Tag Archives: Politics

Maybe the early Christians got it wrong

21 Replies

Photo by Ove Tøpfer; from Stock Xchange

I just don’t see it. I’ve read through the New Testament multiple times, and I just don’t see it. I don’t see any evidence of Christians using power, power as the world defines it, to shape their world. Yes, they used the power of the Spirit, the power of words, the power of prayer, etc. But where are the examples of the use of physical force, for example to advance the Kingdom or even to protect Kingdom followers? Where is the political maneuvering to achieve their goals?

“Well, there just weren’t enough of them.” Are you kidding me? If you haven’t done so, read the last post. God prefers to work with the minority.

“Well, maybe they did that, and we just don’t have record of it.” That’s possible, although it seems strange that something that has become such a central part of Christians’ lives today could have been so unimportant then that it wasn’t recorded.

Or am I missing the examples? I read Acts 12 and try to imagine how it would have played out today. James is arrested and killed. Peter is arrested. And the church is just praying and “singing Kumbayah” while Peter is in prison. That’s ridiculous. Storm the prison. Kill the guards. Free the Christians who are held unjustly. Set an example so that Christians in the 21st century will know what God expects of them.

Instead, they depended on God. Wimps. Weaklings. These are the people that one prominent brotherhood speaker says he has no use for. Pick up a sword and fight, you cowards. If God could use Samson and Gideon to win battles against extraordinary odds, He can help you defeat the evil Herod.

Or do you mean to tell me that with thousands of Christians in Jerusalem, they couldn’t take over the Sanhedrin? Or form a rival Sanhedrin to make just decisions? If they’d done that, rather than focus on prayer and the Word, we’d have the examples we need to know how to conduct ourselves.

What am I missing here? Some of you know the writings of the early church better than I. Maybe the church in the second and third century began to use the tools of the world in a way I’m not aware of.

Or do we seriously think that our lives should be so focused on power issues like war and politics when those things are absent from the early church? Does pragmatism trump spirituality?

Maybe you can convince me.

In ___ We Trust

6 Replies

A friend of mine wrote a rant on his blog which seemed to be directed at my recent posts on politics. I’m not really sure, because if he was referring to what I wrote, he obviously didn’t understand most of it.

The last statement in his post really caught my eye:

And please vote so that those simple brethren can continue to have the right to their ignorant opinions.

At first I was really irritated by the “ignorant opinions” comment, but then I realized that that’s just the way my friend talks. He’s a black/white, all/nothing kind of guy, so if you don’t see things the way he does, you’re ignorant. Since we rarely see eye to eye, I’m considered ignorant most of the time. I can live with that.

What worried me, however, was this idea that by voting, someone can continue to give me the right to have my opinion. I’ve heard such said about military service, but that’s the first time I’ve heard it said about voting.

And I realized why such talk is so dangerous. Maybe not directly to those in the church, but definitely to those outside. When we start saying that America gives us our freedom, America gives us our rights, America gives us our prosperity and our way of life, America gives us just about everything the average person holds dear, is it any wonder that they see no need for God? Is it any wonder that the average U.S. citizen would just as soon worship America as worship God?

In this way of looking at things, our military gives us our freedom. Our government grants us our liberties. Voting allows others to have ignorant opinions. God gives a few spiritual things that aren’t of much consequence, but the things that really count are granted by the gods Democracy and the U.S. of A.

I’m not saying that this is what Christians believe, though many talk as if this were their outlook. I’m saying that when Christians talk in this way, non-Christians see that the presence of God in our world is not nearly as important as the continued existence of this country.

People had freedom in Christ long before the United States came into being. People had the ability to express opinions and ideas about Christianity for over 1700 years before this country was established. The freedoms that matter do not depend on your voting, your military service or any other human activity.

Some trust in ballot boxes, some trust in soldiers, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God!

I blame the talking heads

6 Replies

One of the things that shocked me most when I returned to the U.S. from Argentina was the lack of civil discourse, especially where politics are concerned. Admittedly, politics has long been an area in which people resorted to name calling, accusations and angry rhetoric. However, I didn’t remember things quite that bad back in the 1980s. (Before I stepped into my 15-year time capsule)

I blame the talking heads, the Rush Limbaughs and Alan Colmes, the Air Americas and the Premiere Radio Networks. Much of the change took place when the FCC Fairness Act was repealed in 1987; now stations no longer have to give equal time to opposing views. In addition, the rise of cable channels like CNN played a large part. As these networks sought to fill long hours of programming, they discovered that people liked to watch arguments more than they liked discussions. If these channels could find two extremists willing to insult one another on television, millions would tune in.

Over time, a new genre was born. Gone were the days of respect and civility. Now opponents must be vilified and berated. Those who disagree are ignorant or dishonest. Opposing viewpoints are dangerous and unpatriotic.

As I said, this sort of rhetoric isn’t new to the political world. I remember studying such tactics in a course on ancient rhetoric, seeing how the Greeks insulted one another within their senate. But as our entire society becomes politicized, the rhetoric of politics has become the lingua franca of today. From discussion about sports to discussion about religion, the devil’s tongue is heard throughout the land.

I hate to see Christians resort to hate speech. I despise it when they pass around half-truths and outright lies, justifying it in the name of promoting their agenda. Maybe that’s why I’m especially tired of hearing Christians talk about politics, because they do it with the jargon of the world, not the language of heaven.

And I blame the talking heads.

Our posture toward politics

10 Replies

A few weeks ago, Todd Bouldin and I had an interesting discussion in the comments section. (At least I found it interesting) Todd was concerned about James Davison Hunter’s assertions about Christians and politics.

Todd commented:

Believe me, even if just 90 percent of Christians took your call to be witnesses and prophetic voices of the kingdom seriously, I’d rejoice. I don’t see my point or your points as mutually exclusive. There is still room for the 10 percent of Christians who do wish to engage politics in their local communities, states and nation as a faithful presence — and I don’t see why why we lop off that sphere of society and say that we have no responsibility to it other than to stand outside it — and push comes to shove, to criticize it rather than work for its betterment. As an old friend of mine says, “You can’t clean up a sewage dump standing outside of it.”

My reply to him was:

As for being a faithful witness from within the political system, let me use an analogy (with all the limitations that analogies have). When you are at a sporting event, who is able to judge and evaluate the event? Who is able to provide faithful arbitrage? Who is able to provide disinterested analysis? The players? The coaches? The fans? No, they are all seen as biased and are frequently biased beyond what even they are aware. It takes an outsider, like a referee or an announcer, one who has no preference as to the outcome, the winning and losing, but just wants to see things done well and done fairly.

You can’t step into the political arena and then be perceived as an impartial voice. You can’t be a player and a prophet at the same time. You can’t align yourself with a candidate or a party and be heard as a “faithful witness” for another kingdom. (It’s an ironic term, since faithful witnesses in Revelation are consistently killed by the State). Did you ever notice that sewage doesn’t clean up sewage dumps? The outsider may step in, but he doesn’t become what he’s stepping into.

I feel that when Christians identify themselves with one party or another, they become part of the game, part of the political system. They lose the right to comment on procedures and protocol. Even their stance on issues comes into question; is this merely an attempt to defeat opponents and win elections, or is it actually a desire to serve?

I’d like to know your thoughts on this view of Christians and the political process.

What is politics? (Some initial thoughts)

19 Replies

OK, got some interesting input last week on how we might define politics. It’s an interestingly difficult animal to pin down. Here are some initial thoughts I have. Not well organized, nor deeply analyzed, just initial thoughts. I’ll need your further input to steer me in the right direction.

Merriam-Webster tells us that the principal definition is “the art or science of government.” I’ll confess, that’s not really what I’m talking about when I’m discussing Christians and politics, although there is some attraction in this definition. My principal focus is on M-W’s third definition:

3. a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)

My focus is on the obtention and preservation of an elected office, the struggle for control. At times, this comes out as a struggle over a specific issue, yet the question behind that is typically one of control. As the dictionary says, it’s about power and leadership, not mere governing. When I’m thinking about politics, I’m thinking about campaigns and parties, or more importantly, partisanship.

Is that a reasonable limitation or should I focus on M-W’s primary definition?