along into Diaspora. Without explicitly stating it, the Tanakh, together with subsequent commentaries, provides the blueprint for the kind of popular and just government we encourage today.

   Our preference for referencing this wisdom is not exclusive, but it does represent a bias toward moral and ethical governance against a very high standard. Anyone reading the many writings of our founders must find they had Biblical precedents in mind, and regarded a religious people as a cornerstone to ensuring a sustainable republic and for assuring it would remain faithful to those it was intended to serve. Our founders, immersed in the ideas, philosophy, and convictions of a closely derivative religion, referenced those sources repeatedly in deciding a government of which G-d would approve.

   I have said that separation is an impossible fiction. This is because, although it is possible to put innumerable restrictions on the expression of religion, it is impossible to remove religion from the minds of men and women engaged in the business of government and from those on whom government operates. Although we may evict G-d from our laws, we cannot evict him from our natures or his laws governing us. So long as lawmakers have beliefs, they will reference those beliefs every time they vote on a measure for the operation of laws governing themselves, their friends, their children and constituents for whom they feel responsible. Those called to temporary service, as in juries, will consult their conscience before condemning a fellow human to punishment or his victims to a travesty of justice. Those not directly engaged in the business of government, yet who have some minimal say in the composition of government, will react collectively to remove from office any they find morally or ethically repugnant. We humans are imperfect and easily swayed from the right path. We need standards and faith in a higher wisdom than our own to guide us to do the right thing. Legislators will do well to pray for that guidance whenever they are about to commit us to acts affecting the lives and happiness of millions, most of whom they will never meet and will never know how well or badly they have governed. Though the godless will deny these are dependent on religion, they are dependent on shared beliefs; and beliefs and religion are eternally twined in ways that can never be fully alienated.

   Comment by Bob Stapler | March 25, 2006

9. Was Jesus political?  That would attempt to take the Son of God, The Creator of Heaven and Earth and somehow place him into man's silly day-to-day strivings as a "player" in politcs.  He didn't come to be with us, to die for us and to be raised from the dead as an act of "politics".  Those that cheapen this beautiful message and co-mingle it this world's affairs don't understand our Saviour then or now. There are plenty of new law givers (the Galatian error) within the Christian community today.  Salvation comes by faith alone along with X (you must do an alter call, you must be saved by reading only the King James version, you must stop sinning, you must empty your heart to certain sins, you must attend a certain church or denomination, you must make a decision for Jesus, you should act a certain way, you should vote a certain way)…  Actually, Faith is a gift of God.  We can't earn it.  It is given to us by the Holy Spirt…but if you turn on your TV you will find all kinds of goofy stuff and bony fingers being pointed at you telling you that you don't measure up as a Christian.  Not what Jesus taught!  No he wasn't political and didn't come to play politics and neither should we!

   Comment by steve abbott | May 5, 2006

10. Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus, Mr. Mark Creech.

    First and foremost, I respectfully disagree with your title, "Reverend." "Reverend" is a title reserved for God (Psalm 111:9 [Greek]), as with other titles (Matthew 23:8-10).

    With this having been said, nowhere does Biblical Scripture show Christians focusing on worldly political struggles. To the contrary, Biblical Scripture focuses on changing the individual’s heart and mind. Why is this the case? Because worldly political gains mean nothing, if peoples’ hearts and minds remain unchanged. So, I must ask: Why do Christians focus on managing worldly events, yet ignore the internal realities causing the worldly events? Is this approach not backwards?

    Moreover, why are Christians trying to defeat the world “at its own game”? Godly wisdom is contrary to worldly wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:18-31), especially when evil spirits dominate this world (Ephesians 6:12, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 2:2, etc.). Therefore, let us cease conforming to the world (Romans 12:2, Colossians 2:12, etc.), while conducting warfare by spiritual means (2 Corinthians 10:3-4, Ephesians 6:10-18, etc.).

    However, your post circumvents these realities by inserting unwarranted assumptions into Scripture. For instance:

    (1) Matthew 5:3-12, or The Beatitudes, describes what people will receive in the Kingdom of Heaven, such as in relief from spiritual need. Nowhere does Matthew 5:4 or Matthew 5:6 call the believer to engage in political activity, especially in light of John 18:36 and John 3:3-5.

    To the contrary, James Montgomery Boice and Tom Minnery's comments are completely out of context, despite their attempts at semantically inserting assumptions into the Scriptural text.

    (2) Matthew 5:13 states that believers are the salt of the world. We know that a certain amount of salt is needed to sustain life. Plus, salt preserves and flavors different foods respectively.

    But how does this apply to this verse? This is debatable. This could refer to "preserving" spiritual life itself, "preservation" from God's destructive wrath, and/or "seasoning" the world with a unique living faith (cross ref. Colossians 4:6). However, you use this ambiguity as an opportunity to make interpretive assumptions.

    (3) Matthew 5:14-16 states that believers are the light of the world. We know that light enables sight, in order to see things, accomplish things, and so on.

    However, in Matthew 5:16, Christ Jesus tells believers to show people their good deeds with their light (cross ref. 1 Peter 2:12, 2 Corinthians 9:13, etc.), so God the Father will receive glory (cross ref. 1 Corinthians 10:31). However, Jesus does not equate "good deeds" with political activity, unless one presupposes Dominionism or Kingdom Building Theology.

    (4) Luke 10:25-37, or the Parable of the Good Samaritan, illustrates how to properly obey Mosaic Law, which is summarized in Luke 10:27. In bypassing the man in need, the priest and Levite disobeyed Luke 10:27. However, the good Samaritan obeyed Luke 10:27 with his actions.

    Now, the Jews did not associate with the Samaritans (John 4:9), which means that Christ Jesus's answer was a retort to the inquirer's legalistic question (Luke 10:29). Hence, in this sense, this parable teaches believers to obey God's instructions despite sociocultural disagreements. However, this parable teaches righteous daily conduct, not the solving of all social injustices through political activity. In fact, if all people conducted themselves righteously, then political proactivity becomes unnecessary.

    (5) Christ Jesus did criticize the religious authorities and practices of Israel, but on theological grounds through citing ungodly social behaviors.

    However, since Israel was a theocratic state, such criticism is inevitably dual in nature. Hence, you are using this dual nature to equivocate different contexts.

    (6) Matthew 22:15-22 describes how the Pharisees tried to trap Christ Jesus with a theological dilemma (Matthew 22:16-17). Specifically, according to rabbinical teaching, the Jews paid taxes to their master. Hence, under this dilemma, one must implicitly deny God the Father's sovereign authority over Israel, or imply rebellion against the Roman Empire. However, Christ Jesus disarmed their question with straightforward logic. Specifically, Christ Jesus observed that Caesar stamped his image on the denarius (Matthew 22:19-20), which made the coin his property. Hence, he replied that Caesar is entitled to his property (Matthew 22:21).

    However, in the same verse, Christ Jesus states that God the Father is entitled to his property (Matthew 22:21). Specifically, this answer implicitly recognizes the divine providence of 'Elohiym (ref. Romans 13:1-7), which operates through all things (ref. Colossians 1:15-17).

    Nowhere does this passage imply a dual functionality of believers. And until the reign of Constantine the Great, believers did not exercise devastating social pressure on Rome to combat social injustices. To the contrary, Christians had to hide from the persecution of Imperial Roman Emperors, such as Nero, Domitian, and Marcus Aurelius.

    Now, all of these attempts to justify political proactivity raises an important question. How are politics not worldly? Does Biblical Scripture not command believers to be spiritual, as opposed to being worldly?

    Beyond Scriptural Items: Aside from the Scriptural argumentation offered, you appeal to a sliding definition of politics. In essence, you attempt to classify any interaction with society as "politics," while failing to concretely define "politics." Do you contend that all attempts to influence the beliefs of others is "politics"?

    Moreover, how do you know that Social Conservativism represents the interests of Biblical Christianity? Can you define "Conservativism" with any certainty?

    I look forward to your response. :)

    Comment by LuckyStrike | June 20, 2006

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.