Yesterday, many in the country celebrated MLK Jr. day ... as did I. Polls among both whites and blacks overwhelmingly celebrate some measure of national progress towards Dr. King's dream. What excites me the most is not necessarily this great achievement of the American people. My joy in this is the subtle celebration of the force behind MLK Jr.'s dream ... his Christian faith. In the spirit of Christian social justice he led a movement of non-violent social protests from church pulpits to city pavements. Many federal celebrations actually take place in churches. Bill Clinton opened for the speaker at Dr. King's former church. Even those celebrations taking place on public grounds invocate churchy meetings. I can remember from high school days being bussed to the local university gym and participating in churchy services memorializing Dr. King.
Today is the anniversary of Roe V. Wade. Countless babies have been brutally sacrificed on altars of personal convenience in services of secular humanist and liberal "Christian" liturgies. Perhaps Rodney Clapp best sums up the disdain and utter contempt of many for people of Evangelical and conservative Roman Catholic faith involved in the political system, vying, struggling for an end to the Holocaust of our time. Clapp claims that evangelicals involved in the political system for causes, such as bringing an end the legalization of abortion, are draconian in their devilish nature. Evangelicals (claims Clapp) are the ones who are red in tooth and claw, rabidly hungry for political power.So ... I ask again ... can people of faith (especially of the conservative Evangelical variety) be involved in the American political process? Should they be involved? Ironically, I find the most resistance to christening politically-active evangelicals with favor, emanating from fellow believers. Perhaps we should call for a recount at this point.
9 comments:
I think the question all boils down to what Jesus taught in Mt. 22:15-22.
I've never been able to figure out why we evangelicals settle for using Caesar's tools and methods when we have so much more power available. Besides, Christ came to seek and save men and women not systems of government.
So, should Christians be involved in politics? Sure...but don't dare expect that that's how God expects us to work with him to bring his kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven. Kingdom work happens person to person, heart to heart... not political party vs. political party.
We should worry less about Roe v Wade and more about the people we see in front of us every day living lives that put them in danger of unwanted pregnancy. Work like that is what literally frustrates the hell out of Satan.
I thought I'd lost this link that applies:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/10/tackling-abortion-the-cruel-co.html
Hey Charles,
Good to hear from you. I'm so glad you're engaging the issues here with me.
But allow me to suggest that how you've structured your first comment is the exact reason I have been posting the previous couple of blogs.
I asked the question: Should Christians (especially Evangelicals) be involved in politics. Your answer was in essence: sure but remember that God intends to save individuals not systems.
I respectfully submit that you misunderstood my question. Notice that I did not ask if we should spread the justification/salvation/gospel with Caesar's sword. Notice also, that I did not ask if Christians should wrest power from the secular world in the effort to create some-sort of Evangelical theocracy. I simply asked should Christians be involved in politics.
I do hope that you'll be checking back in the coming days, because I hope to more fully explain where I'm coming from. I think that you'll find that we're not that far apart.
By the way, are you suggesting that MLK should have been more worried about witnessing person to person and less about creating a political movement that would dismantle Jim Crowe?
Love You brother,
William
William,
I think Christians should be involved in politics. My question would be their agenda in the political process. To what end would they be working for politically?
This is a terribly sticky and difficult issue to wade through. A Christian politician as a public servant swears on oath (to some degree or another) to serve the polis...the city of people. He or she would have to serve people of a variety of religious and theological positions. It would be too difficult for me. It was like when I was in debate in High School. I found it troublesome to defend both the affirmative and negative view of a certain resolution. My passion for one side of an issue made me a horrible debater.
Politicians must seek compromise and find a way to govern the people in a way that embraces the diversity of religious background...e pluribus unum...
So I think a Christian politician who can balance the delegate art of negotiation, diversity and compromise would be successful. However, if I Christian wants to make there city, county, state or nation "Christian" I think they make a grave mistake.
This may be the heart of Charles' comment. Our call as the body of Christ is to make disciples...to partner with the work of God's kingdom in making people Christians...not making political systems "Christian." To this end, the church should not have a political agenda. We should transcend partisan politics -- although God may call us out as individuals to participate in political service.
And I am using the term "Christian" to mean "follower of Christ" and not a "holder of Judeo-Christian moral values.
Ok enough for now....
Derek
Hey Derek,
Long time no see, huh? Good to hear from you. Thanks for your thoughtful ... and honest about yourself ... answer.
Here are a few thoughts volleyed back to you. The concept of compromise is often skinned and burned alive at the stake by idealists. However, we practice such a concept everyday ... while not necessarily compromising the bare core of our principles. For instance a pastor who believes women should be allowed in "the ministry" might well find himself in a denomination (or non-denominational church) which believes the opposite. People in leadership positions in various other "secular" jobs find working with people who are "different" is part and parcel of everyday life.
I, like you, have had difficulty in this area. But praise God for sanctification, huh? I know I've grown in this area ... as I know you have as well.
It is indeed interesting that politics ... and possibly the military ... are a few of the only respectable jobs that we deeply question the motives of believers' participation in them. Two thoughts at this point.
(1) Perhaps we should question all believers everywhere in their ultimate participation in any job ... including "ministry." I think I'm more in favor of this expansion than never questioning anyone at all.
(2) One of the deep drives for many, if not most, people to become involved in the political scene is change. This was certainly true of Dr. King (who almost took a professor position instead of civil rights activist). This was certainly true of William Wilburforce. And yet rarely do we question their motives for political action in the name of change. Their motivation for their political motivation was Christian social justice.
The second point is the heart of why I made the two previous postings. When people are more right of center ... and are also Christian, they are presented with a false dichotomy. They can work or they can be Christians. They are told that evangelism/discipleship is the only job they can have ... as Christians. Yet this is precicely the picture that is being castigated by leftward leaning evangelicals at places like Asbury. Are we really willing to buy into the concept that discipleship/evangelism is the only option for the outflow of Christian faith?
Lastly, I truly believe that we need to remember that systems are merely those modes of operation that are made of individual people. From a family systems perspective, they cannot be separated very easily nor with much integrity to the individuals. To change the individuals successfully, the system must be changed. I believe you have made this similar point at the Red Lobster down the road from Asbury to us.
Let's keep in touch!!!! This is fun.
Politicians can certain work AND be a Christian. I do not see a false dichotomy in that. They just cannot (and should not) try to make people disciples through the political system. For example, I don't think it would appropriate for a politician to require prayers in public event in Jesus' name.
There is no problem with talking to people in that system about praying in Jesus name. Certainly, systems are made up by people. But to use the system to force people into discipleship is a mistake.
The Christendom created by Rome and modern Europe is a good example of the mistake of using the political system to force people into Christian discipleship.
So a politician can be a civic leader by profession and Christian by lifestyle, but he cannot use his profession to make people Christians.
bump...set...bump again....
Derek
Hi Will.
I am no theologian so I will keep this simple. Most of America's founding fathers were professing Christians, and the original bill of rights was based on the Word of God.
We have been a Christian Nation from the beginning and up to the 20th century have remained such. But now it seems that to be a Christian politician is taboo. YES, we need Christian politicians in congress, State and even in the White House. If and when this nation turns it's back on God and the values we as Christians hold dear, we will have lost the greatest advantage we hold on other countries, Gods hand of protraction.
One more point.
I understand what Derek is saying about not using the power you hold on a job to force people to become a Christian, However if one is a true Christian how can they separate themselves form there morals. It is the call of ALL Christians to make disciples of all nations (Mark 16:15; Matt 28:19) That is are first duty God Gives us jobs in order to reach the lost, not just to make a pay check.
Hey Derek,
Thanks again for your responses. Yes, you highlight an interesting point of contention that many seem to have. Inevitably when this discussion comes up, someone responds that Christians should not use government to make people into Christians. One guy down the road from you that used to pastor at Morningside emphatically told me that you cannot legislate morality. According to him Christian morality is only for Christians. In that same vein he thought rather strongly that both Mary Jane and prostitution ought to be legalized but regulated by the government. Many people also believe along this same vein such as Stanely Hauerwas, Rodney Clapp, etc.
The problem with this mentality is that participation in government doesn't necessarily have to lead to a federally-subsidized baptismal service. It's not an either or, as I think you pointed out yourself. All that to say that when heard on their own terms, even Don Wildmon, James Dobson, etc. are not attempting to utilize the Washington Mall as a baptismal pool. They are not attempting to create a state in which people are made to be creedal Christians.
Now having said that the question comes: "Well, aren't they attempting to legislate morality?" Therein lies the crux, for every law on the books is someone's idea of morality. The Reformed community believes in both the Great Commission and The Cultural Mandate. The Cultural Mandate is the drive to influence one's whole world with Christian morality. Actually this is what drove the Wesleys, who believed that change in society had to take place both in society at large and in government. This is what drove William Wilberforce, who mostly worked within Parliament, but who also attempted to work in society at large.
Thanks for your engagement Doc!!!
Hey Daniel in Elaville,
What's going on? When did you get back Online? Shoot me your email address.
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I think what is incredibly underemphasized is the Christian influence on our founding. (By the way most of our founders actually deplored the system of slavery we practiced. Perhaps more on this in a later post.)
It is perhaps correct in one sense to suggest that the Declaration of Independence and perhaps the Federalist Papers are based on the Bible. However, it is perhaps more correct to say that the founding documents and expositions are based on a theological and philosophical Christian understanding about government and man and the relationship between the two. For example the founders emphasized the need for checks and balances in government because of the need to keep human sin nature in check.
Yes, it is true and certainly needs to be emphasized that the Founders never dreamed of excluding religious influence from the public square. However, it certainly needs to be emphasized that the Founders also never intended to create a theocracy either. They were hoping to avoid many of the mistakes of Old Europe.
All that to say that what we have on our hands is not so much a "Christian country." Rather what we have and what the Founders intended (perhaps) is a country that was to be strongly influenced by people of the various flavors of Christian faith.
Let's keep the good times rollin'!!!
Post a Comment