Christianity & politics (oh no! not again!)

[phoenix_kid82]

Hi.

I'm very confused.

I was hoping to get a few ideas here, hopefully Biblical, on Christianity in politics.

I have a developing interest in politics. I try to educate myself, i read alot, and i tend to be left-wing.

This is my understanding and feelings, some which are not very developed, some which may not be Biblical, in which case please point that out to me.

Jesus told us to clothe those who are naked, feed those who are hungry, look after the sick, and if we have two coats and our neighbour has none, to give him one. And to speak for those who can't speak for themselves, to look after widows and orphans.

Someone asked Jesus if they should pay taxes. He said "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God". Is he differentiating here between church and the running of the country? They were being oppressed by the Roman empire, and as outspoken as Jesus was on alot of matters, he still paid the temple tax and cooperated on alot of matters.

He also said that His kingdom is not of this world.

So i'm wondering about the whole church/state thing.

My feelings:

If a brother or sister in Christ feels led to pursue a career in politics, i think that's great, and i hope God uses them for His purposes and blesses them for their obedience. I hope they are a light to the people of the nation they serve, and to the people they serve with.

If a group of Christians feel called to band together and create an influence for Godly purpose, i don't know if i feel the same way. Political views among Christians are very different, even views on various controversial issues between denominations are at different ends of the spectrum. I think of the Christian right in America and it kinda creeps me.

At present, there is a policital party in my country, backed by the AOG, probably funded by the AOG (i have to check my facts on that) but clearly supported in many ways by the AOG. The congregation at my church was informed of their existence around election time, and lo and behold, they get a member or two in federal parliarment. (i'm not trying to say anything shifty happened here, i believe they were voted in because people voted for them)

Alot of people were freaking out. The media seemed a little uneasy, and the interviews were like "ABORTION? EUTHANASIA? HOMOSEXUALITY AND MARRIAGE RIGHTS?". One flip head even asked the poor woman if she was a virgin. What on earth does that have to do with her party policies and potential? Anyway, i don't know enough about that party just yet. All i know is that they have some policy developing to do and that their interest is towards families, concerning on how the policies and legislations passed in parliament affect families.

I am also feeling quite uneasy. There is alot of junk out there, alot of extreme negative views and actions of people who claim to speak and act in the name of the Lord, and unfortunately, those things seem to reflect on me because i am a Christian. Alot of ppl seem to assume i must hate gay people, that i must vote conservative, along with the rest of the negative labels already out there like "Bible basher", "Jesus freak", etc. I am not comfortable with other ppl speaking on behalf of God or every member of the body of Christ concerning politics and views on controversial matters.

I'm also a tad disturbed by the fact that they're supportive of the current party in power who are fairly right-wing, who are currently doing some very dodgy things, and although there are some Christians in that party including our Prime Minister, i feel the coalition's policies are a better representative of the Christian. Look after the little guys, people before economy, keep healthcare public. Although the coalition use to be left, they've seemed to have drifted to the right and they're not as "loud" and "opposed"" as they use to be.

Again, i would have to do some more research to find out exacltly what this Christian party's agenda is, but i'm dreading that they're gonna go extreme and try to ban homosexuality and abortion and contraception and drugs and all this stuff that people are gonna be and do anyway. If i was in parliarment, i would rather provide solutions than try to outlaw things against the wishes of the people (the point of democracy). God doesn't intefere in our lives or choices we make unless/until we invite Him to. What right do politicians have?

Anyway, i know i have a few things to learn. I tend to be towards the left because i believe in democracy. We are in a fallen world, we cannot make it "ideal" by rigging things for an apparent "Christian" agenda. In this fallen world, democracy is fair and just. People will want different things, people should be heard out, not silenced or ignored. And if ppl go outlawing things because they're wrong in the Bible, that would be imposing things on ppl who haven't chosen that lifestyle. Ppl should be invited towards Christ, not imposed on with laws they don't want. And they're not going to want that until their relationship with Christ changes them.

At the end of the day, if you weigh it up, aren't there more important, more urgent and pending issues than opposing gay marriage? There are starving children and people in danger all over the world. You do the math.

Okay, that's my speil. I am preparing for a thrashing lol

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Greetings

 

[Covenant Heart]

I'm very confused.

Perhaps this thread will be interesting/helpful.

http://www.christianforums.com/t157...pinion-on-christians-concerning-politics.html

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

 

[gnine]

Its really a mismatch between the powers and principles of the world and that of the Kingdom of God.

I've heard it said that worldly power, and therefore that of governments, can only be wielded in three ways (as illustrated by some japanese god holding a sword, a jewel and a mirror)

• By Force and Violence (i.e. the police, armed forces, etc)
• By Money (taxation, salaries, etc)
• By Knowledge, which amplifies the first two

But the Kingdom of God is different and does not run according to these rules - it runs according to God's soveriegnty and according to love.

Evidently there is a problem here for the Christian trying to establish a "christian" government - in an attempt to achieve christian ideals, they are forced into using worldly methods. Hence you get the likes of GW Bush, who IMHO probably is genuine in his faith, blowing up little children in an attempt to make the world a better place (if you believe that is the rationale for the Gulf war). I can't believe that Christ would ever use such methods. The standard response to that point is "Should we allow the little children to be tyranised?" - but answering a question with another question is scarcely an answer - is it? Besides, nowhere in the NT is the Christian commanded to stamp out evil in the society that they lived in - otherwise Christ would have been all for leading an armed rebellion against the Romans and Saducees.

In short - you cannot legislate morality. The laws of the land follow behind the moral barometer of the country, not the other way around - not sure what drives the moral baromater of a country - I suspect its sinfulness (of course), advertising and individualism - but absolutely don't think its the law.

Gotta run... Kudos for asking the question!

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

In short - you cannot legislate morality.

Brilliant.

To me, Luke 4 : 5 -7 says it all. Government and politics is of Satan. Christians
must therefore stay away. Give our souls to God not to the Caesars of the world.This is our mandate as Christians.

 

[tulc]

To me, Luke 4 : 5 -7 says it all. Government and politics is of Satan. Christians must therefore stay away. Give our souls to God not to the Caesars of the world.This is our mandate as Christians.

Lets get some context shall we?

Luke 4
1Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry. 3The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."

4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone."

5The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

8Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only."

9The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. 10For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully;
11they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."

12Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

13When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time. (emph. added)

hmmm so by your reasoning we shouldn't eat bread because the Devil used it to tempt Jesus?
tulc(a firm believer in context!)

 

[Swart]

At present, there is a policital party in my country, backed by the AOG, probably funded by the AOG (i have to check my facts on that) but clearly supported in many ways by the AOG. The congregation at my church was informed of their existence around election time, and lo and behold, they get a member or two in federal parliarment. (i'm not trying to say anything shifty happened here, i believe they were voted in because people voted for them)

Being a fellow Australian, I understand where you're coming from. This phenomena crops up every so often. As a religious party matures, it's aims and objectives generally solidify and end up alienating a large amount of their support base. This is what happened with Fred Nile's party when many Christian voters realised he was really quite extreme.

The problem with CR political groups is that they concentrate on the morality side and then ignore the social justice component. In my mind, a party advocating for "the family" should be advocating for social reforms aimed at keeping mothers in the home rather than forcing them out to work (personally I would like to see both a mother and father in each family, but I fail to see the sense in sending the one parent that is there out to work); providing access to free healthcare, education and affordable housing and limiting the ability of employers to force unpaid overtime on workers so the fathers can be home to spend more time with their children.

You will find these messages taught by Jesus much more prevalent than morality issues.
[Bible]James 1:27[/Bible]

I'm also a tad disturbed by the fact that they're supportive of the current party in power who are fairly right-wing, who are currently doing some very dodgy things, and although there are some Christians in that party including our Prime Minister, i feel the coalition's policies are a better representative of the Christian. Look after the little guys, people before economy, keep healthcare public. Although the coalition use to be left, they've seemed to have drifted to the right and they're not as "loud" and "opposed"" as they use to be.

Err, when you say 'coaltion', I suspect you mean 'opposition'. The coalition are the parties currently in power with the right wing policies such as their "screw the poor" policy.

Again, i would have to do some more research to find out exacltly what this Christian party's agenda is, but i'm dreading that they're gonna go extreme and try to ban homosexuality and abortion and contraception and drugs and all this stuff that people are gonna be and do anyway. If i was in parliarment, i would rather provide solutions than try to outlaw things against the wishes of the people (the point of democracy). God doesn't intefere in our lives or choices we make unless/until we invite Him to. What right do politicians have?

I've always considered that the solution to these problems is education.

Okay, that's my speil. I am preparing for a thrashing lol

I think it's quite well thought out. I've always maintained part of our problem with politics is that there tends to be a flow FROM the political parties INTO the religious ideologies rather than the reverse. Thus, people tend to justify right wing politics on a religious basis as though there is some holy agenda behind it. If you disagree, then obviously your not a god-fearing person. This phenomena was endemic in Queensland for over 20 years. 'Socialism' was considered kin to atheism.

 

[Vylo]

Bunch of things here, first I noticed you saying you were nervous about them banning things that people will do anyway. We have banned murder, but people do it anyway, just because people will do it regardless of its legality, it not in itself a reason to permit something.

I am pro-choice by most standards, but I oppose abortions of convenience after the first trimester because I feel at a certain point a fetus becomes a person. Just because people will have abortions anyway is not a reason to make abortions after the first trimester legal (and honestly, I haven't heard anyone use that excuse in regards to my opinion specifically), there are other reasons to consider, which people have brought up that I think about often.

Second thing. A christian party would make me a bit nervous, as I have more in common with some denominations of christianity then then they do with each other. Christianity, as a whole, sits on the fence, and on both the lawns, so getting them to act cohesively would be almost as hard as getting Atheists to have their own party (there is an analogy to the effect of trying to herd cats in that regard). If there is one thing I have noticed, it is that people of a political party tend to share more in common then those of the same world view. Each of them has so variance within, it is no wonder that they they have become fractured.

Lastly I don't think faith should be put into legislation, but it should certainly reinforce it. People starving on the streets is both emprically and spiritually a problem. It doesn't take faith to feel a sense of duty to help those people, but it also doesn't hurt .

 

[phoenix_kid82]

Err, when you say 'coaltion', I suspect you mean 'opposition'. The coalition are the parties currently in power with the right wing policies such as their "screw the poor" policy.

I meant labor. I thought the opposition was the coalition? I hear ya on the "screw the poor" policies. There are some terrible things being passed at the moment. The abolishment of the minimum wage, more loopholes for employers to sack employees for no reason, the attempt to remove the student unions from their premises (i'm helping to organise a rally tomorrow at Sydney uni), the restrictions to single parent allowances...

Bunch of things here, first I noticed you saying you were nervous about them banning things that people will do anyway. We have banned murder, but people do it anyway, just because people will do it regardless of its legality, it not in itself a reason to permit something

Legalising does not make something morally right.

Murder is something that the vast majority feel strongly is very wrong, secular and non-secular alike. It has been part of western law for a long time. Except in cases of self defence or accident, which is charged as man-slaughter instead. Or in cases of war for some reason. And it's also accepted that ppl have a choice not to, unless they're completely off their dial, and even then there's psychiatric and psychological support, medication, counselling, anger management.

But take drugs for example. Drugs are illegal, ppl with drug problems tend to commit crime to support their habits, along with other social consequences. Well, we have drug injecting rooms, methodone clinics, needle distribution centres, along with plenty of information about how to inject safely, where to get help, available programs and support groups. Is this pro-drug? No. But they understand that ppl aren't suddenly going to stop taking drugs because it's against the law. They figure if they're going to do it, we'll at least make it as safe as possible, give them information about their choices and options if they ever wish to consider other options. This is pro-active help.

As Swart said,

I've always considered that the solution to these problems is education

As much as i am anti-abortion, if the vast majority was in support of pro-choice when it comes to abortion, then it would be pointless trying to push for a legislation to take away that "option". That is democracy.

If this option was taken away, backyard abortions would come back into fashion like there's no tomorrow, because there are ppl who are desperate enough to go to that length. I'm not closet pro-abortion, i'm realistic. A more proactive solution would be to pass a legislation for compulsory counselling and informing of all options before a woman is allowed to go through with an abortion. This might cause some of them to reconsider and choose another option they didn't know was available or as easily accessible as they realised.

This is my personal view on one of many issues. My opinion differs from Vylo's, but every Christian feels differently about different issues, just like in secular society. There are many Christians who wouldn't feel the same as me, but i wouldn't attempt to speak for them.

 

[gnine]

They figure if they're going to do it, we'll at least make it as safe as possible, give them information about their choices and options if they ever wish to consider other options. This is pro-active help.

The thing is, I can't conceive of Jesus doing this - I mean saying to a drug user, "Oh I know that you're going to inject anyway, so here is a clean needle for you".

It would be much more along the lines of "Turn to me, follow me and leave your life of sin".

On that basis, I oppose Christians running injecting rooms, etc - it fixes the symptoms and not the cause - allowing people to continue sinning until they die and then go to hell.

 

[Swart]

I meant labor. I thought the opposition was the coalition?

Coalition = Liberal + National parties

But take drugs for example. Drugs are illegal, ppl with drug problems tend to commit crime to support their habits, along with other social consequences. Well, we have drug injecting rooms, methodone clinics, needle distribution centres, along with plenty of information about how to inject safely, where to get help, available programs and support groups. Is this pro-drug? No. But they understand that ppl aren't suddenly going to stop taking drugs because it's against the law. They figure if they're going to do it, we'll at least make it as safe as possible, give them information about their choices and options if they ever wish to consider other options. This is pro-active help.

Drugs are a health issue. Youth that practice physical fitness generally do not use drugs. Teenage pregnancy is an education/social issue. Girls who play team sports statistically do not get pregnant.

 

[phoenix_kid82]

Coalition = Liberal + National parties

correction noted, thanx, apologies

Drugs are a health issue. Youth that practice physical fitness generally do not use drugs. Teenage pregnancy is an education/social issue. Girls who play team sports statistically do not get pregnant.

I'm a tad lost by what you mean. Are you saying that encouraging young people to play sport and to be educated on how to avoid pregnancy are methods of drug and pregnancy prevention? What about "at risk" young people, or young people already involved in unsafe sex or drug use? I'm all for prevention, but we need to reach out to people currently affected by these things. Education is one way, but educating someone about the impact of drugs on one's health who is desperate for a hit isn't going to stop them going after it.

 

[Swart]

I'm a tad lost by what you mean. Are you saying that encouraging young people to play sport and to be educated on how to avoid pregnancy are methods of drug and pregnancy prevention? What about "at risk" young people, or young people already involved in unsafe sex or drug use? I'm all for prevention, but we need to reach out to people currently affected by these things. Education is one way, but educating someone about the impact of drugs on one's health who is desperate for a hit isn't going to stop them going after it.

Statiscally, it IS the case. When young people have goals and objectives in their lives. They will avoid things that will prevent them achieving their goals. Team sports foster co-operation, interdependence and positive peer relationships in a mentoring atmosphere. Younger team members strive to be more like the more successful members of the team. In general, they see the fitter, better players as those that exercise, don't smoke or use drugs. They see the pregnant ones drop out and fail to achieve their goals.

Prevention is far better than cure. Sure, those affected need to be helped according to their willingness to BE helped.

 

[jgaive]

Paul said that we are to present our bodies as a living and reasonable sacrifice to God - that means the whole of what we are, including out political resposibility.

A good example to follow is the Christian thinker and statesman, Abraham Kuyper, founder of the Free University of Amsterdam and Dutch Prime Minister

 

[jgaive]

I was trying to suggest that you think about the example of Abraham Kuyper who was a great Christian theologian and philosopher, and also Dutch PM at early last century.

There is also the Jubilee Centre in Cambridge, which has just brought out a book the Jubilee Manifesto

 

[jgaive]

More about this - it is the result of collaboration of a number of writers co-ordinated by the Jubilee Centre, UK, Cambridge and published by IVP, UK.

It deals with a biblical social vision. My own contribution was about the role of relationships in the Christian tradition, and then a chapter on international politics and defence.

It is only a start- it does not deal with education, the environment and all sorts of other issues - perhaps that could be dealt with in a follow up project.


It is also linked to the Relationships Foundation, also based in Cambridge, UK, and to Concordis, which engages in international peace-building.