Politics?

[jmorton]

Greetings All,

I am simply wondering what politics would closely follow the word of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am aware of Romans 13, but I'm curious of what differing opinions on this subject will be. Seeing how there's both progressive and conservative Christians out there. Thank you.

 

[redleghunter]

Getting in the name “Trump” and term “Religious Right” before anyone else.

 

[The Faceless]

No politics at all.

 

[redleghunter]

No politics at all.

The OP is asking questions on Christian views of politics. Romans 13 and Daniel 3 are good starts.

Edited. I changed “your” with “the” as this is not your OP.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

It depends on your starting assumptions.

If you assume Sola scriptura, there are two general trajectories people follow. One general trajectory is that only the New Testament matters. Follow that path, and the typical conclusion is that politics are a meaningless distraction or that Jesus was a 19th-century German liberal (just like most early higher-criticism scholars were; what are the odds???). Another general trajectory is that the Old Testament also matters. Follow that path, and the typical conclusion you'll end up with is either liberterianism or nationalist socialism (not to be confused with national socialism), depending on how much of the Old Testament is admissible.

If you assume that there are authoritative and canonical sources of Christian doctrine other than just Scripture, i.e. Apostolic Tradition, then you are very likely to be conservative in a classical, pro-aristocracy sense.

But of course, there's variability along all these trajectories. I'm simply noting what I observe to be the average.

 

[redleghunter]

It depends on your starting assumptions.

If you assume Sola scriptura, there are two general trajectories people follow. One general trajectory is that only the New Testament matters. Follow that path, and the typical conclusion is that politics are a meaningless distraction or that Jesus was a 19th-century German liberal (just like most early higher-criticism scholars were; what are the odds???). Another general trajectory is that the Old Testament also matters. Follow that path, and the typical conclusion you'll end up with is either liberterianism or nationalist socialism (not to be confused with national socialism), depending on how much of the Old Testament is admissible.

If you assume that there are authoritative and canonical sources of Christian doctrine other than just Scripture, i.e. Apostolic Tradition, then you are very likely to be conservative in a classical, pro-aristocracy sense.

But of course, there's variability along all these trajectories. I'm simply noting what I observe to be the average.

Neither of which founded our nation. In fact the majority of the founders were from mainline Protestant churches.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Neither of which founded our nation. In fact the majority of the founders were from mainline Protestant churches.

Neither of which? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referring to.

 

[redleghunter]

Neither of which? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referring to.

Your two views. The founders were not pacifists who his on communes. The Plymouth colony learned that lesson with their lives.

Nor were they monarchists believing in the divine right of kings.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I myself, even before I became Orthodox, always saw monarchism and theocracy as the only two governments anointed by God.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Your two views. The founders were not pacifists who his on communes. The Plymouth colony learned that lesson with their lives.

Nor were they monarchists believing in the divine right of kings.

Well, pardon me, but I don't rightly recall saying that they had those views.

The founders were largely Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, with Catholics, early Methodists, and Baptists bringing up the rear among the colonists. Most of them were supersessionists who followed the "Old Testament is still valid" pathway. So most of them ended up either as Classical Liberals (which is basically libertarianism) or Hamiltonian Federalists (which steers closer to nationalism and socialism but not quite in the sense that I originally used those terms).

If you look across European history, however, you'll find a fairly consistent pattern in the 18th and 19th centuries: The upper classes (pro-aristocracy, pro-monarchy) were generally Catholic or Anglican or Lutheran; the middle classes (usually classically liberal and/or nationalist) tended to drift toward Calvinism or Zwinglianism and maybe Lutheranism; and the lower classes (often socialist or communist) were attracted to various forms of anabaptism and pietism, if they were attracted to religion at all. This is why British politicians initially characterized the libertarian American Revolution as a "Presbyterian revolt." This is why the German Kulturkampf involved Bismarck appealing to Protestants' Classically Liberal prejudices against Catholics so that he could exert greater political control over the latter. This is why von Stauffenberg tried to assassinate Hitler; he was a Catholic aristocrat who considered Hitler low-class and godless.

 

[timothyu]

The OP is asking questions on Christian views of politics. Romans 13 and Daniel 3 are good starts

As the other poster said, no politics. A Christian is committed to following the governance of God, not the governance of man. The two are opposite in nature.

 

[devin553344]

I am both republican and democrat. I find that democrats support sin more, but they have implemented care for the homeless and less fortunate which I find compelling. So I'm back and forth a little.

 

[Not David]

The Roman Empire?

 

[redleghunter]

I myself, even before I became Orthodox, always saw monarchism and theocracy as the only two governments anointed by God.

Such will be the case in all Perfection when Christ comes as conquering and ruling King.

 

[timothyu]

The Roman Empire?

Actually Christianity eventually chose to follow the way of the Empire, not the other way around.

 

[redleghunter]

As the other poster said, no politics. A Christian is committed to following the governance of God, not the governance of man. The two are opposite in nature.

The NT church was in the world under an Emperor and Roman Empire.

Paul said to obey the civil authorities as they were ordained by God for good. If such authorities betray that trust we are not to obey their edicts which oppose the Holy standards of God. That’s why I made the example of Daniel 3. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. ,

 

[Not David]

Politics and Religion are an interesting subject. A lot of Protestant groups in the US might be against monarchy because of US culture.

 

[timothyu]

The NT church was in the world under an Emperor and Roman Empire.

Yes and then oddly it was no longer under it but then a partner and eventually a worldly institution unto itself defeating the purpose of the Kingdom. Jesus did His part, man as usual; failed Him.

 

[timothyu]

A lot of Protestant groups in the US might be against monarchy because of US culture.

Kingdom of God means governance of God. I can see why they might feel that way. A way of servitude threatening the epitome of the self serving ways of mankind.

 

[☦Marius☦]

{deleted}