THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH IS BREAKING APART Christians must reclaim Jesus from his church

[Aldebaran]

A bridge built on hate and resentment can't lead anywhere good.

Is this the point where you expect me to become defensive just because you used the word "hate"?
As for bridges, they are for connecting understandings between different areas of life. Those who only understand the here-and-now and what they can see and feel won't immediately relate to the spiritual.
As for politics, the official definition of the word is, "The academic study of government and the state." IOW, it's what going on around us and how it relates to us. It's easy for a non-spiritual person to be heavily influenced by it, and it makes sense for those who are spiritual to build a bridge between the two.

 

[public hermit]

I have to believe God has it all under control so that it all serves His ends

I'm with you on this, but it can't be that we throw out the good we need now for a good that will come. Good is all under the same principle, and if we neglect to seek it now, will we be honoring the good to come? No, and that's why a bunch of goats will have thought they were sheep. Sad, very sad.

Otherwise, I feel I would leave myself open to the very demagoguery we're talking about.

If we are pursuing the good of others, the good we naturally seek for ourselves, how could we go wrong? Love your neighbour is something children understand. It's just not what we want, apparently.

But I also consider that the carnal mind has a different definition of "good" than the spiritual mind

We all have a carnal mind, it's not a special space for sinners; it's a human space. We are created for more, but we all inhabit it.

The good is fairly obvious. The good is anything that works in favor of life; meaningful, flourishing life. Yes, there are instances when things get complicated and discerning the good is near impossible, but in our work-a-day world, we very often know what is good. It's just not what we want.

The choice I see is that we all will either be crucified or be a crucifier

Lover, be a lover. You can crucify and you can be crucified, lots of folks have done both. Can you love?

Besides, Trump was a horrible representative for Christian politics, just to keep things on target.

 

[Sketcher]

I think this is a fair critique. The table could be turned. The problem is, left leaning Christians have no power. The left would survive just fine without the Christians who support them. On the right, Christians have power. They are driving that agenda. Is it Christ's agenda?

I think for the purpose of this discussion we should say "churchgoers" rather than "Christians" since I suspect that not all of the people doing the political nonsense in the churches are in fact Christians. Those that are have less of an excuse, but anyway . . .

When one's primary agenda is either right-wing or left-wing politics, that is not Christ's agenda. Christ's agenda is holiness for his followers, loving one's neighbor, and bringing the lost into the fold. Any church that thinks this manifests as left-wing or right-wing political action is self-deceived. How many people gather to hear how to love their neighbor more - and don't feel some measure of anger when they actually hear it? How many people gather to hear about how they can forgive those who wronged them? And how often do they revisit these topics and other difficult ones? It's a lot easier to sing songs, air grievances, and talk about how Jesus really agrees with you.

 

[public hermit]

How many people gather to hear how to love their neighbor more - and don't feel some measure of anger when they actually hear it? How many people gather to hear about how they can forgive those who wronged them? And how often do they revisit these topics and other difficult ones? It's a lot easier to sing songs, air grievances, and talk about how Jesus really agrees with you

Right. The way Jesus commands is counter-intuitive and not at all how the "world" works. Love your enemy. Do good to those who hate you. Give without expecting anything in return. Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow him. If you seek to save your life you will loose it. It you lose it for him, you're alive forever. That doesn't look like the GOP agenda, or any other for that matter. I think the only conclusion we can make is there are no Christians in America. There are people who call themselves followers of Christ, but....

At the very least, Christians should not identify with a political agenda, and that is the claim of the article.

 

[Aldebaran]

Right. The way Jesus commands is counter-intuitive and not at all how the "world" works. Love your enemy. Do good to those who hate you. Give without expecting anything in return. Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow him. If you seek to save your life you will loose it. It you lose it for him, you're alive forever. That doesn't look like the GOP agenda, or any other for that matter. I think the only conclusion we can make is there are no Christians in America. There are people who call themselves followers of Christ, but....

At the very least, Christians should not identify with a political agenda, and that is the claim of the article.

Can a Christian still agree with policies of political candidates/parties?
For example, if a Christian hears about sex ed being taught to 1st graders and doesn't believe that should be done, is it ok for a Christian to voice their concern about it on a public forum, discuss it with those who agree/disagree, and encourage people to vote for politicians that will discontinue such practices in schools?

 

[public hermit]

Can a Christian still agree with policies of political candidates/parties?
For example, if a Christian hears about sex ed being taught to 1st graders and doesn't believe that should be done, is it ok for a Christian to voice their concern about it on a public forum, discuss it with those who agree/disagree, and encourage people to vote for politicians that will discontinue such practices in schools?

Can a Christian disagree with a policy? That's not the argument of the article, but sure. I think the point is a shift from following Christ to following a political entity. It's trading the Kingdom of God for one of the kingdoms of this world. The article claims it's a matter of fear and poor catechesis (discipleship). I'm not evangelical, but it makes sense from where I stand.

 

[d taylor]

It seems that a good many of the discussions on that subject on this site often end up that way, in a verbal sense.



Individual Christians often get into conversations about it because it concerns what is happening around us, and it's what people in the world are concerned about, so they want a bridge that connects what they can relate to, to the Gospel. Otherwise the two seem disconnected and unrelated.

There are and have been a few, i have been in several myself.

Yes i see their thinking behind their motives for political involvement. But as an observer i see it only hurting the church in many ways.

As many of these politicians end up being poor representatives what what many believers at least they say they stand for.

An example is, the abortion issue, which i believe has been used by many a conservative/republican politician as a vote getter and not so much a political belief held by the candidate or politician.

 

[Aldebaran]

There are and have been a few, i have been in several myself.

Yes i see their thinking behind their motives for political involvement. But as an observer i see it only hurting the church in many ways.

As many of these politicians end up being poor representatives what what many believers at least they say they stand for.

An example is, the abortion issue, which i believe has been used by many a conservative/republican politician as a vote getter and not so much a political belief held by the candidate or politician.

I guess my view is to follow a political party/candidate as unto the Lord, as it were. Much like a wife should obey her husband the same way. If the husband does something that is contrary to the Lord, the wife is not to follow. If a politician is not Christian but supports a policy that a Christian should support to keep society from becoming more sinful and destructive, I'd advocate voting for that person.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm with you on this, but it can't be that we throw out the good we need now for a good that will come. Good is all under the same principle, and if we neglect to seek it now, will we be honoring the good to come? No, and that's why a bunch of goats will have thought they were sheep. Sad, very sad.

Only God can put a hook in the mouth of leviathan.

If we are pursuing the good of others, the good we naturally seek for ourselves, how could we go wrong? Love your neighbour is something children understand. It's just not what we want, apparently.

Yes children do understand and the god of this world tries to make that simple wisdom and understanding into naivete.

We all have a carnal mind, it's not a special space for sinners; it's a human space. We are created for more, but we all inhabit it.

My point is that the carnal mind is a blindness and it speaks and thinks accordingly.

The good is fairly obvious. The good is anything that works in favor of life; meaningful, flourishing life. Yes, there are instances when things get complicated and discerning the good is near impossible, but in our work-a-day world, we very often know what is good. It's just not what we want.

As I see it, demagoguery is a spirit of darkness that constantly tells us what we should have or how things should be. The Spirit of Light is what keeps us thanking God for what things that remain, and for what we have been spared from. Those are two different ways of looking at things.

Lover, be a lover. You can crucify and you can be crucified, lots of folks have done both. Can you love?

Now is the time to persevere in Love and we should prepare our hearts knowing it's not going to be an easy task. We better bring extra oil to keep the lamp burning.

I may have done some crucifying in the past, which is why I must now forgive those who crucify me now, if I am to be justified. This reminds me of the two thieves that were crucified with Christ:
And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

Besides, Trump was a horrible representative for Christian politics, just to keep things on target.

Yes, Trump spoke as a demagogue and he also spoke in carnal terms, but that's what people liked.

 

[Aldebaran]

Can a Christian disagree with a policy? That's not the argument of the article, but sure. I think the point is a shift from following Christ to following a political entity. It's trading the Kingdom of God for one of the kingdoms of this world. The article claims it's a matter of fear and poor catechesis (discipleship). I'm not evangelical, but it makes sense from where I stand.

I'm all for following Christ instead of a political party. Political parties aren't designed around winning souls, but rather votes. The thing is that it's the political parties, or rather the people in them, that determine which direction the nation goes.

 

[Fantine]

Any church that doesn't relate faith to real life is doomed to failure.

Any church that doesn't teach the second great commandment, "Love thy neighbor as myself," isn't really Christian.

And who is my neighbor? The immigrants. The refugees. People of color.

 

[public hermit]

I'm all for following Christ instead of a political party. Political parties aren't designed around winning souls, but rather votes. The thing is that it's the political parties, or rather the people in them, that determine which direction the nation goes.

I think, which amounts to nothing, our values drive the politics. Christians on the right have power, and what they support shows what they value. Does that agenda entail all that Christ values? Of course not, so one would think the current situation would be a toss up for Christians. Surely, they find what they seek and what they don't seek in both parties. But, no, they support this one agenda no matter what. No matter what nonsense comes down the pike, they support it. Why, Aldebaran? It is simple: their Christian identity is their political identity.

 

[Sketcher]

Right. The way Jesus commands is counter-intuitive and not at all how the "world" works. Love your enemy. Do good to those who hate you. Give without expecting anything in return. Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow him. If you seek to save your life you will loose it. It you lose it for him, you're alive forever. That doesn't look like the GOP agenda, or any other for that matter. I think the only conclusion we can make is there are no Christians in America. There are people who call themselves followers of Christ, but....

At the very least, Christians should not identify with a political agenda, and that is the claim of the article.

I don't think it's fair to say there are no Christians in America. I do think it's fair to say that churchgoers with axes to grind rather than grace to give are the ones that make the noise and do the mischief and get the attention.

 

[public hermit]

don't think it's fair to say there are no Christians in America

It's not fair. It was hyperbole to make a point: if Christians are indistinguishable from the world, they aren't doing it right. What could be more indistinguishable than embracing one political party?

 

[Sketcher]

It's not fair. It was hyperbole to make a point: if Christians are indistinguishable from the world, that aren't doing it right. What could be more indistinguishable than embracing one political party?

One could say we are becoming more and more distinguishable by our sexual mores every day, but we are not distinguishable enough in some other key areas Christ and the Apostles preached about. Now, historically the churches had issues with a number of those areas too, that's why Paul had to write to them to stop doing X, Y, and Z. But we shouldn't focus on worldly things to stay the way we are, we should be primarily seeking his holiness. I've been guilty of this as well.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think, which amounts to nothing, our values drive the politics. Christians on the right have power, and what they support shows what they value. Does that agenda entail all that Christ values? Of course not, so one would think the current situation would be a toss up for Christians. Surely, they find what they seek and what they don't seek in both parties. But, no, they support this one agenda no matter what. No matter what nonsense comes down the pike, they support it. Why, Aldebaran? It is simple: their Christian identity is their political identity.

Well, I'm not sure it's everything that comes down the pike they support. I mean, if a politician is promoting abortion, and shows hostility to Christianity, I wouldn't vote for them. I'd be more inclined to vote for the one that is the opposite.

 

[public hermit]

One could say we are becoming more and more distinguishable by our sexual mores every day, but we are not distinguishable enough in some other key areas Christ and the Apostles preached about. Now, historically the churches had issues with a number of those areas too, that's why Paul had to write to them to stop doing X, Y, and Z. But we shouldn't focus on worldly things to stay the way we are, we should be primarily seeking his holiness. I've been guilty of this as well.

So what if we focus on living a better life, since we are all guilty too, and see if that works better than trying to enforce things that the wider culture has no interest in? We try to take a place of correcting others, and yet we don't live the life ourselves. It's rank paternalism and a bad look. Maybe a different approach would be to clean house. Give people a reason to think we might have something to say. The world is going to turn, with us or without us. God makes sure of that.

 

[childeye 2]

It's not fair. It was hyperbole to make a point: if Christians are indistinguishable from the world, they aren't doing it right. What could be more indistinguishable than embracing one political party?

Some people say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Many a zealous Christians don't want to hear about it. They're going to force that water down that horses mouth while yelling, "LIVE, YOU STUPID HORSE!"

 

[d taylor]

I guess my view is to follow a political party/candidate as unto the Lord, as it were. Much like a wife should obey her husband the same way. If the husband does something that is contrary to the Lord, the wife is not to follow. If a politician is not Christian but supports a policy that a Christian should support to keep society from becoming more sinful and destructive, I'd advocate voting for that person.

I see that as a way to approach this for a christian.

But i see it as working best, as closer the office is to your personal area, as the area widens, it opens up for a christian, to not actually knowing their candidate especially when this gets to the national stage.
At that stage the person is voting for the presented/crafted image a hired agency has created.

 

[childeye 2]

Well, I'm not sure it's everything that comes down the pike they support. I mean, if a politician is promoting abortion, and shows hostility to Christianity, I wouldn't vote for them. I'd be more inclined to vote for the one that is the opposite.

But any politician who denounces specific sins of others, as a reason to vote for them, is not speaking out of any knowledge of sinfulness, but are being hypocrites. Christianity does not teach that legalism is a means of stopping sin.