- Dec 17, 2010
- 8,312
- 1,738
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi all,
this is both a theological and historical question - and I couldn't find an appropriate theology forum for it so the History forum it is. It came up in another unrelated thread but I thought it needed more exploration so posted here. I'll summarise my thoughts so far.
First, we become bullies.
I just posted a thread about John Dickson's book "Bullies and Saints" which outlines how Christians often seem to get it wrong when we are in charge. History shows we become the Bullies in the title of his book.
Second, I can't see it in the NT
I just can't see a theological basis for a Christian state. Not only did Jesus say give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is God's, but Paul called the ROMANS "God's servants to go do you good!" The ROMANS! (Romans 13). Admittedly this was before they had gone into full persecutor / beast state mode - when John refers to them as the 'beast' in Revelation 13. But there seems to be an acknowledgement that secular states are there to stop total chaos - so be grateful and get on with the gospel.
Third, I'm troubled by the uniformity.
A "Christian State" seems to require a majority be Christian. Jesus taught we would be in the minority until he returns. Consider:
Matt 7:13 "13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
John 16:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well.
And the many verses on how it will be hard in the last days (which started 2000 years ago, see Acts 2 and Hebrews 1.)
Rather I would say we can have a Christian influence on the State - a battle which we will win in some issues and lose on others - precisely because of the fact that we will pretty much always be in the minority. Yes, Constantine's conversion was a thing - but I think that was a rare occasion in history. Also, a turning point for many wins in political life that are still considered normal today, such as a first for hospitals and many things we consider part of the welfare state today. So now we look out at our nations and fear how they are becoming immoral - but sometimes forget how far we have come.
Fourth - attitudes to political policies can get dumbed down.
I like how former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - an evangelical himself - raises various questions as we think through the Christian's impact on the state. I'll hand over to Kevin:-
_______________
"...In particular, I would like to reflect on the various models of political behaviour adopted by Christian politicians themselves.
Model number one is what I call the "vote for me because I'm a Christian".
This is the model that I find to be most repugnant.
It is the model that says that simply on the basis of my external profession of the Christian faith, that those of similar persuasions should vote for me.
This is about as persuasive as saying that because I am a Sydney Swans supporter, that all other Sydney Swans supporters should vote for me as well because we ostensively adhere to the same belief system.
This model is alive and well in the United States. Thankfully it is much less alive and much less well here in Australia. Although there are some dangerous signs that for certain Christian constituencies within our country, this represents an increasingly appealing message.
It is a model for which I can find no underpinning scriptural, doctrinal or theological authority.
Model number two says "vote for me because I'm Christian and because I have a defined set of views on a narrowly defined set of questions concerning sexual morality".
Regrettably this model has an increasing number of supporters within the broader Christian community.
It is a community which tends to read down rather than read up the ethical teachings of the New Testament " producing a narrow "tick the box" approach to passing so-called Christian "morals" tests.
I see very little evidence of that approach in the Gospels.
I see much more evidence of it in 17th and 18th century European pietism.
Once again it will come as no surprise to you here that I am not attracted to model number two either.
Model number three says something like this: take models number one and two above and add to them the additional tag of "family values". That is "vote for me because I am a Christian; vote for me because I have a defined set of views on questions of private sexual morality; and vote for me also because I wrap myself in the garments of something called "family values'".
Regrettably it is my view that the term "family values" has become one of the most used and abused terms in the Australian political lexicon...."
...much more at this link...
Kevin Rudd on politics and Christianity
this is both a theological and historical question - and I couldn't find an appropriate theology forum for it so the History forum it is. It came up in another unrelated thread but I thought it needed more exploration so posted here. I'll summarise my thoughts so far.
First, we become bullies.
I just posted a thread about John Dickson's book "Bullies and Saints" which outlines how Christians often seem to get it wrong when we are in charge. History shows we become the Bullies in the title of his book.
Second, I can't see it in the NT
I just can't see a theological basis for a Christian state. Not only did Jesus say give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is God's, but Paul called the ROMANS "God's servants to go do you good!" The ROMANS! (Romans 13). Admittedly this was before they had gone into full persecutor / beast state mode - when John refers to them as the 'beast' in Revelation 13. But there seems to be an acknowledgement that secular states are there to stop total chaos - so be grateful and get on with the gospel.
Third, I'm troubled by the uniformity.
A "Christian State" seems to require a majority be Christian. Jesus taught we would be in the minority until he returns. Consider:
Matt 7:13 "13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
John 16:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well.
And the many verses on how it will be hard in the last days (which started 2000 years ago, see Acts 2 and Hebrews 1.)
Rather I would say we can have a Christian influence on the State - a battle which we will win in some issues and lose on others - precisely because of the fact that we will pretty much always be in the minority. Yes, Constantine's conversion was a thing - but I think that was a rare occasion in history. Also, a turning point for many wins in political life that are still considered normal today, such as a first for hospitals and many things we consider part of the welfare state today. So now we look out at our nations and fear how they are becoming immoral - but sometimes forget how far we have come.
Fourth - attitudes to political policies can get dumbed down.
I like how former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - an evangelical himself - raises various questions as we think through the Christian's impact on the state. I'll hand over to Kevin:-
_______________
"...In particular, I would like to reflect on the various models of political behaviour adopted by Christian politicians themselves.
Model number one is what I call the "vote for me because I'm a Christian".
This is the model that I find to be most repugnant.
It is the model that says that simply on the basis of my external profession of the Christian faith, that those of similar persuasions should vote for me.
This is about as persuasive as saying that because I am a Sydney Swans supporter, that all other Sydney Swans supporters should vote for me as well because we ostensively adhere to the same belief system.
This model is alive and well in the United States. Thankfully it is much less alive and much less well here in Australia. Although there are some dangerous signs that for certain Christian constituencies within our country, this represents an increasingly appealing message.
It is a model for which I can find no underpinning scriptural, doctrinal or theological authority.
Model number two says "vote for me because I'm Christian and because I have a defined set of views on a narrowly defined set of questions concerning sexual morality".
Regrettably this model has an increasing number of supporters within the broader Christian community.
It is a community which tends to read down rather than read up the ethical teachings of the New Testament " producing a narrow "tick the box" approach to passing so-called Christian "morals" tests.
I see very little evidence of that approach in the Gospels.
I see much more evidence of it in 17th and 18th century European pietism.
Once again it will come as no surprise to you here that I am not attracted to model number two either.
Model number three says something like this: take models number one and two above and add to them the additional tag of "family values". That is "vote for me because I am a Christian; vote for me because I have a defined set of views on questions of private sexual morality; and vote for me also because I wrap myself in the garments of something called "family values'".
Regrettably it is my view that the term "family values" has become one of the most used and abused terms in the Australian political lexicon...."
...much more at this link...
Kevin Rudd on politics and Christianity