Comments on: Christian Politics ?

By: Marilyn S

Marilyn S — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:15:32 +0000

good points, and you underscore the basis of it all ” humans only have rights granted via a God who values them (all of them,) as human beings.”

[via Facebook]

By: Poker C

Poker C — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:15:05 +0000

Attitudes with regards to these murky areas are not always a matter of regulations (for that is inflexible towards particular circumstances) – it should be treated as a matter of permission and advice.

One of the specific applications of poltical campaigning would be for rights of Christians under persecution. I speak in acknowledgement of Voice of the Martyrs and Barnabas Fund. There is something of worth in explicitly campaigning for freedom of faith, and that in the name of Christ.
Not that it needs to be explicit – but this is our basis, one more fundamental than that of human rights, because humans only have rights granted via a God who values them (all of them,) as human beings.
Similarly, social justice. Though we have a particular obligation towards our extended family.

[via Facebook]

By: Lisa H

Lisa H — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:14:23 +0000

Amen Marilyn!

[via Facebook]

By: Marilyn S

Marilyn S — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:13:31 +0000

I think the distinction is when we advocate for the cause of the poor, the widow, the sick, the weak, the oppressed, it needn’t be under the banner of the cross or any other banner than basic human rights. The advocates could be Christian, Muslim, Jew, Agnostic, whatever. We should ALL be advocates regardless of our label.

[via Facebook]

By: Steve Schmidt

Steve Schmidt — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:18:30 +0000

Poker, I was waiting for someone to point out that discrepancy. We walk delicately here in the murky world of politics. Should a Christian advocate for the cause of the poor, the widow, the sick, the weak, the oppressed, for causes close to the heart of Christ (as he himself describes his priorities in the Gospels)? I think yes.

The article I was reacting to dealt specifically with ministers agitating, even attempting to get arrested, to prove that faith was under fire. And for something as trivial as hate-crimes legislation. I kept imagining the early martyrs who were crucified, burned, or boiled in oil for their faith would only scoff at such whiney claims of persecution.

So my main point in response was two-fold:
1. Ministers specifically called of God to shepherd the flock should do so. That is their primary concern. Politics is not. And, as history (Biblical history included) demonstrates, whenever spiritual leaders dabble in temporal affairs of governance, they lose themselves in struggles for power, prestige, and gold. And they get diverted from their primary calling and purpose. It is a simple matter of “you cannot serve two masters”. Be a servant of God, or be a politician. But you can’t be both.
2. When followers of Jesus (who are not shepherds) do get politically involved, they must never drag the Cross of Christ into matters he is NOT concerned about — and certainly not into issues in direct conflict with his heart. And though I recognize many people have passionate convictions about certain issues and how they relate to faith, any time you vote AGAINST people, or to block them in some way, biblical images of the “oppressed” should immediately come to mind. For example, I personally “disapprove” of gambling. But I would not thump a Bible in trying to legislate against casinos, or against someone’s legal right to gamble. I don’t think that would be a crusade worthy to bear the seal of the King.

This is a complicated issue, and it may be impossible to cleanly delineate specific rules of conduct that cover every situation. But generally speaking, if I can’t find an example of Christ dealing with the issue in some way, I’d be reluctant to use his name as an authority if/when I choose to become involved.

[via Facebook]

By: Poker C

Poker C — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:16:47 +0000

What are you saying by this? As people given a share or social responsibfility, especially in a (albeit nominal,) democracy, we have clear commands regards to some matters within ‘politics’.
If we have the responsibility to visit and assist orphans and widows – we have an adjunct obligation to advocate for them.
There is no motivation for us to hide our reasons for convictions, especially in public witness – why do I choose social support over abortion? It is because I believe this is the Lord’s will. This is, to me, also a manner of setting captives free from the power of sin and death.

Is the difference of a prefix ‘I believe’ so great? Or should I not elevate the cause of the disadvantaged so much?

[via Facebook]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:01:23 +0000

THIS is fantastic!!! I am printing it to always have! I think many christians feel this way and don’t know how to say it! I once tried to express these same thoughts, only not so wonderfully eloquent, and was told I was a back-sliddin liberal. haha :0)

[via Facebook]

By: Steve Schmidt

Steve Schmidt — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:57:56 +0000

Marilyn, of course. You don’t even need to ask.

[via Facebook]

By: Marilyn S

Marilyn S — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:57:31 +0000

So well framed, separating and putting into context the spiritual vs the civic. Is so easy to lose sight. Steve, may I share this to my wall?

[via Facebook]

By: Martha D

Martha D — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:57:03 +0000

You go, brother!

[via Facebook]