Christian Activism

[Gentlemantech48]

Defend is to use every legal recourse to protect our rights as given to us by the original writers of the Constitution. It is also to use every legal recourse to protect the Christian values that have been the basis of our democracy since it began. Which do you want; Christian values or Islamic Sharia law? Our laws are based on Christian values and those values are being attacked every day.

 

[dollarsbill]

Defend is to use every legal recourse to protect our rights as given to us by the original writers of the Constitution. It is also to use every legal recourse to protect the Christian values that have been the basis of our democracy since it began. Which do you want; Christian values or Islamic Sharia law? Our laws are based on Christian values and those values are being attacked every day.

It is also legal to lust, but not with God.

 

[a pilgrim]

There needs to be a technical divide here between two very important issues:

1. What does scripture say, and
2. What does the constitution say.

Legally, we have the right to do everything, even to the extent of taking up arms to defend our constitution. However, the scripture does not give the (obedient) believer this much liberty. I would go as far as to say, we are a nation of rebels because the New Testament nowhere instructs the believer to overthrow a sovereign government, i.e., Great Briton in the 1700's.

The Old Testament was replete with commands to cast out and put down wicked leadership. But they were a theocracy and we are not. The New Testament taught of a spiritual kingdom, thus statements like:

John 18
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Since Jesus' kingdom IS NOT of this world, why did we fight? It is because we were fighting for our OWN kingdom, not his, he never required nor instructed to do so.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I'd have to consider them opponents on most issues.

Here is part of the action statement on AFA's website:

To that end, AFA spurs activism directed to:

• Preservation of Marriage and the Family
• Decency and Morality
• Sanctity of Human Life
• Stewardship
• Media Integrity

Do you find those goals objectionable?

And I mostly agree with a pilgrim's comments. "Red, white and blue colored glasses", . Too much of American conservative evangelicalism isn't based on the Bible, but on the Yankee Puritan and Southern Redneck subcultures. Let's not get our worldly though traditional cultural stuff mixed up with our Christianity.

You and a pilgrim confuse socio-political activism with evangelism, and that is not the case. When the average Southern Baptist speaks of the gospel, he or she doesn't deliver a diatribe against Obama and the liberals. By the same token, when being activist in the socio-political realm, they don't deliver a gospel message. I think the problem here is that both of you have blurred your vision of the Christian conservative to the point you can't see the picture clearly.

Because of my Christianity, I've come to see the socio-political world differently than I did as a young man (I didn't become a Christian until I was 40) and many of the closely-held beliefs I'd had for years disappeared overnight, and I am certain that was the Holy Spirit guiding me in those aspects. I speak of issues such as abortion, gay issues, public funding of non-profit organizations (against it) and a variety of other issues. But I speak for those issues from the perspective of socio-economics, and I speak of Christ from the perspective of the born-again man I am. Most Christian conservatives I know do the same. The only "blurring" of their views comes from the other end of the spectrum. Such as was done here.

 

[a pilgrim]

No, I agree with what you are saying, brother, I just don't think there is a "scriptural mandate," fore believers to be involved with activism. I speak out on conservative issues that are addressed by the AFA, and other groups like them. I see the decay of "family values," and the necessity to shore them up. I, however, see that many of these cherished values have decayed because of the carnality and compromise of the modern church. It has so blurred the lines between it and the world that we have (effectively,) lost our voice.

 

[WinBySurrender]

No, I agree with what you are saying, brother, I just don't think there is a "scriptural mandate," fore believers to be involved with activism. I speak out on conservative issues that are addressed by the AFA, and other groups like them. I see the decay of "family values," and the necessity to shore them up. I, however, see that many of these cherished values have decayed because of the carnality and compromise of the modern church. It has so blurred the lines between it and the world that we have (effectively,) lost our voice.

AMEN! Thanks for the clarification. Sorry I included you in that response.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Here is part of the action statement on AFA's website:

To that end, AFA spurs activism directed to:

• Preservation of Marriage and the Family
• Decency and Morality
• Sanctity of Human Life
• Stewardship
• Media Integrity

Do you find those goals objectionable?

You can see my Libertarian Party icon. I don't need to say more.

You and a pilgrim confuse socio-political activism with evangelism, and that is not the case. When the average Southern Baptist speaks of the gospel, he or she doesn't deliver a diatribe against Obama and the liberals. By the same token, when being activist in the socio-political realm, they don't deliver a gospel message. I think the problem here is that both of you have blurred your vision of the Christian conservative to the point you can't see the picture clearly.

I have no idea where you got that. I certainly know the difference between activism and evangelism, and I'm aware that hardly anybody tries to do both at the same time.

Because of my Christianity, I've come to see the socio-political world differently than I did as a young man (I didn't become a Christian until I was 40) and many of the closely-held beliefs I'd had for years disappeared overnight, and I am certain that was the Holy Spirit guiding me in those aspects. I speak of issues such as abortion, gay issues, public funding of non-profit organizations (against it) and a variety of other issues. But I speak for those issues from the perspective of socio-economics, and I speak of Christ from the perspective of the born-again man I am. Most Christian conservatives I know do the same. The only "blurring" of their views comes from the other end of the spectrum. Such as was done here.

Yes, I see some things differently too now that I'm a Christian. I've been one for 36 years now.

I was a conservative activist even before I was a Christian. I was active in Young Americans for Freedom while I was in high school an college. Later I was a state officer in Young Republicans and a staff member of a national gun rights organization. I campaigned for Nixon in 1972 and for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. But I was never a Religious Right type of conservative, always a libertarian conservative. Or as now, a conservative libertarian... because which is the adjective matters.

What changed when I became a Christian? Economics mainly: I'm still Austrian School, but because of social justice concerns raised by Christians, including the Catholic Church (though I'm not Catholic) and Tony Campolo, I'm less Hayek now and more Röpke... which makes me a much more moderate libertarian than I used to be.

 

[standingtall]

This discussion is pointless. All true Christians know that Jesus is a Republican.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

This discussion is pointless. All true Christians know that Jesus is a Republican.

 

[IisJustMe]

This discussion is pointless. All true Christians know that Jesus is a Republican.

What? He is, isn't he?

 

[WannaWitness]

Personally, I think Jesus would be a moderate -- if anything at all.

But somehow, I just don't think He'd bother with the realm of politics. I mean, it is full of immorality, any way you slice it, and no party is more guilty than the other when it comes to this.

My personal views are such a mixed bag that I just can't relate to one party. That's why I am registered a nonpartisan.

Just my honest opinion. Not looking to debate.

 

[Gentlemantech48]

I know that it's a big joke to say the Jesus is Republican but political parties are made up of people. Which people do you think Jesus will bless? Those who would kill a 6 month old baby in the womb or those who would do every thing they could to protect that baby? And that's just one example of liberal vs. conservative. Jesus is not a Republican but He DOES bless those who have Christian values and you will find few of those in the Democratic party.

 

[WannaWitness]

That's why I'd like to be affiliated with a party (if anything) that has the best ideas of both. Anti-abortion, against homosexuality (like many, but not all, Republicans), but caring for the disadvantaged (like a lot of the Democrats). But from what I can see, neither party does a very good job of delivering everything they promise, or holding completely to the stances they claim to believe in. Which is why I think they all need prayer. Yes, all of them deserve it.

In addition to that, I have met a number of Republicans (and other political conservatives) who haven't the slightest regard for morals of any kind (which means there are other issues of importance to them that steer them in that direction). There is one group of Republicans, in particular, called "log cabin" Republicans, who specialize in endorsing the gay lifestyle. Also, there are many Christian moderates and "blue doggers" (more than we think) who are more than happy to stand for morals, but yet can see the good in other parties.

Incidentally, Gentemantech48, I'm just curious: What do you think about the Democrats of the past (like John F. Kennedy, FDR) as compared with the ones of recent years?

 

[Gentlemantech48]

WannaWitness: "That's why I'd like to be affiliated with a party (if anything) that has the best ideas of both. Anti-abortion, against homosexuality, but caring for the disadvantaged. But from what I can see, neither party does a very good job of delivering what they promise, or holding completely to the stances they claim to believe in. Which is why I think they all need prayer. Yes, all of them."

You make a very good point!

Incidentally, Gentemantech48, I'm just curious: What do you think about the Democrats of the past (like John F. Kennedy, FDR) as compared with the ones of recent years?

I was a young teenager when JFK was President. All I know is what little I remember and what I read. He had a serious moral problem (women) but abortion was not yet a real issue and he seemed to make a good President. With his military service he stood up to Cuba during the Bay of Pigs Crisis and I think it was his conservative values that got him killed. As for FDR, that was really before my time but I think he had to make tough choices during a tough economic time. Truman had to make a really tough choice in bombing Japan but I think it was necessary. All of these preceded the abortion issue and it was Johnson who had to deal with Civil Rights.

 

[WannaWitness]

WannaWitness: "That's why I'd like to be affiliated with a party (if anything) that has the best ideas of both. Anti-abortion, against homosexuality, but caring for the disadvantaged. But from what I can see, neither party does a very good job of delivering what they promise, or holding completely to the stances they claim to believe in. Which is why I think they all need prayer. Yes, all of them."

You make a very good point!

Incidentally, Gentemantech48, I'm just curious: What do you think about the Democrats of the past (like John F. Kennedy, FDR) as compared with the ones of recent years?

I was a young teenager when JFK was President. All I know is what little I remember and what I read. He had a serious moral problem (women) but abortion was not yet a real issue and he seemed to make a good President. With his military service he stood up to Cuba during the Bay of Pigs Crisis and I think it was his conservative values that got him killed. As for FDR, that was really before my time but I think he had to make tough choices during a tough economic time. Truman had to make a really tough choice in bombing Japan but I think it was necessary. All of these preceded the abortion issue and it was Johnson who had to deal with Civil Rights.

Thanks. My curiosity craving has been satisfied.

Anyway... sorry for getting a little off-topic.

 

[IisJustMe]

I was a young teenager when JFK was President. All I know is what little I remember and what I read. He had a serious moral problem (women) but abortion was not yet a real issue and he seemed to make a good President. With his military service he stood up to Cuba during the Bay of Pigs Crisis and I think it was his conservative values that got him killed. As for FDR, that was really before my time but I think he had to make tough choices during a tough economic time. Truman had to make a really tough choice in bombing Japan but I think it was necessary. All of these preceded the abortion issue and it was Johnson who had to deal with Civil Rights.

I'm younger than you, but I remember the Bay of Pigs disaster. After promising the ex-patriots air support for their invasion, he pulled the plug at the last minute and as a result got them slaughtered on the beach. He did stand up to the Soviets when they put missiles in Cuba a year later, but what else could he do? Anyone (except, perhaps, Obama) would have done the same thing. Nukes 90 miles away? No way any president could allow that to happen.

Truman would be a Republican today, even though he was a big union man. Then again, so was Reagan. FDR was a socio-political elitist who thought his ideas were more important than the constitution. Democrats love to point to his "social workfare" programs that "dug us out of the Depression." Utter nonsense! Six months after the stock market crashed, unemployment in the US was at 17.4%. His WPA and CCC programs did make-work, did nothing to stimulate jobs, did nothing to put confidence in the economy back in the minds of the businessmen who actually could pull the country out of the Depression. When WWII started, guess what the unemployment rate was in the US? 17.4% ... same as it had been eight years before.